Mechanical failure analysis of patch materials used in aortic arch reconstruction: implications for clinical practice
Abstract OBJECTIVES Thick-patch pulmonary homograft, autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo are common patch materials for aortic arch reconstruction. Insufficient data exist on sutured patch strength and limits of use. We evaluated failure strength of these materials to develop a failure predicti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery 2023-11, Vol.64 (5) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery |
container_volume | 64 |
creator | Recco, Dominic P Kizilski, Shannen B Marshall, Lauren E Earley, Patrick D Kneier, Nicholas E del Nido, Pedro J Hammer, Peter E Hoganson, David M |
description | Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Thick-patch pulmonary homograft, autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo are common patch materials for aortic arch reconstruction. Insufficient data exist on sutured patch strength and limits of use. We evaluated failure strength of these materials to develop a failure prediction model for clinical guidance.
METHODS
Patch failure strength was evaluated via sutured uniaxial and burst pressure testing. In sutured uniaxial testing, patches were sutured to aortic or Dacron tabs and pulled to failure. In burst pressure testing, patches were sewn into porcine aortas or Dacron grafts and pressurized to failure. Failure membrane tension was calculated. A prediction model of membrane tension versus vessel diameter was generated to guide clinical patch selection.
RESULTS
Combining sutured uniaxial and burst pressure test data, pulmonary homograft failure strength {0.61 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.44, 0.78] N/mm, n = 21} was less than half that of autologous pericardium [2.22 (IQR: 1.65, 2.78) N/mm, n = 15] and CardioCel Neo [1.31 (IQR: 1.20, 1.42) N/mm, n = 20]. Pulmonary homograft burst pressure [245 (IQR: 202, 343) mmHg, n = 7] was significantly lower than autologous pericardium [863 (IQR: 802, 919) mmHg, n = 6] and CardioCel Neo [766 (IQR: 721, 833) mmHg, n = 6]. Our model predicts failure limits for each patch material and outlines safety margins for combinations of aortic diameter and pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
Sutured failure strength of thick-patch pulmonary homograft was significantly lower than autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo. Patient selection (predicted postoperative arch diameter and haemodynamics) and blood pressure management must be considered when choosing patch material for arch reconstruction. In older children and adolescents, autologous or bovine pericardium may be more suitable materials for aortic patch augmentation to minimize the risk of postoperative patch failure.
Reconstruction of hypoplastic aortic arch in infants, children and young adults often requires patch material to achieve normal aortic size. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ejcts/ezad366 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11005168</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ejcts/ezad366</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2883569937</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-27cf6693c6a1398f939e43999e2e36ded0ccdfb72711cdc042f082e1f9bdbcd03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1rFTEUhoMo9kOX3ZYs3UybTG7z0Y1IqR9QcaPgLuSenPSmZCbTJFNof71T77XVlauTw3l43sBLyBFnJ5wZcYo30OopPjgvpHxB9rlWolNi9fPl8macdcqs2B45qPWGMSZFr16TPaG0UVLrfTJ_Rdi4MYJLNLiY5oLUjS7d11hpDnRyDTZ0cA1LdKnSuaKncaQulxaBurJcC0IeaysztJjHcxqHKS3Cx6XSkAuFFLcJU3ELA_iGvAqLDd_u5iH58fHy-8Xn7urbpy8XH646EEK3rlcQpDQCpOPC6GCEwZUwxmCPQnr0DMCHteoV5-CBrfrAdI88mLVfg2fikLzfeqd5PaAHHFtxyU4lDq7c2-yi_fcyxo29zneWc8bOuNSL4d3OUPLtjLXZIVbAlNyIea6211qcSWOEWtBui0LJtRYMTzmc2ceu7O-u7K6rhT_--3NP9J9ynrPzPP3H9QvHRqRt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2883569937</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mechanical failure analysis of patch materials used in aortic arch reconstruction: implications for clinical practice</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Recco, Dominic P ; Kizilski, Shannen B ; Marshall, Lauren E ; Earley, Patrick D ; Kneier, Nicholas E ; del Nido, Pedro J ; Hammer, Peter E ; Hoganson, David M</creator><creatorcontrib>Recco, Dominic P ; Kizilski, Shannen B ; Marshall, Lauren E ; Earley, Patrick D ; Kneier, Nicholas E ; del Nido, Pedro J ; Hammer, Peter E ; Hoganson, David M</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Thick-patch pulmonary homograft, autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo are common patch materials for aortic arch reconstruction. Insufficient data exist on sutured patch strength and limits of use. We evaluated failure strength of these materials to develop a failure prediction model for clinical guidance.
METHODS
Patch failure strength was evaluated via sutured uniaxial and burst pressure testing. In sutured uniaxial testing, patches were sutured to aortic or Dacron tabs and pulled to failure. In burst pressure testing, patches were sewn into porcine aortas or Dacron grafts and pressurized to failure. Failure membrane tension was calculated. A prediction model of membrane tension versus vessel diameter was generated to guide clinical patch selection.
