| Abstract: | Thirty-eight consecutive patients who underwent isolated replacement of the aortic valve with fascia lata in 1970 were compared with a similar series of patients undergoing homograft replacement of the aortic valve. These series were well matched in number, age sex of patients, symptomatology, valvular disease, electrocardiographic and roentegenographic changes, and preoperative cardiac catheterization data. The mean follow-up time was 73 months in the fascia lata series and 69.1 months in the homograft series, and all the post-operative survivors were reviewed. The early and long-term results were similar of the two series, and there was no statistical difference in the operative and late mortality, the incidence of early and late diastolic murmurs, valve failure necessitating valve replacement, infective endocarditis, thromboembolism, over-all survival, and survival with an intact valve. It is concluded that the long-term results of valve replacement using these two tissues, in the aortic position, are similar and there is little to choose between the two types of valves. If fascia lata, as we believe, is no longer acceptable as a satisafactory valve substitute, then homograft valves are not acceptable either. |
