Abstract 16848: Over 25 Years of Experience With the Ross Procedure in Children: A Single-Centre Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Aortic valve replacement in children and infants poses an important clinical challenge. The Ross procedure offers advantages such as growth potential and low thrombogenicity. Concerns regarding pulmonary autograft and homograft longevity as well as subsequent reoperations are well recognized. We reviewed our experience with the Ross procedure with the aim of defining survival rate and freedom from reintervention. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective cohort including 63 consecutive children who underwent the Ross procedure. The first Ross procedure was performed in 1990. Complete postoperative clinical and echocardiographic evaluation was obtained. Long-term survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimator. Results: There were 51 males (81%) and mean age at surgery was 10.1 (+/- 5.8) years. Isolated aortic stenosis was the most common diagnosis and found in 28 (44.4%) patients. Median follow-up duration was 20.5 years and ranged up to 26.9 years. There was one (1.6%) hospital death. Survival at 5, 15 and 25 years was 96.6%, 94.4% and 94.4%, respectively. Freedom from autograft-related reintervention was 98.1%, 88.9% and 66.8% at 5, 15 and 25 years, respectively. Twelve patients underwent reoperations on the autograft and there was no post-operative death. Among these patients, 7 (58.3%) patients underwent valve-sparing autograft reoperation. Reintervention on the pulmonary homograft was performed on 29 (46.0%) patients. Freedom from homograft-related reintervention was 93.2%, 58.2% and 29.8% at 5, 15 and 25 years, respectively. Conclusions: The Ross procedure in children is associated with excellent long-term outcomes. Ross-related reinterventions are more than twice as common on the pulmonary homograft than autograft.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".