title: The influence of geometric mismatch between the native aortic, native pulmonary and homograft pulmonary valve on the results of the pulmonary autograft operation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The pulmonary autograft operation has achieved broad acceptance and may be the ideal aortic valve substitute. Both the pulmonary autograft and the aortic homograft are more complicated procedures than prosthetic valve replacement. The trend to insert the pulmonary autograft as a root replacement rather than in the subcoronary position has achieved greater uniformity in the results, but there is still confusing diversity in opinions on technical details and anatomical dimensions. The importance of both size and shape mismatches between the three valves involved has received little attention. The valves often differ in diameter and in the shape of the recipient aortic annulus. This uncertainty and the diversity of opinions on essential technical details was disconcerting when we proceeded from aortic homograft-to-pulmonary autograft operations, this was compounded by only a single homograft being available for every operation as we have no homograft bank.
  
  
  METHODS
  We compared the hemodynamic results regarding various geometric mismatches. All operative details were the same and patients were studied at regular intervals. Comparisons were made in patients with mismatch between recipient aortic annulus and pulmonary autograft. Patients with a normal tricuspid aortic annulus were compared to those with either a circular redo prosthetic valve annulus or a bicuspid recipient annulus. Thirdly we compared the patients with plication of the aortic annulus to those with remodeling of the distal aorta. Lastly we compared mismatch between donor homograft and pulmonary autograft.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No influence of geometric mismatch between the three valves could be found on the results of the pulmonary autograft operation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Good results are obtainable without a painful learning curve if one keeps to certain surgical principles. It need not be a complicated operation and geometric mismatches between the three valves involved may be compensated for adequately.
authors.affiliation: Sana Cardiac Surgical Clinic, Stuttgart, Germany.
authors.forename: C A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Botha
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Roser
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Rupp
authors.forename: J A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Paula
authors.forename: I E
authors.initials: IE
authors.lastname: Kolb
authors.forename: J O
authors.initials: JO
authors.lastname: Böhm
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Langenbeck
authors.forename: J G
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Rein
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001021:Aortic Valve / Q000601:surgery*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D006085:Graft Survival; D006349:Heart Valve Diseases / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery; D006439:Hemodynamics / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011664:Pulmonary Valve / Q000637:transplantation*; D015996:Survival Rate; D016378:Tissue Transplantation / Q000379:methods; D014182:Transplantation, Autologous; D014184:Transplantation, Homologous