ArticleCell and tissue banking2026
Ensuring sustainable availability of frozen bone allografts: experiences and lessons from a university hospital bone bank.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
University hospital bone banks are vital to tissue transplantation, providing safe bone allografts for surgical procedures. The bone bank at Universiti Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) initially sourced femoral heads and knee slices from living donors, which were radiation-sterilized and frozen for internal orthopaedic surgeries. In 2015, through collaboration with the Ministry of Health, the bank obtained long bones from deceased donors. A 10-year retrospective analysis (2013-2022) evaluated the bank's nationwide distribution, which totalled 661 frozen bone allografts across 384 despatch batches. The supply comprised 505 femoral heads and 61 knee slices from living donors, alongside 95 deceased-donor long bones. These allografts were supplied to 57 healthcare facilities: two internal UMMC wings (public and private), 2 university hospitals, 32 government hospitals, and 22 private medical centres. To accommodate rising demand and optimize operations, the bank implemented targeted quality interventions during a remedial phase (2017-2018). Consequently, bone rejections plummeted from 50.8% during the verification phase (2013-2016) to 20.2% in the post-remedial phase (2019-2022). This significant reduction was driven by two major updates: A streamlined consent process that enhanced donor screening for surgeons, and a new bone donor kit with optimized nursing procedures improved collecting and handling bone and blood specimens. Implementing structured procedural interventions effectively mitigated tissue rejection rates and secured a steady supply of high-quality allografts. Furthermore, monitoring national transplantation data and feedback on graft quality served as an invaluable benchmark for continuous improvement in bone banking activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42806186What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.