Advertisement

The Role of Histocompatibility in Bone Allografting

  • V. M. Goldberg
  • A. Powell
  • J. W. Shaffer
  • J. Zika
  • S. Stevenson
  • D. Davy
  • K. Heiple
Conference paper

Abstract

Clinical and experimental studies of large nonvascular osteochondral allografts and autografts suggest that they ultimately fail because of incomplete and inadequate revascularization and mineralization [4, 10, 15, 20]. It has been shown that bone allografts elicit an immune response by the host [2, 7, 12, 19] Immune responses to fresh cancellous allografts are greater than to cortical bone and greater than to frozen or freeze-dried bone [7]. However, there still is controversy concerning the role of the immune system and the ultimate clinical outcome of bone allografts [10]. Since bone conforms to transplantation biology it would appear logical that transplantation antigens (histocompatibility) are important determinants of the success or failure of bone allografting.

Keywords

Prussian Blue Bone Allograft Osteochondral Allograft Vascularized Bone Graft Vascularized Fibular Graft 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berggren A, Weiland A, Dorfman J (1982) Free vascularized bone grafts: factors affecting their survival and ability to heal to recipient bone defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 69: 19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonfiglio M, Jeter WS, Smith CL (1955) The immune concept: its relation to bone transplantation. Ann NY Acad Sci 59: 417–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bos GD, Goldberg VM, Powell E, Heiple KG, Zika JM (1983) The effect of histocompatibility matching on canine frozen bone allografts. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 65A (1): 89–96Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burwell RG (1976) The fate of freeze-dried bone allografts. Transplant Proc 8 [Suppl 1]: 95–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dausset J, Rapaport FT, Cannon FD, Ferrebee JW (1971) Histocompatibility studies in a closely bred colony of dogs. III. Genetic definition of the DL-A system of canine histocompatibility with particular reference to the comparative immunogenicity of the major transplantable organs. J Exp Med 134: 1222–1237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doi K, Tominaga S, Shibata T (1977) Bone grafts with microvascular anastomoses of vascular pedicles. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 59A: 809–815Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedlaender G, Strong D, Sell K (1976) Studies on the antigenicity of bone. I. Freeze-dried and deep-frozen bone allografts in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 58A: 854–858Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg VM, Porter BB, Lance EM (1980) Transplantation of the canine knee joint on a vascular pedicle. A preliminary study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] A62: 414–424Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg VM, Powell AE, Shaffer JW, Zika J, Bos GD, Heiple KG (1985) Bone grafting: role of histocompatibility in transplantation. J Orthop Res 3: 389–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mankin HJ, Gebhardt MC, TR, Tomford WW (1987) The use of frozen cadaveric allografts in the management of patients with bone tumors of the extremities. Orthop Clin North Am 18 (2): 275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore JR, Phillips TW, Weiland AJ, Randolph MA (1984) Allogeneic transplants of bone revascularized by microvascular anastomoses: a preliminary study. J Orthop Res 1: 352–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muscolo DL, Kawai S, Ray RD (1976) Cellular and humoral immune response analysis of bone-allografted rats. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 58A: 826–832Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muscolo DL, Caletti E, Schajowicz F, Araugo ES, Makino A (1987) Tissue-typing in human massive allografts of frozen bone. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 69A: 583–595Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Opelz G, Terasaki P (1973) Effect of blood group on relation between HLA match and outcome of cadaver kidney transplants. Lancet ii: 220Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parrish FF (1973) Allograft replacement of all or part of the end of a long bone following excision of a tumor. Report of twenty-one cases. J Bone Joint Surg 55: 1–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rapaport FT, Boyd AD, Spencer FD, Lower RR, Dausset J, Cannon FD, Ferrebee JW (1971) Histocompatibility studies in a closely bred colony of dogs II. Influence of the DL-A system of canine histocompatibility upon the survival of cardiac allografts. J Exp Med 133: 260–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rapaport FT, Hanaoka T, Shimada T, Cannon FD, Ferrebee JW (1970) Histocompatibility studies in a closely bred colony of dogs I. Influence of leukocyte group antigens upon renal allograft survival in the unmodified host. J Exp Med 131: 881–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reeves B (1968) Studies of vascularized homotransplants of the knee joint. In: Proceedings of the British Orthopaedic Association. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 50: 226Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevenson S (1987) The immune response to osteochondral allografts in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 69A: 573–582Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Volkov M (1970) Allotransplantation of joints. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 52B: 49–53Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiland A (1979) The clinical importance of immediately vascularized bone grafts in surgery of upper extremity. J Hand Surg [Am] 4: 129–144Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. M. Goldberg
    • 1
  • A. Powell
    • 1
  • J. W. Shaffer
    • 1
  • J. Zika
    • 1
  • S. Stevenson
    • 1
  • D. Davy
    • 1
  • K. Heiple
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Orthopedics and SurgeryCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations