Why the study?
Choosing the optimal aortic valve replacement in children is challenging due to the need for durability, growth accommodation, and minimizing anticoagulation.
This narrative review highlights the Ross procedure as a durable and effective solution for pediatric aortic valve disease, offering growth potential and freedom from anticoagulation despite its technical complexity.
May support Ross consideration in select pediatric cases; leaves open need for randomized trials before practice change.
Aortic valve disease accounts for approximately 5% of all congenital heart defects in children. Choosing the optimal valve replacement in this population is challenging, as it must ensure durability, accommodate growth, and minimize the need for long-term anticoagulation. Biological valves do not require anticoagulation but lack durability and growth potential, leading to frequent reoperations. Mechanical valves offer longevity but necessitate lifelong anticoagulation and do not grow with the child. Among the available surgical options, the Ross procedure has emerged as a preferred approach due to its favorable hemodynamic performance, growth potential, and freedom from anticoagulation. First described in 1967, this technique involves replacing the diseased aortic valve with a pulmonary autograft and reconstructing the right ventricular outflow tract using a human or non-human valve substitute. Despite its advantages, the procedure is technically demanding, has a considerable learning curve, and transforms a single-valve pathology into a bivalvular condition. This narrative review provides an updated perspective on the Ross procedure in children, focusing on long-term survival, reoperation rates, and the role of percutaneous valve replacement in delaying surgical reintervention. By synthesizing the latest evidence, we aim to clarify the current standing of the Ross procedure as a durable and effective solution for pediatric aortic valve disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dib et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: