Cardiovascular journal of Africa · 2026
Mechanical vs. sutureless aortic valve replacement: clinical outcomes and the contribution of preoperative multislice CT.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Çoban Özgür, Özsöyler İbrahim
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Heart valve disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a common treatment option. Recently, sutureless biological valves have gained increasing use. This study aimed to evaluate the concordance between preoperative computed tomography-derived annulus measurements and valve sizes implanted during surgery rather than the direct clinical impact of imaging on prosthesis selection.
METHODS: A total of 40 patients with aortic valve stenosis who underwent elective open-heart surgery and preoperative multislice computed tomography between February 20 and May 20, 2024, were included and were randomly allocated into two groups: sutureless biological valve (n = 20) and mechanical valve (n = 20). Data were obtained from patient records and the hospital's data system and analysed statistically.
RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were included in the study: 20 received sutureless, rapidly implantable biological valves, and 20 underwent mechanical AVR. The mean age of the cohort was 61.5 ± 9.1 years, with 45% females and 55% males. Compared with the sutureless group, the mechanical valve group had significantly longer cross-clamp (73.5 vs. 53.0 minutes, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (102 vs. 92 minutes, p = 0.011), as well as smaller sinotubular junction diameters (30.2 vs. 32.3 mm, p = 0.025). In contrast, the sutureless group demonstrated a significantly greater optimal effective orifice area index (1.58 vs. 0.77, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Preoperative computed tomography is a reliable tool for planning AVR. Sutureless biological valves provide shorter cross-clamp and bypass times and favourable haemodynamic performance, whereas mechanical valves are more often associated with smaller valve sizes and longer procedures. Early postoperative outcomes were comparable between groups.
METHODS: A total of 40 patients with aortic valve stenosis who underwent elective open-heart surgery and preoperative multislice computed tomography between February 20 and May 20, 2024, were included and were randomly allocated into two groups: sutureless biological valve (n = 20) and mechanical valve (n = 20). Data were obtained from patient records and the hospital's data system and analysed statistically.
RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were included in the study: 20 received sutureless, rapidly implantable biological valves, and 20 underwent mechanical AVR. The mean age of the cohort was 61.5 ± 9.1 years, with 45% females and 55% males. Compared with the sutureless group, the mechanical valve group had significantly longer cross-clamp (73.5 vs. 53.0 minutes, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (102 vs. 92 minutes, p = 0.011), as well as smaller sinotubular junction diameters (30.2 vs. 32.3 mm, p = 0.025). In contrast, the sutureless group demonstrated a significantly greater optimal effective orifice area index (1.58 vs. 0.77, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Preoperative computed tomography is a reliable tool for planning AVR. Sutureless biological valves provide shorter cross-clamp and bypass times and favourable haemodynamic performance, whereas mechanical valves are more often associated with smaller valve sizes and longer procedures. Early postoperative outcomes were comparable between groups.