Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gross, B. H.
Right arrow Articles by Slater, A. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gross, B. H.
Right arrow Articles by Slater, A. D.

Radiology, Vol 149, 389-391, Copyright © 1983 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Differentiation of aortic and mitral valve prostheses based on postoperative frontal chest radiographs

BH Gross, KK Shirazi and AD Slater

The authors reviewed the postoperative frontal chest radiographs of 77 patients given aortic or mitral prostheses in one year and evaluated the criteria for distinguishing between the two: position (cephalocaudal or transverse), orientation (vertical or horizontal), orifice (en face or in profile), direction of flow through the valve (toward the cardiac apex or ascending aorta), and information given on the consultation form. 91% of patients had at least one form containing incomplete or incorrect information. Direction of flow appears to be the best criterion, being discernible in all Starr-Edwards and most Bjork-Shiley prostheses; orifice and orientation are considerably less reliable, while position is totally unreliable.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1983 by the Radiological Society of North America.