Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Pulmonary autograft autotransplantation represents a popular surgical approach for pediatric patients requiring aortic valve replacement due to the potential for autograft enlargement to accommodate somatic growth. Nevertheless, autograft dilatation and the subsequent need for reintervention are quite common. Published data suggest that autograft enlargement may result from pathological passive remodeling rather than active somatic growth and vice versa. The present review serves to comprehensively evaluate available evidence related to the fate of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross procedure as it relates to the etiology, risk factors and patterns of autograft failure.

Results

Studies present conflicting results supporting both pathological dilation and active somatic growth. Primary factors impacting the successful remodeling of the autograft include native aortic and pulmonary valve anatomy, medical history, concomitant procedures, perioperative management, age at the time of surgery, and the surgical technique used for the Ross procedure.

Conclusion

Autograft enlargement after the pediatric Ross operation may result from either somatic growth or passive dilation or a combination of both factors. Distinguishing between the two primary etiologies of autograft enlargement depends upon meticulous patient selection and a surgical strategy precisely tailored to individual anatomy and risk.

Keywords

aortic valve replacement Ross pediatric autograft congenital

Introduction

Pediatric aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains a major surgical challenge due to the limitations of available prosthetic options. Mechanical valves require lifelong anticoagulation and are associated with thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, while bioprosthetic and homograft valves often undergo rapid degeneration and failure in the pediatric population.^1–5 Additionally, limitations surrounding the availability of appropriately sized prostheses or valves as well as the inability of nonliving valves to accommodate somatic growth often necessitates multiple reoperations during childhood. The Ross procedure, autotransplantation of the pulmonary valve into the aortic position, addresses many of these limitations by providing a living, autologous valve substitute capable of growth, adaptive remodeling, and native-like hemodynamics.^1–3,6,7 The Ross autograft eliminates the need for anticoagulation and is thought to allow the neoaortic autograft to grow with the child.^6,8–10

Despite its advantages, the Ross procedure is not without limitations. Autograft dilatation and progressive aortic insufficiency (AI) remain significant challenges, particularly when the dilation is disproportionate to somatic growth, potentially requiring reoperation.^7,11–14 While the pulmonary autograft is ideal due to its growth potential,^9,15 adverse remodeling and progressive dilatation may lead to severe complications such as neoaortic regurgitation, dissection or sinus rupture.^16,17 No current surgical technique for the Ross autograft reliably prevents such outcomes while preserving growth potential,¹⁷ and detailed histologic studies of well-functioning autografts are still lacking. Thus, the biological mechanisms of adaptation remain poorly understood.¹⁸ Moreover, while excellent outcomes have been reported in children, the neonatal Ross procedure is associated with high early mortality, and treatment of unreparable aortic valves in neonates remains an unresolved problem in congenital cardiac surgery.¹⁹ Although the Ross procedure offers survival and hemodynamic advantages over mechanical and bioprosthetic AVR in pediatric patients,^20–26 its success and freedom from autograft reoperation are deemed to be subject to careful timing and patient selection.²⁷

Whether the pulmonary autograft enlargement that occurs during follow-up is attributed to active somatic growth and/or passive dilatation remains a topic of debate. This review aims to comprehensively evaluate all available evidence related to the fate of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross procedure with particular attention to biomechanical characteristics, timeline, patterns, and risk factors for dilatation.

Autograft Autotransplantation in the Pediatric Population

Several studies have supported the concept that the autograft size increase closely reflects increases in body surface area, suggesting active somatic growth rather than pathological expansion.^11,28,29 Data from multiple pediatric cohorts and meta-analyses show that the pulmonary autograft can increase in diameter concomitantly with somatic growth, particularly at the annulus, but that the neosinus and sinotubular junction (STJ) may undergo more pronounced or disproportionate dilation over time.^11,28–30 Nevertheless, reports of autograft dilation without significant regurgitation^31,32 and variable z-score progression at the sinus and STJ²⁹ highlight the heterogeneity of Ross outcomes in pediatric patients, in terms of success rates, failure patterns, and risk factors.

Survival and freedom from autograft reintervention in pediatric Ross cohorts have been reported across a broad but encouraging range. Center-specific cohorts have reported freedom from autograft reoperation ranging from 74% to 98% at 10 years, depending on age, follow-up length, and surgical era.^{7,9,29,33–38} In a single-center cohort of 240 children, Nelson et al reported a 15-year freedom from autograft reintervention of 59%,³³ while another cohort reported 94.1% and 74.9% freedom at 20 years for children and adolescents, respectively.⁹ Schneider et al documented a cumulative incidence of reoperation of 31% at 20 years in a mixed-age population.³⁴ In a pooled meta-analysis of 18 studies, the estimated autograft reintervention rate was 19.2% (95%: 7.3%-34.5%), highlighting the variability across centers and patient populations.³² Neoaortic root dilatation with moderate to severe AI was the most common indication for autograft reoperation, accounting for approximately half of the reinterventions in some series.^9,39 Given this, more recent data suggest that with selective application of the Ross procedure, particularly in non-neonatal populations and with refined techniques, autograft failure rates may be substantially reduced, with some studies reporting freedom from autograft failure exceeding 90% at 5 years and over 80% at 15 years in selected patients.^7,40,41 According to existing literature, autograft failure is influenced by age at surgery, preoperative diagnosis and anatomy, usage of specific surgical techniques, and rapidness of somatic growth during early follow-up.^{1,5,7,9,29,31,42–44}