RESULTS
Combining sutured uniaxial and burst pressure test data, pulmonary homograft failure strength {0.61 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.44, 0.78] N/mm, n = 21} was less than half that of autologous pericardium [2.22 (IQR: 1.65, 2.78) N/mm, n = 15] and CardioCel Neo [1.31 (IQR: 1.20, 1.42) N/mm, n = 20]. Pulmonary homograft burst pressure [245 (IQR: 202, 343) mmHg, n = 7] was significantly lower than autologous pericardium [863 (IQR: 802, 919) mmHg, n = 6] and CardioCel Neo [766 (IQR: 721, 833) mmHg, n = 6]. Our model predicts failure limits for each patch material and outlines safety margins for combinations of aortic diameter and pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
Sutured failure strength of thick-patch pulmonary homograft was significantly lower than autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo. Patient selection (predicted postoperative arch diameter and haemodynamics) and blood pressure management must be considered when choosing patch material for arch reconstruction. In older children and adolescents, autologous or bovine pericardium may be more suitable materials for aortic patch augmentation to minimize the risk of postoperative patch failure.
Reconstruction of hypoplastic aortic arch in infants, children and young adults often requires patch material to achieve normal aortic size.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1010-7940</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-734X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezad366</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37897688</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Animals ; Aorta ; Aorta, Thoracic - surgery ; Blood Pressure ; Cattle ; Child ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Pericardium - transplantation ; Polyethylene Terephthalates ; Residents’ Corner ; Retrospective Studies ; Swine</subject><ispartof>European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery, 2023-11, Vol.64 (5)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. 2023</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-27cf6693c6a1398f939e43999e2e36ded0ccdfb72711cdc042f082e1f9bdbcd03</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4151-2777 ; 0000-0003-2306-6443</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37897688$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Recco, Dominic P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kizilski, Shannen B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marshall, Lauren E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Earley, Patrick D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kneier, Nicholas E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>del Nido, Pedro J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammer, Peter E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoganson, David M</creatorcontrib><title>Mechanical failure analysis of patch materials used in aortic arch reconstruction: implications for clinical practice</title><title>European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery</title><addtitle>Eur J Cardiothorac Surg</addtitle><description>Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Thick-patch pulmonary homograft, autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo are common patch materials for aortic arch reconstruction. Insufficient data exist on sutured patch strength and limits of use. We evaluated failure strength of these materials to develop a failure prediction model for clinical guidance.
METHODS
Patch failure strength was evaluated via sutured uniaxial and burst pressure testing. In sutured uniaxial testing, patches were sutured to aortic or Dacron tabs and pulled to failure. In burst pressure testing, patches were sewn into porcine aortas or Dacron grafts and pressurized to failure. Failure membrane tension was calculated. A prediction model of membrane tension versus vessel diameter was generated to guide clinical patch selection.
RESULTS
Combining sutured uniaxial and burst pressure test data, pulmonary homograft failure strength {0.61 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.44, 0.78] N/mm, n = 21} was less than half that of autologous pericardium [2.22 (IQR: 1.65, 2.78) N/mm, n = 15] and CardioCel Neo [1.31 (IQR: 1.20, 1.42) N/mm, n = 20]. Pulmonary homograft burst pressure [245 (IQR: 202, 343) mmHg, n = 7] was significantly lower than autologous pericardium [863 (IQR: 802, 919) mmHg, n = 6] and CardioCel Neo [766 (IQR: 721, 833) mmHg, n = 6]. Our model predicts failure limits for each patch material and outlines safety margins for combinations of aortic diameter and pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
Sutured failure strength of thick-patch pulmonary homograft was significantly lower than autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo. Patient selection (predicted postoperative arch diameter and haemodynamics) and blood pressure management must be considered when choosing patch material for arch reconstruction. In older children and adolescents, autologous or bovine pericardium may be more suitable materials for aortic patch augmentation to minimize the risk of postoperative patch failure.
