ArticleJTCVS open2026
Aortic root replacement after repaired congenital conotruncal defects: A surgical challenge.
Article in JTCVS open, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aortic root replacement (ARR) for patients with repaired conotruncal defects is challenging. We report outcomes of ARR in this complex patient population. Methods: After querying 2710 ARR cases at 2 academic centers between 2004 and 2021, 18 patients (0.7%) with previously repaired conotruncal defects were identified. These included 10 patients with tetralogy of Fallot, 4 with transposition, 2 with double-outlet right ventricle, 1 with truncus arteriosus, and 1 with single ventricle with pulmonary atresia. Surgical history, baseline characteristics, hospital courses, and outcomes were reviewed from the medical records. Survival probability was estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: The patients ranged in age from 15 years to 68 years, and 2 (11.1%) were female. Mean root diameter was 54 ± 13 mm. The indication for ARR was aneurysm with aortic insufficiency in 12 patients (66.7%), aneurysm alone in 5 (27.8%), and pseudoaneurysm in 1 (5.7%). Nine patients (50%) had 1 previous sternotomy, 6 (33%) had 2 previous sternotomies, and 3 (16.7%) had 3 or more previous sternotomies. A valve-sparing operation might have been possible in 12 patients but ultimately was performed in 3 (16.7%). Concomitant procedures included pulmonary valve replacement (n = 7; 38.9%), coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 3; 16.7%), and tricuspid (n = 1) and mitral (n = 1) valve repairs. Mean bypass and cross-clamp times were 245 ± 77 minutes and 174 ± 74 minutes, respectively. There were 3 in-hospital deaths from stroke and multiorgan failure. The 5-year survival probability was 76.2% (95% confidence interval, 58.2%-99.7%). Conclusions: The development of aortic root pathology requiring ARR following repaired conotruncal defects occurs infrequently. Valve-sparing operations are rarely performed or even possible. Given the significant mortality, careful consideration should be given to performing ARR in this complex patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.