Preoperative Diagnosis, Anatomy, and Medical History Characteristics

Among the most critical elements affecting autograft success in pediatric patients is the preoperative diagnosis, with primary AI consistently associated with reduced autograft durability and higher rates of dilation and reoperation compared with aortic stenosis (AS).^28,44–46 Patients with AI may harbor underlying genetic vasculopathies, such as connective tissue disorders, that may impair the autograft's adaptive remodeling capability, contributing to early failure.⁴⁷ Additionally, a preoperatively dilated native aortic annulus (≥27 mm or indexed >16 mm/m²) and aortic to pulmonary annular diameter ratio greater than 30% or diameter mismatch greater than 2 mm are predictive of early autograft dilation, likely due to mechanical overstress and prestretch of the autograft at implantation.^{1,18,44,48–50} This mismatch is particularly problematic in neonates and infants, who often present with congenital AS and a small aortic annulus juxtaposed with a relatively large pulmonary root.^5,40,44 In particular, a native pulmonary valve diameter >24 mm has been identified as a threshold above which the risk of autograft reoperation increases significantly.⁹ In terms of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) aortopathy, while a BAV itself is not a direct risk factor for autograft failure, all reported cases of autograft dissection occurred in BAV patients, highlighting the need to understand underlying mechanobiological vulnerability.^16,18

Underplaying patient-related factors have the potential to impact the natural history of an implanted autograft. Factors such as male sex and immediate postoperative hypertension have been associated with higher autograft dilatation risk.^18,43,44 Surgical history also plays a significant role, including prior ascending aortic replacement and the need for a Konno annular enlargement are associated with increased autograft stress and worse outcomes.^7,20 Lastly, Marfan syndrome and related aortopathies represent clear contraindications for the Ross operation due to structural abnormalities of the pulmonary artery wall, which predispose to aneurysm and rapid dilation disproportional to somatic growth.^51,52 Together, these findings underscore the importance of comprehensive preoperative assessment—integrating diagnosis, annular dimensions, anatomic compatibility, and genetic predisposition—to optimize patient selection and minimize autograft-related complications.⁴⁰

Age-Dependent Outcomes of Autograft Durability

The performance and long-term durability of the pulmonary autograft in pediatric patients vary significantly across age groups, with important distinctions seen between infants, younger children, and adolescents. Accumulated data have reported that neonates and infants generally experience better early autograft adaptation and durability, potentially due to intrinsic histologic advantages of the pulmonary root at younger ages, including higher proportions of immature cells, elastin, collagen, a closer embryologic similarity to the aortic root and the absence of the remodeling process that occurs after long exposure to the systemic circulation.^14,53,54 As a result, some data suggest that infants may have lower rates of autograft reintervention than older children, and their autografts expand proportionally with somatic growth rather than undergoing pathologic dilation.^15,43,55,56 This result may also be related to the neonatal pulmonary valve's prior exposure to high pulmonary vascular resistance during embryonal life, which could render it more resilient to systemic pressures.^5,7 Conversely, adolescents appear to have higher risks of autograft dilation and reoperation, with adolescent age at surgery being a significant predictor of autograft failure. In one study, freedom from autograft reoperation was 94.1% in young children versus 74.9% in adolescents at 20 years of follow-up, and adolescence itself was identified as an independent risk factor (hazard ratio 3.9, P = .032).⁹ One explanation for these observations may relate to the observations that neoaortic annular and sinus z-scores tend to stabilize in young children postoperatively but increase significantly in adolescents, with dilation especially pronounced during the first postoperative year.^29,43,44

However, despite the advantages of infant Ross compared with Ross in older children in the aforementioned studies, an equal representation of data suggesting a disadvantage of infant Ross exists as well. Infant and neonatal autograft durability are not uniformly superior, and several studies report lower freedom from reoperation in neonates and infants compared with older children. In a pediatric Ross cohort by Donald et al, the freedom from autograft reoperation rate was 61.6% in neonates and infants versus 82.5% in older children at 15 years. Furthermore, this report demonstrated that age <1 year at the time of surgery increased the likelihood of developing moderate or severe postoperative AI.⁴² Other cohorts and meta-analyses reflected this variability, reporting autograft reintervention rates between 0% and 7.5% in neonates/infants, with no consistent benefit from early “autograft training” through neonatal pulmonary pressure exposure.^6,32 In contrast, children 18 months to 8 years of age may represent a transitional group with stable annular dimensions and minimal—disproportional to somatic growth—sinus z-score progression, potentially offering the best balance between remodeling capacity and durability.⁴⁴

Based upon the evaluation of accumulated data examining the impact of pediatric age on the fate of the Ross autograft over time, surgical strategies tailored to neonates, infants, older children, and adolescents seem to be essential to improving long-term outcomes across the pediatric age spectrum. Current evidence suggests that delaying the Ross procedure until after infancy is beneficial, and that valve repair should be pursued as long as possible whenever feasible.^9,42,43

