The Ross Operation in Young Patients: A 15-Year Experience Focused on Right Ventricle to Pulmonary Artery Conduit Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Data on long-term outcomes of the Ross operation in children and young adult patients are limited. The best pulmonary valve substitute for the right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction in the Ross operation in young patients using various pulmonary valve substitutes at a single institution. In addition, a comparison of reintervention rates between patients younger than 18 years and those older than 18 years was performed. Methods The study assessed all patients (N = 110) who underwent the Ross operation at the University Hospital of Bordeaux, France, between 2004 and 2020. Results The median follow-up time was 4.2 years, and the median age at operation was 15.9 years. There was no operative mortality and 1 late noncardiac death (0.8%). The overall survival rate at 10 years was 99.2%. The need for right ventricular outflow tract reoperation was lower with the pulmonary homograft compared with the Contegra conduit and Freestyle bioprosthesis: 94.3%, 93.8%, and 80% at 5 years, respectively, and 94.3%, 72.3%, and 34.3% at 10 years, respectively ( P = 0.011). The probability of reintervention was not significantly different at 10 years among children vs adults ( P = 0.22). Conclusions The Ross procedure in children and young adults was associated with a lower requirement for right ventricular outflow tract reoperation when pulmonary homografts were used instead of xenografts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".