Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Ross Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Takkenberg, Johanna J.M., Klieverik, Loes M.A., Schoof, Paul H., van Suylen, Robert-Jan, van Herwerden, Lex A., Zondervan, Pieter E., Roos-Hesselink, Jolien W., Eijkemans, Marinus J.C., Yacoub, Magdi H., Bogers, Ad J.J.C.·2009·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Reports on outcome after the Ross procedure are limited by small study size and show variable durability results. A systematic review of evidence on outcome after the Ross procedure may improve insight into outcome and potential determinants. Methods and Results— A systematic review of reports published from January 2000 to January 2008 on outcome after the Ross procedure was undertaken. Thirty-nine articles meeting the inclusion criteria were allocated to 3 categories: (1) consecutive series, (2) adult patient series, and (3) pediatric patient series. With the use of an inverse variance approach, pooled morbidity and mortality rates were obtained. Pooled early mortality for consecutive, adult, and pediatric patients series was 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 4.9), 3.2% (95% CI, 1.5 to 6.6), and 4.2% (95% CI, 1.4 to 11.5). Autograft deterioration rates were 1.15% (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.06), 0.78% (95% CI, 0.43 to 1.40), and 1.38%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.80), respectively, and for right ventricular outflow tract conduit were 0.91% (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.47), 0.55% (95% CI, 0.26 to 1.17), and 1.60%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.84 to 3.05), respectively. For studies with mean patient age >18 years versus mean patient age ≤18 years, pooled autograft and right ventricular outflow tract deterioration rates were 1.14% (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.57) versus 1.69% (95% CI, 1.02 to 2.79) and 0.65% (95% CI, 0.41 to 1.02) versus 1.66%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.98 to 2.82), respectively. Conclusions— The Ross procedure provides satisfactory results for both children and young adults. Durability limitations become apparent by the end of the first postoperative decade, in particular in younger patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.107.726349

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Takkenberg, J. J. M., Klieverik, L. M. A., Schoof, P. H., van Suylen, R.-J., van Herwerden, L. A., Zondervan, P. E., Roos-Hesselink, J. W., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Yacoub, M. H., & Bogers, A. J. J. C.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2009-01-20
Volume
119
Issue
2
Pages
222-228
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2157596892
Cited by
255
References
0
FWCI
11.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Ross Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.107.726349
The paper
Takkenberg, J. J. M., Klieverik, L. M. A., Schoof, P. H., van Suylen, R.-J., van Herwerden, L. A., Zondervan, P. E., Roos-Hesselink, J. W., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Yacoub, M. H., & Bogers, A. J. J. C. (2009). The Ross Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.726349

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.