Section-Specific and Timing-Related Autograft Dilatation Patterns

A considerable body of evidence suggests that the most critical period for autograft dilation occurs within the first postoperative year, with up to 60% of total dilation occurring before hospital discharge and a sharp increase in annular and sinus z-scores noted by 12 months.^5,28,31 According to Williams et al, one of the largest published pediatric Ross experiences, the annulus and sinus experience the most significant expansion, with mean z-scores rising from baseline to 3.2 and 2.5, respectively.⁵ This rapid, passive dilation has been attributed to abrupt exposure of the pulmonary root to systemic pressure, particularly affecting the sinus and STJ, the latter being especially prone to dilatation due to its role in aortic expansion during systole.^28,57 Several studies report that sinus dilation outpaces annular growth early on, and that the STJ is a common site of structural compromise leading to progressive AI.^28,31,42 Although early z-score increases are significant, many groups describe subsequent stabilization of the autograft dimensions beyond the first postoperative year, especially in younger patients, suggesting a transition from passive dilation to active, somatic, physiological growth. This actively supports the argument that the autograft should be “protected” through aggressive medical management of systemic blood pressure to avoid hypertension throughout the initial postoperative period.^5,28,44,58

Longitudinal data suggest that autograft failure due to dilation is predominantly a late event, with reoperations often occurring more than five years after autograft implantation.^{13,27,39,59–61} While patients undergoing the Ross operation in infancy demonstrate early sinus dilation, this trend appears to plateau over 8 to 10 years, representing normal sizing potentially due to better adaptive remodeling.^44,62 Conversely, patients operated on in later childhood or adolescence experience more prolonged and pathological sinus dilation, with a steeper dilation curve within the first five years post-op.⁴⁴ Eventually, in terms of neoaortic root sections and somatic growth, the annulus tends to grow proportionally with somatic growth, while the sinus and STJ continue to dilate beyond physiological expectations, pointing toward passive mechanical stress as the underlying mechanism.^28,30,31 The differential remodeling of various autograft sections emphasizes the importance of early hemodynamic control and targeted reinforcement, especially of the STJ, to reduce long-term complications. Ultimately, while the annular z-score increases often parallel body growth, sinus and STJ dilation patterns are less predictable and more closely associated with autograft failure.^28,31,42,57

Impact of Surgical Techniques in Autograft Success Rates

Various surgical implantation techniques have been described for the pulmonary autograft during the Ross procedure. Among described techniques, the freestanding full-root technique, while anatomically versatile and more broadly applicable across varying valve anatomies, is consistently associated with increased rates of autograft dilatation and subsequent AI, particularly in children and adolescents.^18,39,42 Studies have shown that dilatation occurs almost exclusively following the root technique, with nonstructural degeneration, defined by wall dilatation >50 mm and subsequent AI, being the primary mechanisms of failure.⁶³ On the other hand, according to Elkins et al and other groups, the intra-aortic subcoronary technique is associated with superior long-term durability, reduced dilatation, and preservation of valve architecture, despite its technical complexity and risk of distorted leaflet.^63–67 Postexplant analyses confirm that leaflets implanted via subcoronary methods maintain better structural integrity than those implanted through full-root replacements.^53,66,68,69

In pediatric patients, reinforcement strategies such as neoaortic annular or STJ support have shown benefit in limiting disproportionate dilatation,^20,42,70 yet are used cautiously in neonates, infants, and younger children so as not to interfere with somatic growth potential.³² On the other hand, for the adolescent population, where the rate of somatic growth may be less dramatic, root reinforcement using prosthetic or autologous materials, while potentially protective, must take into account that careful balance between overrestriction that may inhibit remodeling and induce atrophy as well as insufficient support that may allow for pathologic dilation.^18,71 Additional technical factors such as high autograft implantation (supra-annular positioning), degree of annular support, and technique-specific stress distributions all contribute to varying autograft success rates.^31,32,44 Van Hoof et al also suggested that bringing the autograft suture line deeper into the left ventricular outflow tract and benefiting from native fibrous support created by suture lines has been associated with less dilation.¹⁸ Overall, a reliable reinforcement technique that actively prevents dilation, while also allowing somatic growth has yet to be discovered.

Mechanobiological Properties of the Dilated and Nondilated Autograft

Postimplantation, the mechanobiological behavior of the pulmonary autograft is the result of complex interactions between biomechanical stress and cellular adaptation. Several studies underscore the embryological relation between the aortic and pulmonary roots, suggesting the potential of the autograft to remodel into an aortic phenotype.^48,66,72 However, the abrupt hemodynamic shift from low-pressure pulmonary to high-pressure systemic circulation triggers intense mechanical strain on a vessel structurally ill-equipped for such an environment.⁴⁸ The pulmonary root lacks the fibrous annulus and ventricular support of the aortic root, originating instead from the thin-walled, muscular right ventricular outflow tract.⁷³ As a result, the autograft is immediately subjected to relative supraphysiological distension, most acutely at the sinus and STJ, whereby higher z-scores are observed postimplantation.²⁰ This distension induces a cell-mediated remodeling response through mechanotransduction pathways, with smooth muscle cells (SMC) and fibroblasts sensing stress through extracellular matrix (ECM)-integrin interactions and initiating production of structural proteins, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), and adhesion molecules.⁷⁴ The anatomical limitations of the pulmonary autograft, namely, its thinner wall, fewer elastic layers, and higher compliance, may predispose it to maladaptive changes during remodeling, rather than sustained physiologic adaptation.^28,74,75

Maladaptive remodeling in failed autografts is characterized by a specific proteomic and mechanical signature distinct from normal pulmonary arteries or successfully functioning autografts. Chiarini et al⁷⁶ demonstrated that dilated Ross autografts exhibit upregulation of vimentin (VIM) and paxillin, markers of dedifferentiated and artificial SMC phenotypes, as well as soluble Jagged-1 fragments and ectodysplasin-2 receptor, coupled with decreased levels of MAGP-1 and Notch1. This proteomic profile suggests destabilization of the cytoskeleton and impaired elastic fiber assembly. Specifically, the reduction in MAGP-1 implies compromised integrity of the elastic lamellae, while upregulated VIM points to a vascular injury–associated SMC phenotype. These proteomic alterations are not limited to grossly dilated neoaortic roots as even moderately dilated autografts reveal significant dysregulation.⁷⁶ As a result, mechanically, failed autografts demonstrate increased compliance and decreased stiffness when tested ex vivo, compared with both native pulmonary autograft and aortic roots under equivalent pressures.⁷⁷ Notably, wall stiffness did not correlate with patient age or duration in systemic circulation, reinforcing that the failure mechanism is not merely a function of time or growth, but of intrinsic biologic processes in response to pressure. Histologically, these failed roots exhibit elastic fiber fragmentation, adventitial fibrosis, increased collagen deposition, and wall thickening, findings that differentiate them from autografts with stable dimensions.^53,69,77,78

While viable endothelial and interstitial cells are present in both successful and failed explants,⁷⁹ only the latter show features such as reduced stiffness, persistent ECM turnover, and pronounced adventitial collagen accumulation after 10+ years postimplantation.^53,76,80 This ongoing remodeling, with elevated MMP1, MMP13, TGF-β, and myofibroblast activity, indicates a chronic maladaptive fibrotic response rather than homeostatic repair, and the eventual inability to restore a normal homeostatic state.^53,69,80 Even well-functioning autografts may exhibit thickened valve leaflets and pannus formation, signs of adaptation to stress that may portend future dysfunction.^53,66,69 In rare cases, long-term functioning autografts show organized elastic lamellae and improved microarchitecture, suggesting partial remodeling potential.⁶⁶ However, most evidence points toward a scenario in which early passive distension,^28,31 uncorrected stress burden,⁸¹ and progressive ECM degradation result in irreversible pathological dilation.

This understanding reinforces the need for aggressive blood pressure control, especially in the early postoperative period, to ensure a smooth transition of the autograft to the systemic circulation and kickstart beneficial cellular remodeling,⁸² reinforcement of the autograft wall, when feasible, and cautious patient selection for the Ross procedure in growing children.⁴⁰

Animal Studies on Autograft Remodeling and Functionality

Animal studies represent a fundamental part in Ross autograft research because they allow the investigation of healthy, nondilated pulmonary autografts after explantation, an opportunity unavailable in human patients, where tissue is typically retrieved only after failure. These models provide critical insights into the remodeling capacity of the autograft under systemic load. In ovine and porcine models of the Ross operation, explanted autografts demonstrated preservation of the trilayered valve leaflet architecture and normal cellular distribution up to 22 ± 2.7 months postimplantation,⁸³ along with neovascularization at the leaflet base and native cell populations in both valve and wall.^78,84 Moreover, even with transection of the vasa vasorum, normal vessel growth was preserved in isolated segments,⁸⁵ countering the hypothesis that vasa vasorum transection impairs remodeling. The vessel wall exhibited revascularization and partial restoration of vasa vasorum in both animal and human studies, suggesting that concerns about harvesting-related ischemia may be mitigated by intrinsic vascular ingrowth.^66,78,80

Remodeling features such as SMC hypertrophy, increased collagen content, and preserved wall microarchitecture were frequently observed, while valve enlargement exceeded what would be expected from somatic growth alone, indicating a biologically active response to mechanical load.⁸⁴ Biaxial mechanical testing in interposition graft models revealed that some pulmonary arteries developed aorta-like mechanical behavior, while others showed vascular atrophy, highlighting heterogeneity in the remodeling response.^86,87

External resorbable support was shown to prevent excessive dilation and allow growth-compatible expansion of the autograft, although overly rigid materials led to wall erosion and local atrophy.^88,89 Notably, in Lewis rats with heterotopically implanted syngeneic pulmonary autografts, early increases in diameter and subsequent stiffening were observed via serial ultrasound and mechanical testing. Histologic analysis at two months revealed intimal hyperplasia and focal thinning of elastic lamellae, likely contributing to the increased wall rigidity.⁹⁰ However, it remains uncertain whether new elastin produced in adult animals meaningfully restores mechanical resilience, and the young age and short follow-up in animal models limit direct applicability to the decades-long progression of human autograft failure.⁷⁴ Nonetheless, these findings affirm that the pulmonary autograft possesses an intrinsic, although heterogenous and limited, ability to remodel under systemic stress and that animal models remain indispensable for dissecting the early mechanobiological responses of the nonfailed autograft.

