homografts last no longer than tissue valves (xenograft tissue valves)
If the error bars on that are wide I'd agree, to get really good results from a homograft requires not only a center of excellence specialising in that, but backed up by good work in harvesting, as I posted recently this is about as good as it gets:
For all cryopreserved valves, at 15 years, the freedom was
⦁ 47% (0-20-year-old patients at operation),
⦁ 85% (21-40 years),
⦁ 81% (41-60 years) and
⦁ 94% (>60 years). Root replacement versus subcoronary implantation reduced the technical causes for reoperation and re-replacement (p = 0.0098).
So, pick your age group in there then pick how luck you feel (same goes for the bio-prosthesis (but perhaps I've never seen such succinct presentation of that data)
For instance if you were in the middle of the 21~40 group on implant then at 15 years you could be part of the 15% who didn't make 15 years.
I was part of the group that made it to 20 years (data not presented or available on the %ages of everyone else).
Have you had Lp(a) checked?
Knowing what I know now, and knowing what technology exists now that didn't exist in 1992 when at 28 I picked a homograft I'd probably pick that now ... but of course that would not have prevented the aneurysm ... so I'd still end up having that subsequent surgery in 2011.
are you sure ? I think the resilia inspiris tissue valve last as much as a homograft
of course, a little give or take either way I'd agree with that too