## 3 Results  
The study included 18 patients, comprising 7 males and 11 females. The median age at the time of the Cone repair was 14.9 years, ranging from 2.4 to 40.3 years. The global median follow-up time after Cone repair was 12.9 months, ranging from 3 to 19 months. None of the patients required reoperation during the follow-up period. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics. Table 2 compares pre- and postoperative CMR data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Min** & **Median** & **Max** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Age at Cone procedure (years) & 2.37 & 14.90 & 40.27 & 18.97 & 10.33 \\ Height pre Cone CMR (m) & 0.77 & 1.69 & 1.83 & 1.58 & 0.27 \\ Weight pre Cone CMR (kg) & 9 & 59.5 & 77 & 54.78 & 20.2 \\ Body surface area (cm/m\({}^{2}\)) & 0.44 & 1.69 & 1.93 & 1.54 & 0.43 \\ Time interval & & & & & \\ pre Cone CMR to Cone repair & 1 & 229 & 1156 & 280 & 294 \\ (days) & & & & & \\ Time interval & & & & & \\ Cone repair to post Cone CMR & 94 & 387 & 575 & 377 & 120 \\ (days) & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SD, standard deviation; CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Baseline characteristics of patients with [PERSON]’s anomaly (n = 18). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**CMR Parameters** & **Preoperative (n = 18 *)** & **Postoperative (n = 18 *)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline RV global radial strain (\%) & 15.00 (3.47–24.37) & 17.83 (3.46–35.88) & 0.0202 \\ RV global circumferential strain (\%) & \(-\)8.82 ((\(-\)14.99)–(\(-\)2.58)) & \(-\)13.02 ((\(-\)20.22)–(\(-\)7.62)) & 0.0026 \\ RV global longitudinal strain (\%) & \(-\)15.01 ((\(-\)30.01)–(\(-\)8.53)) & \(-\)14.53 ((\(-\)18.67)–(\(-\)3.00)) & 0.0155 \\ RVEF (\%) & 51 (21–61) & 33 (13–50) & 0.0002 \\ RVEDVi (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 161 (62–292) & 122 (87–253) & 0.3465 \\ RVESVi (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 74 (42–152) & 75 (47–196) & 0.3520 \\ RVSVi (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 74 (17–161) & 43 (19–57) & 0.0003 \\ LVEF (\%) & 56 (28–67) & 61 (43–70) & 0.0859 \\ LVEDVi (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 63 (40–198) & 65 (38–91) & 0.4878 \\ LVESVi (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 28 (19–142) & 26 (14–39) & 0.4747 \\ LVSVi (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 35 (19–56) & 37 (23–52) & 0.2383 \\ TI direct (\%) & 48 (16–90) & 6 (0–19) & 0.0001 \\ TI indirect (\%) & 55 (0–80) & 8 (0–20) & 0.0039 \\ PA flow netto indexed (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 38 (18–52) & 41 (20–52) & 0.2897 \\ PA flow antegrade indexed (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 39 (20–54) & 42 (21–55) & 0.2480 \\ Cardiac index PA (L/min/m\({}^{2}\)) & 2.8 (1.7–4.3) & 2.8 (1.8–3.9) & 0.9678 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of pre- and postoperative CMR data. Following Cone repair, we observed a significant decrease in TR (48% vs. 6%, \(p=0.0001\)). We did not observe a significant change in indexed right ventricular end-diastolic volumes (RVEDVis) after surgery (161 mL/m\({}^{2}\) vs. 122 mL/m\({}^{2}\), \(p=0.3465\)); however, there was a trend towards postoperative reduction. Notably, eight patients (44%) exhibited a higher RVEDVi after surgical repair. Both right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) (51% vs. 33%, \(p=0.0002\)) and indexed right ventricular stroke volume (RVSVi) (74 mL/m\({}^{2}\) vs. 43, \(p<0.0003\)) showed significant reductions after surgery. During surgery, a reduction in the size of the atrialized RV was performed in fifteen out of eighteen patients (83%). In the group of the eight patients with increased RVEDVi after Cone repair, six of them had a reduction in the atrialized RV during surgery. No significant differences were observed in the pulmonary artery and aortic flow, nor in the left ventricular functional parameters, including the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume indexed (LVEDVi), left ventricular end-systolic volume indexed (LVESVi), and left ventricular stroke volume indexed (LVSVi).