Comments

Accumulated data and general consensus suggest that the Ross procedure provides an advantageous and suitable intervention for pediatric patients with congenital aortic valve pathologies^40,91 that require AVR when valve repair techniques and valve-sparing procedures may not be suitable,^29,91 as prior root operations are not considered a deterrent for a Ross.⁹² Moreover, many series identify a possible volume-outcome relationship when it comes to select, higher-risk patient populations such as neonates and infants.⁴⁰

With respect to the fate of the pulmonary autograft and potential for pathophysiologic enlargement, neoaortic root dilatation and subsequent regurgitation are common but do not frequently occur before adulthood.⁷ Whether this enlargement results principally from active somatic growth or pathologic dilatation, conflicting evidence exists to support each theory. Certain data suggest that the aortic and pulmonary root, especially in older children and adolescents, have drifted far apart from their common embryonal origin; hence, making the autograft unable to truly achieve mechanical homeostasis, comparable to that of a native aorta.¹⁸ This potential may differ in neonates and infants, where such divergence has yet to occur. Evidence has also revealed that the neoaortic annulus diameters tend to normalize in younger children and that autograft dilatation and regurgitation primarily affect older pediatric populations, in whom root supportive measures may be necessary.^30,43 Histologic studies have demonstrated normal tissue viability and cellular architecture in pulmonary valves explanted from the aortic position, suggesting active somatic growth.⁹³ Nevertheless, this is believed to occur concomitantly, at least partially, with passive dilatation, further contributing to the heterogeneity of existing evidence.⁹⁴

Multiple studies have demonstrated that the Ross procedure in pediatric patients yields significantly superior results compared with mechanical, allograft, or bioprosthetic valve replacements. Large retrospective analyses and meta-analytic studies further indicate lower early and late mortality following the Ross procedure relative to both mechanical and homograft valves.^91,95–99 Microsimulation studies and national registry analyses have confirmed that the Ross procedure in children and young adults achieves survival rates approaching those of the age-matched general population, an outcome not replicated with mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacements.^96,97,99 In addition, the Ross procedure is associated with significantly lower rates of thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and endocarditis compared with both mechanical and bioprosthetic valve replacements.^95,99,100 The most plausible explanation is the hemodynamic superiority of the Ross procedure, characterized by lower residual transvalvular gradients and superior valve function compared with mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses.^42,95

Lastly, in recent years, the application of fresh aortic transplantation for complex aortic valve/root congenital heart disease has also gained increasing attention. Reported early to mid-term results of this technique have demonstrated its surgical application and reproducibility for severe truncal valve and aortic valve disease.¹⁰¹ While the mid- to long-term results of this approach and the fate of the graft have yet to be established, this technique may reveal itself to be an attractive surgical option for select patients in the future.

Conclusion

For pediatric patients and young adults in whom all options for aortic valve repair have been exhausted, the Ross procedure remains the preferred and most physiologically appropriate option for AVR. Postprocedural autograft enlargement represents a complex and multifactorial phenomenon, and ongoing debate persists as to whether it reflects true somatic growth or pathological passive dilation. While the pulmonary autograft demonstrates growth potential, particularly at the annulus, the more disproportionate expansion of the sinus of Valsalva and STJ often suggests passive, pathophysiologic dilation. Factors such as preoperative AI, annular mismatch, concomitant procedures, and connective tissue disorders are key contributors to adverse remodeling and disproportionate dilation. On the other hand, the choice of the correct surgical technique for the corresponding age and modifications such as external annular support and/or reduction, sinus and STJ external support and aggressive management of postoperative systemic hypertension all significantly improve long-term durability. Ultimately, individualized surgical planning remains essential in optimizing outcomes and maximizing autograft longevity.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ioannis Zoupas

References

Brown

Ruzmetov

Vijay

Rodefeld

Turrentine

. The Ross-Konno procedure in children: outcomes, autograft and allograft function, and reoperations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82(4):1301-1306.

Alsoufi

. Aortic valve replacement in children: options and outcomes. J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2014;26(1):33-41.

Brown

Ruzmetov

Vijay

Rodefeld

Turrentine

. Surgery for aortic stenosis in children: a 40-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76(5):1398-1411.

Maeda

Rizal

Lavrsen

, et al. Midterm results of the modified Ross/Konno procedure in neonates and infants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(1):156-163.

Williams

Quaegebeur

Hsu

, et al. Ross procedure in infants and toddlers followed into childhood. Circulation. 2005;112(9_supplement):1390-1395.

Aszyk

Thiel

Sinzobahamvya

, et al. Ross-Konno procedure in infants: mid-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42(4):687-694.

Kallio

Pihkala

Sairanen

Mattila

. Long-term results of the Ross procedure in a population-based follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47(5):e164-e170.

Pasquali

Cohen

Shera

Wernovsky

Spray

Marino

. The relationship between neo-aortic root dilation, insufficiency, and reintervention following the ross procedure in infants, children, and young adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(17):1806-1812.

Varrica

Giamberti

Lo Rito

, et al. Ross operation in pediatric population: impact of the surgical timing and the native pulmonary diameter on the outcome. Pediatr Cardiol. 2023;44(3):663-673.

10.

Ross Donald

. Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet. 1967;290(7523):956-958.

11.

Simon

Aschauer

Moidl

, et al. Growth of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross operation in childhood. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;19(2):118-121.

12.