Reconstruction of hypoplastic aortic arch in infants, children and young adults often requires patch material to achieve normal aortic size.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aorta</subject><subject>Aorta, Thoracic - surgery</subject><subject>Blood Pressure</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Hemodynamics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Pericardium - transplantation</subject><subject>Polyethylene Terephthalates</subject><subject>Residents’ Corner</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Swine</subject><issn>1010-7940</issn><issn>1873-734X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1rFTEUhoMo9kOX3ZYs3UybTG7z0Y1IqR9QcaPgLuSenPSmZCbTJFNof71T77XVlauTw3l43sBLyBFnJ5wZcYo30OopPjgvpHxB9rlWolNi9fPl8macdcqs2B45qPWGMSZFr16TPaG0UVLrfTJ_Rdi4MYJLNLiY5oLUjS7d11hpDnRyDTZ0cA1LdKnSuaKncaQulxaBurJcC0IeaysztJjHcxqHKS3Cx6XSkAuFFLcJU3ELA_iGvAqLDd_u5iH58fHy-8Xn7urbpy8XH646EEK3rlcQpDQCpOPC6GCEwZUwxmCPQnr0DMCHteoV5-CBrfrAdI88mLVfg2fikLzfeqd5PaAHHFtxyU4lDq7c2-yi_fcyxo29zneWc8bOuNSL4d3OUPLtjLXZIVbAlNyIea6211qcSWOEWtBui0LJtRYMTzmc2ceu7O-u7K6rhT_--3NP9J9ynrPzPP3H9QvHRqRt</recordid><startdate>20231101</startdate><enddate>20231101</enddate><creator>Recco, Dominic P</creator><creator>Kizilski, Shannen B</creator><creator>Marshall, Lauren E</creator><creator>Earley, Patrick D</creator><creator>Kneier, Nicholas E</creator><creator>del Nido, Pedro J</creator><creator>Hammer, Peter E</creator><creator>Hoganson, David M</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4151-2777</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-6443</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231101</creationdate><title>Mechanical failure analysis of patch materials used in aortic arch reconstruction: implications for clinical practice</title><author>Recco, Dominic P ; Kizilski, Shannen B ; Marshall, Lauren E ; Earley, Patrick D ; Kneier, Nicholas E ; del Nido, Pedro J ; Hammer, Peter E ; Hoganson, David M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-27cf6693c6a1398f939e43999e2e36ded0ccdfb72711cdc042f082e1f9bdbcd03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aorta</topic><topic>Aorta, Thoracic - surgery</topic><topic>Blood Pressure</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Hemodynamics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Pericardium - transplantation</topic><topic>Polyethylene Terephthalates</topic><topic>Residents’ Corner</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Swine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Recco, Dominic P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kizilski, Shannen B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marshall, Lauren E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Earley, Patrick D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kneier, Nicholas E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>del Nido, Pedro J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammer, Peter E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoganson, David M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Recco, Dominic P</au><au>Kizilski, Shannen B</au><au>Marshall, Lauren E</au><au>Earley, Patrick D</au><au>Kneier, Nicholas E</au><au>del Nido, Pedro J</au><au>Hammer, Peter E</au><au>Hoganson, David M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mechanical failure analysis of patch materials used in aortic arch reconstruction: implications for clinical practice</atitle><jtitle>European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Cardiothorac Surg</addtitle><date>2023-11-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>5</issue><issn>1010-7940</issn><eissn>1873-734X</eissn><abstract>Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Thick-patch pulmonary homograft, autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo are common patch materials for aortic arch reconstruction. Insufficient data exist on sutured patch strength and limits of use. We evaluated failure strength of these materials to develop a failure prediction model for clinical guidance.
METHODS
Patch failure strength was evaluated via sutured uniaxial and burst pressure testing. In sutured uniaxial testing, patches were sutured to aortic or Dacron tabs and pulled to failure. In burst pressure testing, patches were sewn into porcine aortas or Dacron grafts and pressurized to failure. Failure membrane tension was calculated. A prediction model of membrane tension versus vessel diameter was generated to guide clinical patch selection.
RESULTS
Combining sutured uniaxial and burst pressure test data, pulmonary homograft failure strength {0.61 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.44, 0.78] N/mm, n = 21} was less than half that of autologous pericardium [2.22 (IQR: 1.65, 2.78) N/mm, n = 15] and CardioCel Neo [1.31 (IQR: 1.20, 1.42) N/mm, n = 20]. Pulmonary homograft burst pressure [245 (IQR: 202, 343) mmHg, n = 7] was significantly lower than autologous pericardium [863 (IQR: 802, 919) mmHg, n = 6] and CardioCel Neo [766 (IQR: 721, 833) mmHg, n = 6]. Our model predicts failure limits for each patch material and outlines safety margins for combinations of aortic diameter and pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
Sutured failure strength of thick-patch pulmonary homograft was significantly lower than autologous pericardium and CardioCel Neo. Patient selection (predicted postoperative arch diameter and haemodynamics) and blood pressure management must be considered when choosing patch material for arch reconstruction. In older children and adolescents, autologous or bovine pericardium may be more suitable materials for aortic patch augmentation to minimize the risk of postoperative patch failure.
Reconstruction of hypoplastic aortic arch in infants, children and young adults often requires patch material to achieve normal aortic size.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>37897688</pmid><doi>10.1093/ejcts/ezad366</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4151-2777</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-6443</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1010-7940 |
ispartof | European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery, 2023-11, Vol.64 (5) |
issn | 1010-7940 1873-734X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11005168 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adolescent Animals Aorta Aorta, Thoracic - surgery Blood Pressure Cattle Child Hemodynamics Humans Pericardium - transplantation Polyethylene Terephthalates Residents’ Corner Retrospective Studies Swine |
title | Mechanical failure analysis of patch materials used in aortic arch reconstruction: implications for clinical practice |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T10%3A33%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mechanical%20failure%20analysis%20of%20patch%20materials%20used%20in%20aortic%20arch%20reconstruction:%20implications%20for%20clinical%20practice&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20cardio-thoracic%20surgery&rft.au=Recco,%20Dominic%20P&rft.date=2023-11-01&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=5&rft.issn=1010-7940&rft.eissn=1873-734X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ejcts/ezad366&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2883569937%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2883569937&rft_id=info:pmid/37897688&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ejcts/ezad366&rfr_iscdi=true |