pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
Can I ask all of you why you didn’t pursue the ROSS Procedure?
Well I had my first valve replacement in 1992, which was a cryopreserved homograph. The ROSS came about some years later as I understand. On my latest valve replacement (2011) the verdict was that a mechanical was the best way for me as at 48 a tissue would not last my lifespan. Having had my first OHS (a repair) back in the 70's this was to be my 3rd OHS, a fourth is increasingly risky even more so when age is factored in.
What I have learned from this is that I have learned that anticoagulants (the misnomer thinners reminds me of paint) are misunderstood perhaps because people are relying on out of date practices and inadequate testing regimes. A modern approach is to test weekly with your own device and adjust as required. Before you seem surprised, ask any diabetic if they go to a lab to test their sugar levels and if they determine their own doses of insulin.
I asked earlier as I know nothing about the Ross apart from what I have read recently.
What I have also learned is that every surgery brings with it risks. In my last surgery I got a "trivial" infection in my sternum. This has been a real long term drag, and a year (and two "debridement" surgeries) later I am still not clear of it. If I could influence time I would probably have gone for the mechanical back in 1992 (especially if they were as good then as they are now) as then I would not be battling this operative infection
Minimise risk is my view.
From what I read the Ross seems to do that. Dunno about what they put in for the valve they swap out though, I guess its a prosthetic.
Lastly, I would be curious to know if the Ross has less complications than a routine mechanical prosthetic. Blood thinners may not turn out to be the issue you thought they were. Having said that you should see if you would have issues with warfarin.