Elkins

Knott-Craig

Ward

McCue

Lane

. Pulmonary autograft in children: realized growth potential. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;57(6):1387-1394.

13.

Bansal

Kumar

Baker

Lemus

Wells

Starnes

. Age-related outcomes of the ross procedure over 20 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(6):2077-2085.

14.

Aikawa

Whittaker

Farber

, et al. Human semilunar cardiac valve remodeling by activated cells from fetus to adult. Circulation. 2006;113(10):1344-1352.

15.

Takkenberg

JJM

Kappetein

van Herwerden

Witsenburg

Osch-Gevers

Bogers

JJC

. Pediatric autograft aortic root replacement: a prospective follow-up study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(5):1628-1633.

16.

Peeters

Arrigoni

Schoof

Accord

Mariani

. Acute type A dissection 18 years after a Ross operation: the old prejudice. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(4):e255-e257.

17.

Elkins

Thompson

Lane

Elkins

Peyton

. Ross operation: 16-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136(3):623-630.e5.

18.

Van Hoof

Verbrugghe

Jones

EAV

, et al. Understanding pulmonary autograft remodeling after the Ross procedure: stick to the facts. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9. doi:3389/fcvm.2022.829120

19.

Rajab

Zorrilla-Vaca

Kavarana

Mokashi

Sainathan

. Ross operation in neonates: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;113(1):192-198.

20.

Bové

Bradt

Martens

, et al. The pulmonary autograft after the Ross operation: results of 25-year follow-up in a pediatric cohort. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;111(1):159-167.

21.

Etnel

JRG

Grashuis

Huygens

, et al. The Ross procedure: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and microsimulation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(12):e004748. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004748

22.

Martin

Laurin

Jacques

, et al. More than 25 years of experience with the Ross procedure in children: a single-center experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;110(2):638-644.

23.

Etnel

JRG

Elmont

Ertekin

, et al. Outcome after aortic valve replacement in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(1):143-152.e3.

24.

Alsoufi

Al-Halees

Manlhiot

, et al. Superior results following the Ross procedure in patients with congenital heart disease. J Heart Valve Dis. 2010;19(3):269-277. discussion 278.

25.

Hraska

Krajci

Haun

, et al. Ross and Ross-Konno procedure in children and adolescents: mid-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;25(5):742-747.

26.

El-Hamamsy

Eryigit

Stevens

, et al. Long-term outcomes after autograft versus homograft aortic root replacement in adults with aortic valve disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9740):524-531.

27.

de Kerchove

Boodhwani

Etienne

, et al. Preservation of the pulmonary autograft after failure of the Ross procedure⋆. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38(3):326-332.

28.

Solymar

Südow

Holmgren

. Increase in size of the pulmonary autograft after the ross operation in children: growth or dilation? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119(1):4-9.

29.

Hazekamp

Grotenhuis

Schoof

Rijlaarsdam

Ottenkamp

Dion

. Results of the Ross operation in a pediatric population. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27(6):975-979.

30.

Hörer

Hanke

Stierle

, et al. Neoaortic root diameters and aortic regurgitation in children after the Ross operation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(2):594-600.

31.

Solowiejczyk

Bourlon

Apfel

, et al. Serial echocardiographic measurements of the pulmonary autograft in the aortic valve position after the ross operation in a pediatric population using normal pulmonary artery dimensions as the reference standard. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85(9):1119-1123.

32.

Tohme

Jiang

Farooqi

, et al. Ross procedure in neonate and infant populations: a meta-analysis review. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2022;13(6):759-769.

33.

Nelson

Pasquali

Pratt

, et al. Long-term survival and reintervention after the ross procedure across the pediatric age spectrum. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(6):2086-2095.

34.

Schneider

Putter

Klautz

RJ.M

, et al. Long-term follow-up after the Ross procedure: a single center 22-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(6):1976-1983. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.11.064

35.

Elder

Quaegebeur

Bacha

Chen

Bourlon

Williams

. Outcomes of the infant Ross procedure for congenital aortic stenosis followed into adolescence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(6):1504-1511.

36.

Mookhoek

Charitos

Hazekamp

, et al. Ross procedure in neonates and infants: a European multicenter experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(6):2278-2284.

37.

Tan Tanny

Yong

d’Udekem

, et al. Ross procedure in children: 17-year experience at a single institution. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(2). doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000153

38.

Brancaccio

Polito

Hoxha

, et al. The Ross procedure in patients aged less than 18 years: the midterm results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(1):383-388.

39.

Ruzmetov

Welke

Geiss

Buckley

Fortuna

. Failed autograft after the ross procedure in children: management and outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(1):112-118.

40.

Morales

DLS

Carberry

Balentine

Heinle

McKenzie

Fraser

. Selective application of the pediatric Ross procedure minimizes autograft failure. Congenit Heart Dis. 2008;3(6):404-410.

41.

Yoon

Yang

Jun

Park

. The Ross procedure in pediatric patients: a 20-year experience of Ross procedure in a single institution. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;50(4):235-241.

42.

Donald

Wallace

FRO

Naimo

, et al. Ross operation in children: 23-year experience from a single institution. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109(4):1251-1259.

43.

Hörer

Kasnar-Samprec

Charitos

, et al. Patient age at the Ross operation in children influences aortic root dimensions and aortic regurgitation. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2013;4(3):245-252.

