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

This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Related Collections Related Article

Ann Thorac Surg 1997;64:663-664
© 1997 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Discussion

Discussion

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

See also page 659.

DR GEORGE R. DAICOFF (St. Petersburg, FL): I thank the Association for the opportunity to discuss this paper and Dr Prager for faxing me his manuscript. This is a wonderful electronic age we live in. I have three comments: (1) sometimes more is better; (2) the evolution of this operation; and (3) sometimes less is more.

Regarding the first, we too started the same way you did with the, I call it the Ross I procedure, the subcoronary scalloped, freehand, whatever you want to call it, procedure for the aortic valve replacement and homograft; this was about 1986. And then, fortuitously, a patient came in who required a root replacement as well. It was a young patient. We decided to put the homograft in as a root replacement and it was . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article

The Aortic Homograft: Evolution of Indications, Techniques, and Results in 107 Patients

Richard L. Prager, Carl R. Fischer, Bobby Kong, James P. Byrne, Diane J. Jones, M. LaWaun Hance, and Otto Gago
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1997 64: 659-663. [Abstract] [Full Text]