两种不同概念的二尖瓣后瓣或双小瓣脱垂修复的远期效果

Ibrahim M. Yassin , Farouk M. Oueida , Mustafa Al Refaei , Khalid A. Eskander
{"title":"两种不同概念的二尖瓣后瓣或双小瓣脱垂修复的远期效果","authors":"Ibrahim M. Yassin ,&nbsp;Farouk M. Oueida ,&nbsp;Mustafa Al Refaei ,&nbsp;Khalid A. Eskander","doi":"10.1016/j.jescts.2018.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To evaluate the long term results of two simple techniques for correction of posterior or bileaflet prolapse with no incidence of postoperative systolic anterior motion of the anterior mitral leaflet (SAM).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From June 2010 to June 2016, 64 patients underwent mitral valve repair. Edge to edge,(35 patients)(group A) Vs. (‘U’) technique, (29 patients) (group U). A mean follow-up of 58 ± 13 months in (group A) and 42 ± 16 months in (group U).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were no early or late deaths. Both surgical techniques showed excellent immediate postoperative results regarding reduction of the mitral regurgitation grade-accepted mean pressure gradients (MPG) through the mitral valve (2.3 ± 0.6). Left ventricular function was maintained, and tricuspid regurgitation grade was reduced overall. During the follow-up period, Significant increase in the MPG was observed in (group A) with no significant change in the degree of mitral regurge. The majority of them with significant increase are due to the rheumatic pathology(9/12). They became symptomatic and came out of the study after a follow up period of 41 ± 13 months and their valves were replaced while those with non rheumatic pathology remained of reasonable gradient. Redo mitral valve replacement was done in only one patient in (group U) due to early endocarditis.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite the rationale is completely different in both techniques (double orifice, double leaflet(A) versus Uni-leaflet, Uni-orifice(U)), the long-term results are comparable in both. The U technique is mostly better in rheumatic patients but need more follow up on larger scales of this patient group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100843,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Egyptian Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery","volume":"26 2","pages":"Pages 118-126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jescts.2018.03.001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long term results of mitral valve repair of posterior or bileaflet prolapse with two different concepts\",\"authors\":\"Ibrahim M. Yassin ,&nbsp;Farouk M. Oueida ,&nbsp;Mustafa Al Refaei ,&nbsp;Khalid A. Eskander\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jescts.2018.03.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To evaluate the long term results of two simple techniques for correction of posterior or bileaflet prolapse with no incidence of postoperative systolic anterior motion of the anterior mitral leaflet (SAM).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From June 2010 to June 2016, 64 patients underwent mitral valve repair. Edge to edge,(35 patients)(group A) Vs. (‘U’) technique, (29 patients) (group U). A mean follow-up of 58 ± 13 months in (group A) and 42 ± 16 months in (group U).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were no early or late deaths. Both surgical techniques showed excellent immediate postoperative results regarding reduction of the mitral regurgitation grade-accepted mean pressure gradients (MPG) through the mitral valve (2.3 ± 0.6). Left ventricular function was maintained, and tricuspid regurgitation grade was reduced overall. During the follow-up period, Significant increase in the MPG was observed in (group A) with no significant change in the degree of mitral regurge. The majority of them with significant increase are due to the rheumatic pathology(9/12). They became symptomatic and came out of the study after a follow up period of 41 ± 13 months and their valves were replaced while those with non rheumatic pathology remained of reasonable gradient. Redo mitral valve replacement was done in only one patient in (group U) due to early endocarditis.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite the rationale is completely different in both techniques (double orifice, double leaflet(A) versus Uni-leaflet, Uni-orifice(U)), the long-term results are comparable in both. The U technique is mostly better in rheumatic patients but need more follow up on larger scales of this patient group.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Egyptian Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 118-126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jescts.2018.03.001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Egyptian Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110578X18300099\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Egyptian Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110578X18300099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:评价两种简单的技术在没有二尖瓣前小叶(SAM)术后收缩前运动发生率的情况下矫正后小叶或双小叶脱垂的长期效果。方法2010年6月至2016年6月,对64例患者行二尖瓣修复术。A组35例与U组29例,平均随访时间分别为58 ± 13个月(A组)和42 ± 16个月(U组)。结果无早期和晚期死亡病例。两种手术技术在降低二尖瓣返流方面均显示出良好的术后即时效果-通过二尖瓣的可接受的平均压力梯度(MPG)(2.3 ± 0.6)。左心室功能维持,三尖瓣反流等级总体降低。随访期间,A组MPG明显升高,二尖瓣返流程度无明显变化。其显著增加的大多数是由于风湿病病理(9/12)。患者出现症状,随访41 ± 13个月后退出研究,更换瓣膜,非风湿病病理患者仍保持合理梯度。由于早期心内膜炎,只有1例患者(U组)进行了二次二尖瓣置换术。结论尽管两种技术的基本原理完全不同(双孔、双叶(A)与单叶、单孔(U)),但两者的长期结果是可比较的。U技术在风湿病患者中效果更好,但需要对这类患者进行更大规模的随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long term results of mitral valve repair of posterior or bileaflet prolapse with two different concepts

Background

To evaluate the long term results of two simple techniques for correction of posterior or bileaflet prolapse with no incidence of postoperative systolic anterior motion of the anterior mitral leaflet (SAM).

Methods

From June 2010 to June 2016, 64 patients underwent mitral valve repair. Edge to edge,(35 patients)(group A) Vs. (‘U’) technique, (29 patients) (group U). A mean follow-up of 58 ± 13 months in (group A) and 42 ± 16 months in (group U).

Results

There were no early or late deaths. Both surgical techniques showed excellent immediate postoperative results regarding reduction of the mitral regurgitation grade-accepted mean pressure gradients (MPG) through the mitral valve (2.3 ± 0.6). Left ventricular function was maintained, and tricuspid regurgitation grade was reduced overall. During the follow-up period, Significant increase in the MPG was observed in (group A) with no significant change in the degree of mitral regurge. The majority of them with significant increase are due to the rheumatic pathology(9/12). They became symptomatic and came out of the study after a follow up period of 41 ± 13 months and their valves were replaced while those with non rheumatic pathology remained of reasonable gradient. Redo mitral valve replacement was done in only one patient in (group U) due to early endocarditis.

Conclusions

Despite the rationale is completely different in both techniques (double orifice, double leaflet(A) versus Uni-leaflet, Uni-orifice(U)), the long-term results are comparable in both. The U technique is mostly better in rheumatic patients but need more follow up on larger scales of this patient group.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信