44.

Nguyen

Bouhout

Singh

, et al. Long-term autograft dilation and durability after the Ross procedure are similar in infants, children, and adolescents with primary aortic stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;168(4):1182-1191.e3.

45.

Laudito

Brook

Suleman

, et al. The Ross procedure in children and young adults: a word of caution. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;122(1):147-153.

46.

Alsoufi

Manlhiot

Fadel

, et al. The ross procedure in children: preoperative haemodynamic manifestation has significant effect on late autograft re-operation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38(5):547-555.

47.

Mazine

El-Hamamsy

. The Ross procedure is an excellent operation in non-repairable aortic regurgitation: insights and techniques. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;10(4):463-475.

48.

Mazine

El-Hamamsy

Verma

, et al. Ross procedure in adults for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(22):2761-2777.

49.

David

Omran

Webb

Rakowski

Armstrong

Sun

. Geometric mismatch of the aortic and pulmonary roots causes aortic insufficiency after the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;112(5):1231-1239.

50.

Reddy

McElhinney

Phoon

Brook

Hanley

. Geometric mismatch of pulmonary and aortic anuli in children undergoing the Ross procedure: implications for surgical management and autograft valve function. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115(6):1255-1263.

51.

Chiu

Irons

van de Rijn

Liang David

Miller

. Giant pulmonary artery aneurysm in a patient with Marfan syndrome and pulmonary hypertension. Circulation. 2016;133(12):1218-1221.

52.

Sheikhzadeh

De Backer

Gorgan

, et al. The main pulmonary artery in adults: a controlled multicenter study with assessment of echocardiographic reference values, and the frequency of dilatation and aneurysm in Marfan syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9(1):203. doi:10.1186/s.13023-014-0203-8

53.

Rabkin-Aikawa

Aikawa

Farber

, et al. Clinical pulmonary autograft valves: pathologic evidence of adaptive remodeling in the aortic site. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;128(4):552-561.

54.

Lo Rito

Davies

Brawn

, et al. Comparison of the Ross/Ross-Konno aortic root in children before and after the age of 18 months. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46(3):450-457.

55.

Shinkawa

Bove

Hirsch

Devaney

Ohye

. Intermediate-term results of the Ross procedure in neonates and infants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(6):1827-1832.

56.

Frigiola

Varrica

Satriano

, et al. Neoaortic valve and root complex evolution after Ross operation in infants, children, and adolescents. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(4):1278-1285.

57.

Lansac

. Aortic and pulmonary root: are their dynamics similar? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21(2):268-275.

58.

Ohye

Gomez

Ohye

Goldberg

Bove

. The Ross/Konno procedure in neonates and infants: intermediate-term survival and autograft function. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72(3):823-830.

59.

David

Omran

Ivanov

, et al. Dilation of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119(2):210-220.

60.

Elkins

Lane

McCue

. Pulmonary autograft reoperation: incidence and management. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62(2):450-455.

61.

Luciani

Lucchese

De Rita

Puppini

Faggian

Mazzucco

. Reparative surgery of the pulmonary autograft: experience with Ross reoperations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41(6):1309-1315.

62.

Pradegan

Castaldi

Azzolina

Stellin

Vida

. Long-term fate of the neoaortic root after neonatal Ross operation: a case series. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2019;10(3):364-366.

63.

Martin

Mohammadi

Jacques

, et al. Clinical outcomes following the Ross procedure in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(15):1890-1899.

64.

Sievers

Stierle

Petersen

, et al. Valve performance classification in 630 subcoronary ross patients over 22 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;156(1):79-86.e2.

65.

Skillington

Mokhles

Takkenberg

JJM

, et al. The ross procedure using autologous support of the pulmonary autograft: techniques and late results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(2):S46-S52.

66.

Yacoub

Tsang

Sarathchandra

Jensen

Hughes

Latif

. Long-term adaptive versus maladaptive remodelling of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross operation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;57(5):977-985.

67.

Elkins

Lane

McCue

. Ross operation in children: late results. J Heart Valve Dis. 2001;10(6):736-741.

68.

Goffin

Narine

Alexander

Van Goethem

Daenen

. Histopathologic comparison of a pulmonary autograft and pulmonary homograft in a patient 17 months after a Ross procedure: an autopsy study. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7(3):327-330.

69.

Mookhoek

de Heer

Bogers

AJJC

Takkenberg

JJM

Schoof

. Pulmonary autograft valve explants show typical degeneration. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139(6):1416-1419.

70.

Black

van Son

JAM

Hanley

. Modified pulmonary autograft aortic root replacement: the sinus obliteration technique. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60(5):1434-1436.

71.

Starnes

. Stabilization of the annulus through a supported ross technique is redemonstrated as beneficial to older patients but should be used cautiously in the pediatric population. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115(2):460-461.

72.

Al-Shammari

Latif

Sarathchandra

, et al. Expression and function of mechanosensitive ion channels in human valve interstitial cells. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0240532. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240532

73.

Hokken

Bartelings

Bogers

AJJC

Gittenberger-de Groot

. Morphology of the pulmonary and aortic roots with regard to the pulmonary autograft procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;113(3):453-461.

74.

Humphrey

Dufresne

Schwartz

. Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15(12):802-812.

75.

