4.6 Article

Allograft transplantation in the knee: Tissue regulation, procurement, processing, and sterilization

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 474-481

出版社

AMER ORTHOPAEDIC SOC SPORT MED
DOI: 10.1177/03635465030310032701

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Use of musculoskeletal allografts has become increasingly popular, with widespread use among knee surgeons. The advantages and disadvantages of their use have been documented. In the knee, allografts are used for ligament reconstruction, meniscal transplantation, and articular surface reconstruction. The purpose of this review is to present issues surrounding the allograft industry, including regulation of tissues and tissue banks and procurement, processing, sterilization, and storage of allograft tissue. Tissue bank regulation is ultimately under the jurisdiction and authority of the Food and Drug Administration; some individual states regulate tissue banks. The American Association of Tissue Banks is a scientific organization that encourages education, research, and voluntary accreditation of tissue banks. It promotes safety and standards for retrieval, processing, storage, and distribution of transplantable human tissue. Allograft tissues are generally harvested and processed aseptically, which may not prevent contamination. Tissue sterilization is difficult and controversial. Tissue banks historically have used one of two methods of sterilization, ethylene oxide or gamma radiation. Both methods have risks and benefits. Newer methods of sterilization are being developed. Allograft tissue that is not transplanted fresh can be freeze-dried or deep frozen for storage. Ultimately, allograft transplantation in the knee facilitates knee form and function and enhances the patient's quality of life. Orthopaedic surgeons who use allograft tissue must understand the tissue banking process to provide safe and effective tissues to their patients. (C) 2003 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据