JTCS Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
John B. Chambers
Christopher I. Blauth
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chambers, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Blauth, C. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chambers, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Blauth, C. I.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:1388-1393
© 2003 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

Nominal size in six bileaflet mechanical aortic valves: A comparison of orifice size and biologic equivalence

John B. Chambers, MD, FACCa, Lionel Oo, FRCSa, Andrew Narracott, PhDb, Pat M. Lawford, PhDb, Christopher I. Blauth, MS, FRCSa

From the Cardiothoracic Centre,a Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, and the Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering,b Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Received for publication April 4, 2002. Revisions requested July 8, 2002; revisions received July 15, 2002. Accepted for publication July 18, 2002. Address for reprints: John Chambers, MD, FACC, Cardiothoracic Centre, St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK (E-mail: johnchambers{at}dial.pipex.com).

Objectives: Nominal size remains the standard by which valves are compared, but its relationship with orifice area and the patient tissue annulus diameter may differ according to valve design. The aims of this study were to measure the orifice size and compare biologic equivalence in six bileaflet mechanical heart valve designs.
Methods: The inflow aspect of each of 29 valves was photographed then digitized, and the maximum internal diameter and orifice area were calculated. Biologic equivalence was assessed with a series of machined polypropylene blocks.
Results: The orifice area ranged between 159 and 222 mm2 for the six size 19 valves. The internal diameter ranged from 1.6 to 4.6 mm less than the manufacturer's nominal size. Biologic equivalence assessed from an estimate of tissue annulus diameter with machined blocks ranged from 1.0 and 3.5 mm larger than nominal size for the intra-annular valves. This diameter ranged from 3.5 mm smaller to 1.5 mm larger than nominal size for the supra-annular valves.
Conclusion: There are major differences between nominal size and biologic equivalence. This may lead to confusion when attempting to make comparisons between different valve designs with the same nominal size. A clearer sizing nomenclature is required and could be based on in vitro assessment of tissue annulus diameter or an alphanumeric code.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 2003 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.