Gorczynski

Trenkner

Anisimowicz

, et al. Biomechanics of the pulmonary autograft valve in the aortic position. Thorax. 1982;37(7):535-539.

76.

Chiarini

Dal Prà

Faggian

Armato

Luciani

. Maladaptive remodeling of pulmonary artery root autografts after Ross procedure: a proteomic study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159(2):621-632.e3.

77.

Mookhoek

Krishnan

Chitsaz

, et al. Biomechanics of failed pulmonary autografts compared to native aortic roots. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(5):1482-1488.

78.

Schoof

Gittenberger-de Groot

de Heer

Bruijn

Hazekamp

Huysmans

. Remodeling of the porcine pulmonary autograft wall in the aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120(1):55-64.

79.

Matsuki

Okita

Almeida

, et al. Two decades’ experience with aortic valve replacement with pulmonary autograft. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1988;95(4):705-711.

80.

Schoof

Takkenberg

JJM

van Suylen

, et al. Degeneration of the pulmonary autograft: an explant study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132(6):1426-1432.

81.

Bouhout

Ghoneim

Tousch

, et al. Impact of a tailored surgical approach on autograft root dimensions in patients undergoing the Ross procedure for aortic regurgitation†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56(5):959-967.

82.

Cañadas

Vilacosta

Bruna

Fuster

. Marfan syndrome. Part 1: pathophysiology and diagnosis. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010;7(5):256-265.

83.

Tudorache

Theodoridis

Baraki

, et al. Decellularized aortic allografts versus pulmonary autografts for aortic valve replacement in the growing sheep model: haemodynamic and morphological results at 20 months after implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49(4):1228-1238.

84.

Schoof

Hazekamp

van Wermeskerken

, et al. Disproportionate enlargement of the pulmonary autograft in the aortic position in the growing pig. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115(6):1264-1272.

85.

Sawatari

Kawata

Armiger

Jonas

. Growth of composite conduits utilizing longitudinal arterial autograft in growing lambs. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;103(1):47-51.

86.

Vanderveken

Vastmans

Claus

, et al. Mechano-biological adaptation of the pulmonary artery exposed to systemic conditions. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):2724. doi:10.1038/541598-02059554-7

87.

Vastmans

Fehervary

Verbrugghe

, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a personalized external aortic root support applied in the Ross procedure. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;78:164-174.

88.

Nappi

Spadaccio

Fouret

, et al. An experimental model of the Ross operation: development of resorbable reinforcements for pulmonary autografts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(4):1134-1142.

89.

Nappi

Spadaccio

Fraldi

, et al. A composite semiresorbable armoured scaffold stabilizes pulmonary autograft after the Ross operation: Mr Ross’s dream fulfilled. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(1):155-164.e1.

90.

Cattapan

Della Barbera

Dedja

, et al. Mechanical and structural adaptation of the pulmonary root after Ross operation in a murine model. J Clin Med. 2022;11(13):3742. doi:10.3390/jcm.11133742

91.

Notenboom

Schuermans

Etnel

JRG

, et al. Paediatric aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and microsimulation study. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(34):3231-3246.

92.

Marino

Wernovsky

Rychik

Bockoven

Godinez

Spray

. Early results of the Ross procedure in simple and complex left heart disease. Circulation. 1999;100(19 Suppl):II162-II166.

93.

Knott-Craig

Elkins

Stelzer

, et al. Homograft replacement of the aortic valve and root as a functional unit. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;57(6):1501-1506.

94.

Elkins

. The Ross operation: applications to children. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;8(4):345-349.

95.

Brown

Patel

Ivy Lin

Habib

Rodefeld

Turrentine

. Ross versus non-Ross aortic valve replacement in children: a 22-year single institution comparison of outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(5):1804-1810.

96.

Sharabiani

MTA

Dorobantu

Mahani

, et al. Aortic valve replacement and the Ross operation in children and young adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(24):2858-2870.

97.

Knight

Sarvestani

Ibezim

, et al. Multicentre comparative analysis of long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement in children. Heart. 2022;108(12):940-947.

98.

Alsoufi

Al-Halees

Manlhiot

, et al. Mechanical valves versus the Ross procedure for aortic valve replacement in children: propensity-adjusted comparison of long-term outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(2):362-370.e9.

99.

Yokoyama

Kuno

Toyoda

, et al. Ross procedure versus mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a network meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(1). doi:10.1161/JAHA.122.027715

100.

Mazine

David

Stoklosa

Chung

Lafreniere-Roula

Ouzounian

. Improved outcomes following the Ross procedure compared with bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(10):993-1005.

101.

Overbey

Aykut

Kucera

, et al. Partial heart transplant for congenital heart disease. JAMA. 2025;334(12):1077-1083.

Autograft Enlargement After the Ross Procedure in Pediatric Patients: Somatic Growth or Pathologic Dilatation?

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Autograft Autotransplantation in the Pediatric Population

Preoperative Diagnosis, Anatomy, and Medical History Characteristics

Age-Dependent Outcomes of Autograft Durability

Section-Specific and Timing-Related Autograft Dilatation Patterns

Impact of Surgical Techniques in Autograft Success Rates

Mechanobiological Properties of the Dilated and Nondilated Autograft

Animal Studies on Autograft Remodeling and Functionality

Comments

Conclusion

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References