RossDN.Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet1967; 2: 956–958.
2.
McClureGRBelley-CoteEPUmK, et al. The Ross procedure versus prosthetic and homograft aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2019; 55: 247–255.
3.
MazineAEl-HamamsyIVermaS, et al. Ross procedure in adults for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol2018; 72: 2761–2777.
4.
El-HamamsyIEryigitZStevensL-M, et al. Long-term outcomes after autograft versus homograft aortic root replacement in adults with aortic valve disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2010; 376: 524–531.
5.
VojáčekJEl-HamamsyIOndrášekJ, et al. Current status of the Ross procedure in aortic valve surgery. Cor Vasa2017; 59: e71–e76.
6.
ReeceTBWelkeKFO’BrienS, et al. Rethinking the Ross procedure in adults. Ann Thorac Surg2014; 97: 175–181.
7.
KlieverikLMTakkenbergJJBekkersJA, et al. The Ross operation: a Trojan horse?Eur Heart J2007; 28: 1993–2000.
8.
Wyler von BallmoosMCKanekoTIribarneA, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2023 update on procedure data and research. Ann Thorac Surg2024; 117: 260–270.
9.
MazineAGhoneimA and
El-HamamsyI.The Ross procedure: how I teach it. Ann Thorac Surg2018; 105: 1294–1298.
10.
AppooJJBozinovskiJChuMW, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons/Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery joint position statement on open and endovascular surgery for thoracic aortic disease. Can J Cardiol2016; 32: 703–713.
11.
OttoCMNishimuraRABonowRO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation2021; 143: e72–e227.
12.
HageAHageFValdisM, et al. The Ross procedure is the optimal solution for young adults with unrepairable aortic valve disease. Ann Cardiothorac Surg2021; 10: 454–462.
13.
BerdajsDAMuradbegovicMHaselbachD, et al. Ross procedure: is the root replacement technique superior to the sub-coronary implantation technique? Long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2014; 46: 944–951.
14.
DavidTEOuzounianMDavidCM, et al. Late results of the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2019; 157: 201–208.
15.
SkillingtonPDMokhlesMMTakkenbergJJ, et al. Twenty-year analysis of autologous support of the pulmonary autograft in the Ross procedure. Ann Thorac Surg2013; 96: 823–829.
16.
VervoortDEl-HamamsyIChuMWA, et al. The Ross procedure and valve-sparing root replacement procedures in the adult patient: do guidelines follow the evidence?Ann Cardiothorac Surg2021; 10: 433–443.
17.
BeckmannEMartensAKruegerH, et al. Aortic valve-sparing root replacement (David): learning curve and impact on outcome. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2020; 30: 754–761.
18.
MalasTSaczkowskiRSohmerB, et al. Is aortic valve repair reproducible? analysis of the learning curve for aortic valve repair. Can J Cardiol2015; 31: 1497.e15–1497.e22.
19.
HughesGCZhaoYRankinJS, et al. Effects of institutional volumes on operative outcomes for aortic root replacement in North America. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2013; 145: 166–170.
20.
ChuMWALosennoKLDuboisLA, et al. Early clinical outcomes of hybrid arch frozen elephant trunk repair with the Thoraflex hybrid graft. Ann Thorac Surg2019; 107: 47–53.
21.
MazineAEl-HamamsyI and
OuzounianM.The Ross procedure in adults: which patients, which disease?Curr Opin Cardiol2017; 32: 663–671.
22.
BouhoutINolyPEGhoneimA, et al. Is the Ross procedure a riskier operation? Perioperative outcome comparison with mechanical aortic valve replacement in a propensity-matched cohort. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2017; 24: 41–47.
23.
SieversHHStierleUCharitosEI, et al. A multicentre evaluation of the autograft procedure for young patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: update on the German Ross Registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 49: 212–218.
24.
SkillingtonPDMokhlesMMTakkenbergJJ, et al. The Ross procedure using autologous support of the pulmonary autograft: techniques and late results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2015; 149(2 suppl): S46–S52.
25.
MazineADavidTEStoklosaK, et al. Improved outcomes following the Ross procedure compared with bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol2022; 79: 993–1005.
26.
BouhoutIGhoneimAPoirierN, et al. Impact of the learning curve on early outcomes following the Ross procedure. Can J Cardiol2017; 33: 493–500.
27.
StelzerPItagakiSVargheseR, et al. Operative mortality and morbidity after the Ross procedure: a 26- year learning curve. J Heart Valve Dis2013; 22: 767–775.
28.
BouhoutIGhoneimATouschM, et al. Impact of a tailored surgical approach on autograft root dimensions in patients undergoing the Ross procedure for aortic regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2019; 56: 959–967.
29.
YacoubMH.The Ross operation—an evolutionary tale. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2006; 14: 1–2.
30.
HageFHageAGuoL, et al. The Ross procedure with a bicuspid pulmonary autograft. Ann Cardiothorac Surg2021; 10: 552–554.
31.
DavidTEOmranAIvanovJ, et al. Dilation of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2000; 119: 210–220.
32.
HokkenRBTakkenbergJJvan HerwerdenLA, et al. Excessive pulmonary autograft dilatation causes important aortic regurgitation. Heart2003; 89: 933–934.
33.
DavidTEWooAArmstrongS, et al. When is the Ross operation a good option to treat aortic valve disease?J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2010; 139: 68–73.
34.
LansacEDi CentaISleilatyG, et al. Long-term results of external aortic ring annuloplasty for aortic valve repair. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 50: 350–360.
35.
de KerchoveLBoodhwaniMEtiennePY, et al. Preservation of the pulmonary autograft after failure of the Ross procedure. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2010; 38: 326–332.
36.
BrownJWRuzmetovMShahriariAP, et al. Modification of the Ross aortic valve replacement to prevent late autograft dilatation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2010; 37: 1002–1007.
37.
YammineMWilliamsE and
El-HamamsyI.The Ross procedure for bicuspid aortic valve: total root implantation technique. Ann Cardiothorac Surg2022; 11: 484–486.
38.
ChauvetteVBouhoutITarabzoniM, et al. Pulmonary homograft dysfunction after the Ross procedure using decellularized homografts-a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2022; 163: 1296–1305.
39.
AlassasKMohtyDClavelMA, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement for a failed pulmonary homograft in the Ross population. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2018; 155: 1434–1444.
40.
Carr-WhiteGSKilnerPJHonJK, et al. Incidence, location, pathology, and significance of pulmonary homograft stenosis after the Ross operation. Circulation2001; 104(12 suppl 1): I16–I20.
41.
RuzmetovMShahJJGeissDM, et al. Decellularized versus standard cryopreserved valve allografts for right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction: a single-institution comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2012; 143: 543–549.
42.
FrickeTASkillingtonPDShiWY, et al. Pulmonary valve function late after Ross procedure in 443 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg2020; 109: 1127–1131.
43.
MaratheSPBellDBettsK, et al. Homografts versus stentless bioprosthetic valves in the pulmonary position: a multicentre propensity-matched comparison in patients younger than 20 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. Epub ahead of print 7 February 2019. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz021.
44.
PitcherASpataEEmbersonJ, et al. Angiotensin receptor blockers and beta blockers in Marfan syndrome: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet2022; 400: 822–831.