Protocol for the examination and selection of potential living donors of bone tissue for the production of allografts

Home/2022, Vol. 10, No. 2/Protocol for the examination and selection of potential living donors of bone tissue for the production of allografts

Cell and Organ Transplantology. 2022; 10(2):in press.
DOI: 10.22494/cot.v10i2.145

Protocol for the examination and selection of potential living donors of bone tissue for the production of allografts

Strafun S., Holiuk Ye., Pschenychny T.

  • State Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

Abstract

The responsible stage of choosing the source of bone allografts is the process of examination and selection of the donor, which includes moral and ethical, legal and medical aspects. The selection of potential donors should be carried out with the participation of a qualified doctor, with a thorough collection of anamnesis, social conditions and a general medical examination. Up to 48 % of all potential donors are rejected to collect bone in the pre-operative period; up to 22 % of the received tissues are not suitable for transplantation according to the results of further examinations.
Purpose – to develop a protocol for the examination of potential living donors of bone tissue based on anamnestic, clinical, laboratory and instrumental examinations to ensure the selection of high-quality bone material for the production of bone grafts.
Materials and methods. From 01.01.2016 to 01.12.2021, 640 patients for hip replacement were involved in the selection of bone tissue donors. The following selection steps were applied: obtaining informed consent, filling in a questionnaire about the possibility of donation, express-tests for infections and X-ray morphometric examination based on the results of radiography of the hip joints in direct projection.
Results. Based on the results of the examination of potential donors, it was established that the number of patients who were excluded from further research due to refusal to donate was 3 %, due to contraindications according to the results of filling out the questionnaire – 15 %, according to X-ray morphometric criteria – 51 %, according to the results of laboratory examination – 2 %.
Conclusions. A protocol of examination of bone tissue donors for the production of scaffolds has been developed. It was established that about 30 % of all examined potential donors are suitable for donation.

Key words: regenerative technologies; bone plastic surgery; scaffolds; bone allografts

 

1. Bone Grafts And Substitutes Market Report, 2022-2030. Grandviewresearch.com. 2022. Available from: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/bone-grafts-substitutes-market#
2. Campana V, Milano G, Pagano E, et al. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014; 25(10):2445-2461. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5240-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5240-2
PMid:24865980 PMCid:PMC4169585
3. Baldwin P, Li DJ, Auston DA, Mir HS, Yoon RS, Koval KJ. Autograft, Allograft, and Bone Graft Substitutes: Clinical Evidence and Indications for Use in the Setting of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery. J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33(4):203-213. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420
https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420
PMid:30633080
4. Boyce T, Edwards J, Scarborough N. Allograft bone. The influence of processing on safety and performance. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999; 30(4):571-81. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70110-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(05)70110-3
PMid:10471762
5. Vining NC, Warme WJ, Mosca VS. Comparison of structural bone autografts and allografts in pediatric foot surgery. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012; 32(7):719-723. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31824b6c82
https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31824b6c82
PMid:22955536
6. Cavallo M, Maglio M, Parrilli A, et al. Vascular Supply and Bone Marrow Concentrate for the Improvement of Allograft in Bone Defects: A Comparative In Vivo Study. J Surg Res. 2020; 252:1-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.02.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.02.015
PMid:32203731
7. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2427-19#Text
8. Frommelt L, Gürtler L, von Garrel Th. Disinfection of femoral heads for bone grafting using the marburg bone bank system (lobator sd 1): a retrospective evaluation of quality control in the endo-klinik bone bank. Adv Tissue Bank. 2004; 7:339-351. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812796646_0011
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812796646_0011
9. Losty B, Delloye C, editors. The Common Standards for Musculoskeletal Tissue Banking. European Association of Musculo-skeletal Transplantation (EAMST); Vienna: 1997.
10. Pink F, Warwick RM, Purkis J, Pearson J. Donor exclusion in the National Blood Service Tissue Services living bone donor programme. Cell Tissue Bank. 2006; 7(1):11-21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-005-2362-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-005-2362-2
PMid:16511660
11. Galea G, Kopman D, Graham B. Supply and demand of bone allograft for revision hip surgery in Scotland. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1998; 80-B:595-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.80b4.8240
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B4.8240
PMid:9699818
12. Gayko GV, Gerasymenko SI, Holyuk YeL. Basics of manufacturing allografts using local bone bank technology. Bulletin of orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics. 2019; 1:68-78. [In Ukrainian]
13. Meermans G, Roos J, Hofkens L, Cheyns P. Bone banking in a community hospital. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007; 73:754-759. Available from: http://actaorthopaedica.be/assets/1446/12-Meersmans_et_al.pdf
14. Abbas G, Bali SL, Abbas N, Dalton DJ. Demand and supply of bone allograft and the role of orthopaedic surgeons. Acta Orthop. Belg. 2007; 73:507-511. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17939482/
15. Galea G. An Analysis of Bone Donor Deferral Rates in Scotland – a 6-Year Study. Transfus Med Hemother. 2011; 38:373-378. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1159/000334892
https://doi.org/10.1159/000334892
PMid:22403521 PMCid:PMC3268000
16. Zwitser EW, Jiya TU, Licher HG, van Royen BJ. Design and management of an orthopaedic bone bank in the Netherlands. Cell Tissue Bank. 2012; 13(1):63-69. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-010-9230-4
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-010-9230-4
PMid:21076877 PMCid:PMC3286502
17. Willey JS, Lloyd ShAJ, Nelson GA, Bateman TA. Ionizing Radiation and Bone Loss: Space Exploration and Clinical Therapy Applications. Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab. 2011; 9(1):54-62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12018-011-9092-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12018-011-9092-8
PMid:22826690 PMCid:PMC3401480
18. Donaubauer A-J, Deloch L, Becker I, Fietkau R, Frey B, Gaipl US. The Influence of Radiation on Bone and Bone Cells-Differential Effects on Osteoclasts and Osteoblasts. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21:6377. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21176377
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21176377
PMid:32887421 PMCid:PMC7504528
19. Ivanov VK, Tsyb AF, Ivanov SI. Liquidators of the Chernobyl disaster: radiation and epidemiological analysis of medical consequences. Moscow: Galanis, 1999. 312 p. [In Russian].
20. Thirty years of the Chernobyl disaster: radiological and medical consequences National report of Ukraine, National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine National Scientific Center of Radiation Medicine, Kyiv 2016. Available from: http://amnu.gov.ua/trydczyat-rokiv-chornobylskoyi-katastrofy-radiologichni-ta-medychni-naslidky/ [In Ukrainian]

Strafun S, Holiuk Ye, Pschenychny T. Protocol for the examination and selection of potential living donors of bone tissue for the production of allografts. Cell Organ Transpl. 2022; 10(2):in press. doi:10.22494/cot.v10i2.145

Creative Commons License
Is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.