HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Richard A. DeWall Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by DeWall, R. A. Articles by Carr, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by DeWall, R. A. Articles by Carr, L.

Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:1612-1621
© 2000 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Our surgical heritage

Evolution of mechanical heart valves

^a Department of Surgery, Wright State University Medical School, and University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA

Address reprint requests to Dr Dewall, 421 Thornhill Rd, Dayton, OH 45419

The need for prosthetic heart valves was long recognized but seemed an impossible dream before 1952 when Dr Charles Hufnagel [1] clinically introduced a ball valve that he placed into the descending thoracic aorta for treatment of aortic valvular insufficiency. Fulfillment of that dream became a reality with the advent of extracorporeal circulation in the early 1950s. Development of prosthetic heart valves involved the search for biologically compatible materials and hemologically tolerant designs. Success could not be achieved without the union of these two factors. As there was no satisfactory mechanism to scientifically achieve this goal, trial and error was the method of choice. The development of prosthetic heart valves became the purview of the cardiovascular surgeon who often collaborated with engineers. To distinguish one valve from another each prosthesis often became identified with the surgeon developer.

The development of bioprostheses occurred later in the development of artificial heart valves and constitutes a separate subject not covered in this presentation.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Beiras-Fernandez, M. Oberhoffer, F. Kur, I. Kaczmarek, C. Vicol, and B. Reichart 34-Year durability of a DeBakey Surgitool mechanical aortic valve prosthesis Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, October 1, 2006; 5(5): 637 - 639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. L. Gott, D. E. Alejo, and D. E. Cameron Mechanical heart valves: 50 years of evolution Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2003; 76(6): S2230 - 2239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Albes, M. Hartrumpf, V. Rudolph, T. Krempl, E. Huttemann, R. Vollandt, and T. Wahlers Are mechanical valves with enhanced inner diameter advantageous in the small sized aortic annulus? Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2003; 76(5): 1564 - 1570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. V Mikhalovsky Emerging technologies in extracorporeal treatment: focus on adsorption Perfusion, January 1, 2003; 18(1_suppl): 47 - 54. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Gelsomino, G. Morocutti, P. Da Col, R. Frassani, R. Carella, G. Minen, and U. Livi Preliminary experience with the St. Jude Medical Regent mechanical heart valve in the aortic position: early in vivo hemodynamic results Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2002; 73(6): 1830 - 1836. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]