Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Sep;27(5):e12600.
doi: 10.1111/xen.12600. Epub 2020 May 5.

Bone xenotransplantation: A review of the history, orthopedic clinical literature, and a single-center case series

Daniel N Bracey  1 , Natalie E Cignetti  1 , Alexander H Jinnah  1 , Austin V Stone  2 , Bettina M Gyr  3 , Patrick W Whitlock  4 , Aaron T Scott  1
Affiliations
Review

Bone xenotransplantation: A review of the history, orthopedic clinical literature, and a single-center case series

Daniel N Bracey et al. Xenotransplantation. 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Background: One-half of all orthopedic surgeries require bone grafting for successful outcomes in fusions, reconstructive procedures, and the treatment of osseous defects resulting from trauma, tumor, infection, or congenital deformity. Autologous bone grafts are taken from the patient's own body and remain the "gold standard" graft choice but are limited in supply and impart significant patient morbidity. Xenograft bone is an attractive alternative from donors with controlled biology, in large supply and at a theoretically lower cost. Clinical results with xenograft bone for orthopedic applications have been mixed in the limited clinical trials published.

Methods: In the current review, we introduce fundamental principles of bone grafting, systematically review all orthopedic clinical studies reporting outcomes on patients transplanted with xenograft bone, and we present our own clinical results from patients grafted with bovine bone in foot and ankle reconstructive procedures.

Results: Thirty-one clinical studies were identified for review and the majority (47%) were from spine surgery literature. Favorable results were reported in 44% of studies while 47% of studies reported poor outcomes and discouraged use of xenograft bone products. In our own clinical series, xenograft failed to integrate with host bone in 58% of cases and persistent pain was reported in 83% of cases.

Conclusions: This is the first systematic review of clinical results reported after bone xenotransplantation for orthopaedic surgery applications. Current literature does not support the use of xenograft bone products and our institution's results are consistent with this conclusion. Our laboratory has reported promising pre-clinical results with a xenograft product derived from porcine cancellous bone, but additional testing is required before considering clinical translation.

Keywords: alpha-gal; bone graft; bone scaffold; bovine; xenograft; xenotransplantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. CDC. Number of all-listed procedures from discharges from short-stay hospitals by procedure category and age: United States. 2009.
    1. Calori GM, Mazza E, Colombo M, Ripamonti C. The use of bone-graft substitutes in large bone defects: any specific needs? Injury. 2011;42(Suppl 2):S56-63.
    1. Campana V, Milano G, Pagano E, et al. Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci. 2014;25(10):2445-2461.
    1. Jahangir AA. Bone-graft substitutes in orthopaedic surgery. AAOS Now. 2008;2:35-37.
    1. Amini AR, Adams DJ, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP. Optimally porous and biomechanically compatible scaffolds for large-area bone regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A. 2012;18:1376-1388.

LinkOut - more resources