ArticleArXiv2025
Simulation of Repair on Dynamic Patient-Specific Left Atrioventricular Valve Models.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and evaluate a dynamic, image-derived patient-specific physical simulation platform for the assessment of left atrioventricular valve (LAVV) repair strategies in pediatric patients with repaired atrioventricular canal defects. Methods: 3D transesophageal echocardiographic images of two patients with regurgitant LAVVs were identified from an institutional database. Custom code in SlicerHeart was used to segment leaflets, define the annulus, and generate patient-specific valve molds. Silicone valve models were fabricated and tested in a pulse duplicator under simulated physiological conditions. Five unrepaired valves were analyzed for manufacturing consistency, and multiple surgical repair techniques were compared for two patient-specific models. Results: Manufacturing variability was low in annular metrics (CV for annular circumference: 2.1%; commissural distance: 4.1%; annulus height: 14.7%) but higher in leaflet closure metrics (billow height: 11.1%; billow volume: 18.9%; tenting height: 45.9%; tenting volume: 73.5%). In Patient 1, cleft closure and an Alfieri stitch both eliminated the regurgitant orifice area, but the Alfieri stitch resulted in elevated mean pressure gradient (17 mmHg vs. 4-9 mmHg for other repairs) and deteriorated with repeated loading. In Patient 2, no repair eliminated regurgitation entirely; however, combining an 11 mm patch augmentation with commissuroplasty reduced regurgitant area to 0.147 cm Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of a dynamic physical simulation platform for preclinical LAVV repair evaluation. Although challenges remain in accurately modeling leaflet closure and chordal mechanics, this proof-of-concept work highlights the platform's potential for refining repair strategies before clinical application, which may be particularly relevant in small and heterogeneous populations with congenital heart disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40832045PMC12364059What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.