Storing of stem cells through cord cells and preserving umbilical cord is being opted by many parents. But is there any merit to the practice? Dr Gaurav Kharya, director, centre for bone marrow transplant & cellular therapy, and senior consultant, paediatric hematology oncology & immunology, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, says: “While storing stem cells through cord cells has been promoted as a safeguard against future medical conditions, the practical utility of these cells remains limited. Despite the theoretical potential for treating various diseases, the actual instances of cord blood stem cells being used in clinical treatments are relatively rare. Over the past five years, there has been minimal evidence to support widespread use in clinical practice.”

Usage and viability of stored cord cells

Cord blood stem cells can be used in the treatment of certain blood disorders, immune deficiencies, and some metabolic diseases. They can be transplanted to regenerate healthy blood and immune systems. 

However, the range of conditions treatable with cord blood is narrow, and alternative treatments are often preferred. The viability of stored stem cells is generally preserved for 15-20 years when properly cryopreserved, but long-term efficacy remains uncertain.

Deterrents beyond high costs

Aside from the high costs associated with cord blood banking, several other factors can deter its use:

Contamination risk: There is a potential risk of contamination during the collection, processing, or storage stages, which can compromise the quality and safety of the stem cells.

Limited utility: The restricted range of diseases that can be treated with cord blood, coupled with the availability of other more established treatments, reduces its practical value. 

Regulatory and ethical concerns: Ethical considerations around the use of stored stem cells and varying regulatory standards can also hinder widespread adoption and use. In summary, while the concept of storing stem cells through cord cells offers theoretical promise, the practical utility has proven to be limited. Clinically, there have been few instances of significant use in recent years, and the high costs, contamination risks, and limited scope of treatable conditions further diminish its practicality.