Adoption of Donor Screening Policy in a Tissue Bank at a Tertiary Hospital.
- Author:
Taek Soo KIM
1
;
Yun Ji HONG
;
Minje HAN
;
Sang Mee HWANG
;
Kyoung Un PARK
;
Junghan SONG
;
Kyou Sup HAN
Author Information
1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. m91w95@dreamwiz.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Mandatory testing;
Policy;
Tissue banks;
Tissue donors
- MeSH:
Adoption;
Bone and Bones;
Donor Selection;
Endemic Diseases;
Hepatitis B Surface Antigens;
Humans;
Immunoglobulin M;
Jurisprudence;
Living Donors;
Mandatory Testing;
Mass Screening;
Serologic Tests;
Social Control, Formal;
Tertiary Care Centers;
Tissue Banks;
Tissue Donors;
Transplants
- From:Korean Journal of Blood Transfusion
2013;24(2):140-146
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Tissues for transplantation can save lives or restore essential functions. According to national policies and regulations, access to suitable transplantation, as well as the level of safety, quality, efficacy of donation, and transplantation of tissues, differ significantly between countries. We reviewed a few guidelines on tissue banking from the aspect of screening tests. In addition, four-year experience with screening panels for donated bones and donors at a tertiary hospital is introduced. METHODS: Seven national and international guidelines for screening tests for donors and donated tissues were reviewed. At our institution, screening tests for donation involve two steps. At retrieval, the first screening panel, including ABO/Rh typing, unexpected antibody screening, VDRL, HBsAg, anti-HBs, anti-HBc IgM, anti-HCV, anti-HIV, and microbiological cultures was performed. The second screening panel, including the same tests, except culture studies, was performed after 90 days. From 2008 to 2011, a total of 245 retrievals of bone tissue were performed and the screening panel results were analyzed. RESULTS: Mandatory screening serologic tests for living donors can differ according to local law or regulation and/or screening for endemic diseases. At our institution, among 245 donated bones for a period of four years, 61 bone tissues were discarded due to noncompliance for the second screening (n=32), contamination or no culture study results (n=9), abnormal serologic test results (n=8), and so on. CONCLUSION: Donor screening policies for tissue banking are various according to national laws or endemic disease status. Second screening tests with consideration of the window period should be adopted.
