Utilisation of bone allograft by orthopaedic surgeons in Scotland

Rap system of stress stimulation can promote bone union after lower tibial bone fracture: a clinical research

BACKGROUND

Lower tibial bone fracture may easily cause bone delayed union or nonunion because of lacking of dynamic mechanical load.

OBJECTIVE

Research Group would design a new instrument as Rap System of Stress Stimulation (RSSS) to provide dynamic mechanical load which would promote lower tibial bone union postoperatively.

METHODS

This clinical research was conducted from January 2008 to December 2010, 92 patients(male 61/female 31, age 16-70 years, mean 36.3 years) who suffered lower tibial bone closed fracture were given intramedullary nail fixation and randomly averagely separated into experimental group and control group(according to the successively order when patients went for the admission procedure). Then researchers analysed the clinical healing time, full weight bearing time, VAS (Visual Analogue Scales) score and callus growth score of Lane-Sandhu in 3,6,12 months postoperatively. The delayed union and nonunion rates were compared at 6 and 12 months separately.

RESULTS

All the 92 patients had been followed up (mean 14 months). Clinical bone healing time in experimental group was 88.78±8.80 days but control group was 107.91±9.03 days. Full weight bearing time in experimental group was 94.07±9.81 days but control group was 113.24±13.37 days respectively (P<0.05). The delayed union rate in 6 months was 4.3% in experimental group but 10.9% in control group(P<0.05). The nonunion rate in 12 months was 6.5% in experimental group but 19.6% in control group(P<0.05). In 3, 6, 12 months postoperatively, VAS score and Lane-Sandhu score in experimental group had more significantly difference than them in control group.

CONCLUSIONS

RSSS can intermittently provide dynamic mechanical load and stimulate callus formation, promote lower tibial bone union, reduce bone delayed union or nonunion rate. It is an adjuvant therapy for promoting bone union after lower tibial bone fracture.

Comparison of prevalence rates of microbiological markers between bone/tissue donations and new blood donors in Scotland

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Blood-borne virus prevalence rates of samples accompanying tissue donors are not widely available. This article compares the rates in Scottish bone/tissue donors with those of new blood donors for the 7-year period, 1998-2004.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collated from existing internal reports. Age distributions of the donor populations were obtained by extracting information from existing computer databases.

RESULTS

Scottish bone/tissue donors were found to have a fourfold higher prevalence for hepatitis B virus (HBV), a 1.6-fold higher prevalence for hepatitis C virus (HCV), an 11-fold higher prevalence for human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV) and a 34-fold higher prevalence for syphilis compared with new blood donors. Excluding confirmed positives, the repeat-reactive rates for bone/tissue donors were similar to those of new blood donors.

CONCLUSIONS

The data demonstrated that the prevalence of blood-borne viruses in Scottish bone/tissue donors is higher than in new blood donors. We believe that the different age profiles of the two donor populations plays a significant role.

Demand for human allograft tissue in Canada

There is relatively little known about the demand for allograft tissues in Canada. The Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation (CCDT) is a national advisory body that undertook a comprehensive "market survey" to estimate surgical demand for human allograft tissues in Canada. The report "Demand for Human Allograft Tissue in Canada" reflects survey results sent to 5 prominent User Groups. User Groups were identified as orthopaedic surgeons; neurosurgeons; corneal transplant surgeons; plastic surgeons, specifically those at Canadian Burn Units; and cardiac surgeons (adult and paediatric surgery). The demand for allograft grafts was determined and then extrapolated across the total User Group and then increases in allograft tissue use over the next 1-2 years across User Groups were predicted. The overall response rate for the survey was 21.4%. It varied from a low of 19.6% for the orthopaedic survey to a high of 40.5% for the corneal survey. The estimated current demand for allograft tissue in Canada ranges from a low of 34,442 grafts per year to a high of 62,098 grafts per year. The predicted increase in use of allograft tissue over the next 1-2 year period would suggest that annual demand could rise to somewhere in the range of 42,589-72,210 grafts. The highest rated preferences (98% and 94%) were for accredited and Canadian tissue banks, respectively. This study represents a key step in addressing the paucity of information concerning the demand for allograft tissue in Canada.

Donor Exclusion in the National Blood Service Tissue Services Living Bone Donor Programme

National Blood Service (NBS) Tissue Services (TS) operates living donor and deceased donor tissue banking programmes. The living bone donor programme operates in collaboration with 91 orthopaedic departments across the country and collects bone donations, in the form of surgically removed femoral heads (FHs), from over 5,000 patients per annum undergoing total hip replacement. Bone donated via the living programme constitutes approximately 55% of the total bone donated to NBS. Non-NBS tissue banks, primarily in hospital orthopaedic departments, also bank donated bone for the UK. A survey of information received from 16 collaborating orthopaedic centres, between April 2003 and August 2004, identified 709 excluded donors. The total number of donations banked from these sites was 1,538. Donations can be excluded before collection if there are contraindications noted in a potential donor's medical history before their operation. Donors may also be excluded after collection of the FH, for instance because of reactive microbiology tests for blood borne viruses, or if the donation storage conditions or related documentation have not met stringent quality requirements. In this survey, bone or joint conditions were the major reasons for excluding potential donors before donation (154 of 709 exclusions, 22%), followed by a current or a past history of malignancy (139 of 709 exclusions, 20%). Local staffing and operational difficulties sometimes resulted in potential donors being missed, or specific reasons for exclusion not being reported (117 exclusions). These out numbered exclusions due to patient refusal (80 exclusions). A small number (< 5) appear to have been excluded erroneously. There was considerable local variation in the reasons given for exclusion and certainly under-reporting. A survey of donations discarded after collection in the same period highlighted that 43% were donor related; 110 of 370 did not provide a follow-up blood sample. More than 30% were due to delays in forwarding blood samples to the microbiological laboratory for testing, resulting in deterioration of the sample quality. Training to ensure that standards are complied with and a firm evidence base for exclusion criteria, applied uniformly, will help focus donor identification efforts on individuals meeting rational criteria so that fewer potential donations are lost.