Figure legends
Fig. 1. Long-term outcomes in patients with grade ≥ III chronic aortic
regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction with or
without aortic valve (AV) surgery (Reproduced with permission from
reference 3).
LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction
Fig. 2. A: Long-term survival in patients undergoing aortic valve (AV)
repair (solid line) or aortic valve replacement (AVR: 29 biological
prostheses; 15 mechanical prosthesis) (dashed line). The dotted line
shows the survival of an age- and gender-matched Belgian population
(Reproduced with permission from reference 8).
B: Freedom from all-cause mortality in patients undergoing elective
aortic root surgery by aortic valve-sparing (AVS) technique and using
bioprosthetic composite valve graft (bio-CVG) or mechanical composite
valve graft (m-CVG) (Reproduced with permission from reference 7).
Fig. 3. A: Freedom from aortic valve reoperations in patients undergoing
aortic valve (AV) repair (solid line) or aortic valve replacement (AVR)
(dashed line) (Reproduced with permission from reference 8).
B: Prevalence of aortic valve reoperation over time using competing risk
methods in patients undergoing elective aortic root surgery by aortic
valve-sparing (AVS) technique and using bioprosthetic composite valve
graft (bio-CVG) or mechanical composite valve graft (m-CVG) (Reproduced
with permission from reference 7).
Fig. 4. A: Survival after aortic valve replacement adjusted for age and
stratified by left ventricular indexed end-systolic dimensions (LVESD)
(Reproduced with permission from reference 17).
B: Survival comparison among subgroups: 50% ≤ LVEF < 55%
group vs. LVEF ≥ 55% group (Reproduced with permission from reference
18).
LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction
Fig. 5. Repair-oriented functional classification of aortic
insufficiency (AI) with description of disease mechanisms and repair
techniques used (Reproduced with permission from reference 22).
FAA, functional aortic annulus; STJ, sinotubular junction; SCA,
subcommissural annuloplasty
Fig. 6. A: Schematic representation of the system for classification of
the bicuspid aortic valves. Prominent lines in schematic drawings
represent raphe (Reproduced with permission from reference 24).
B: Schematic illustrations of the three groups of phenotypes of the
repair-oriented bicuspid aortic valve classification (Reproduced with
permission from reference 25).
Fig. 7. A: Schematic drawing of the aortic valve and root.
STJ, sinotubular junction; VAJ, ventriculoaortic junction; GH, geometric
height;
eH, effective height.
B: Intraoperative photograph showing measurement of the effective height
of the noncoronary cusp of a bicuspid aortic valve with the caliper
(Both reproduced with permission from reference 26).
Fig. 8. Schematic drawing of external suture annuloplasty (A), external
ring annuloplasty (B), and internal ring annuloplasty (C) (Reproduced
with permission from reference 33, 27, and 34, respectively).
Fig. 9. Schematic drawing of the aortic root remodeling technique (A)
and the aortic valve reimplantation technique (B) (Reproduced with
permission from reference 40).
Fig. 10. A: Our original template to cut each scallop of the graft
corresponding to the Valsalva sinus.
B: Our originally developed sizer with various sizes (16 – 30 mm) (a)
with six equally distributed grooves facilitating marking of the middle
points (b) (Reproduced with permission from reference 50).
Fig. 11. Endoscopic view of the normal aortic root at different
diastolic pressures. A, 80 mmHg; B, 40 mmHg; C, 0 mmHg (Reproduced with
permission from reference 52).