Background: Legitimacy of entry-oriented therapy for DeBakey I aortic dissection is of eminent importance in the era of emerging ascending aorta endovascular therapy. This study aims to evaluate early, midterm, and reintervention results of entry-oriented operative strategy compared to more aggressive strategies for treatment of DeBakey type I aortic dissection with an isolated intimal tear in the ascending aorta. Methods: This study prospectively followed 98 consecutive patients who received an operation for DeBakey type I aortic dissection with the intimal tear in the ascending aorta between 2007 and 2013 for up to 6 years. Follow-up included survival, medical therapy, CT-imaging results, and reinterventions. Patients were grouped into entry-oriented (group I) receiving an isolated replacement of the ascending aorta and/or hemiarch (65 patients); and aggressive therapy (group II) receiving a replacement of the ascending aorta and complete aortic arch (33 patients). Results: The in-hospital mortality was 19% and 23% respectively. The 3-year survival was 52% and 47% respectively (P = .193). Group II showed no advantage regarding persistence or progression of the dissection, thrombosis of false lumen, increase in aortic diameter, peripheral organ malperfusion (as assessed by follow-up computed tomography imaging) or freedom from reintervention. Conclusion: In treating DeBakey I aortic dissection with an entry tear in the ascending aorta, it might be legitimate to adopt an entry-oriented operative strategy. Further research is also needed to clearly describe the indication of extending the operative strategy in such cases.