REFERENCES
  1. Wang DD, Caranasos T, O’Neill B, Stack R, O’Niell W, Chitwood Jr WR. Comparison of a new bioprosthetic mitral valve to other commercially available devices under controlled conditions in a porcine model. Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 2021 Sep. (In Press)
  2. Bothe W, Miller DC, Doenst T. Sizing for mitral annuloplasty: where does science stop and voodoo begin?. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2013 Apr 1;95(4):1475-83.
  3. Stone GW, Adams DH, Abraham WT, et al. Clinical Trial Design Principles and Endpoint Definitions for Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair and Replacement: Part 2: Endpoint Definitions: A Consensus Document From the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:308-321.
  4. Girdauskas E, Pausch J, Harmel E, Gross T, Detter C, Sinning C, Kubitz J, Reichenspurner H. Minimally invasive mitral valve repair for functional mitral regurgitation. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2019 Jun 1;55(Supplement_1):i17-25.
  5. Doenst T, Amorim PA, Al-Alam N, Lehmann S, Mukherjee C, Faerber G. Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2011 Nov 1;142(5):1180-7.
  6. Value of augmented reality-enhanced transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for determining optimal annuloplasty ring size during mitral valve repair. Ann Thorac Surg.  2008; 86 : 1473-1478
  7. Mitral valve finite-element modelling from ultrasound data: a pilot study for a new approach to understand mitral function and clinical scenarios. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci.  2008; 366 : 3411-3434