[HSF] Posterior extension of conventional LA incision revisited

[Nasser F. Abou'Seada]

Dear Bob, Dear Hal 
Contrary to what Hal might think and believe
IMH Experience I've seen only one patient -whose condition was very
complicated - that required a permanent pace maker. a small proportion of
patients were pace maker "guarded" postoperatively, for developing AVN
rhythm for 3-4 days -that was in our learning curve period - ..... most of
the patients were free from pace maker in their post operative period. 

A very important point IMH experience is that a considerable proportion of
patients recovered their preoperative rhythm, on table,  whether that had
been AF or SR. The most important point is that Many Patients who were in
Preoperative AF recovered in SR ... we have used a modified approach that in
fact resulted in a simple incisional approach to abolish AF in such cases. 

Numbers and Figures ?? 

Preliminary data were presented in Cape Town 2003, and Damascus 2004. 

I'd be very happy to forward the manuscript should Bob would accept having
it critiqued ..!

NFA

> From: Rwmfglycar at aol.com
> Bob and  Nasser,
> Look, whether it's heart block, junctional rhythm, or sinus  node
> dysfunction, all of these conditions, if persistent, require a  permanent
> pacemaker.
> This has been my experience, but, more  importantly, it is the  experience
of
> lots of surgeons who've used  this incision.  Believe me, it's  not a big
> deal
> for me to use  the incision, but my cardiologists get upset if a
perceived
> larger  number of patients require a PPM.
> Hal


> Dear Hal,
> This is a very interesting situation. Nasser and I clearly have a very
> different perception from you and your cardiologists. I wrote a paper on
this
> subject a long time ago and continued to take a keen interest in my own
and
> others experience. Nasser has studied his cases.