Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Needle Free Injections With Microjets

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:07 PM
from the very-star-trekkish dept.
IZ Reloaded writes "Do you hate needles? In the near future, the fear of needles would be a thing of a past. Bioengineering students at the University of California, Berkeley have developed the MicroJet. It uses an electronic actuator that could one day propel vaccinations, insulin or other drugs through the skin of the patient - without the device even touching the skin - with far less pain than a hypodermic needle."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by way2trivial (601132) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:10PM (#11991284) Homepage Journal
    here's one for sale
    http://diabetic-supplies.medical-supplies-equipmen t-company.com/product/PPF/ID/4200/new_prod_full.as p [medical-su...ompany.com]

    Medi-Jector Vision(tm)Needle-Free Insulin Injection System
    Accurate delivery of insulin injections from 2-50 units in 1 unit increments. Injector reusable for 3000 injections. No maintenance or cleaning required. Smaller, lighter weight and easier to use than previous models. Contains: injector, carrying case, training video, instruction manual, 2 Needle-Free Syringes (for easy and medium skin penetration) and 1 vial adaptor. Replacement Needle-Free Syringe kits sold separately.

    what's amazing here?

    • by mike5904 (831108) on Sunday March 20 2005, @05:53PM (#11993458)
      From TFA:
      "The researchers modified a traditional syringe by taking out the needle and adding a tiny piezoelectric actuator that propels the liquid out of the tube. The actuator expands or contracts in response to an applied voltage. Because the MicroJet's source of power is electrical rather than mechanical, its range of control is continuous, allowing a far higher level of customization than the jet injectors used today."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:10PM (#11991286)
    And they've had "needle-less" injectors around for a long while, however the current ones are expensive and rather inaccurate at dosing when compared to needles.

    However, I must say I really don't care if they come out with a needle-less injector that works better. It's not the shots themselves that bother me, but rather the constant maintenance that people take for granted. I'd still need to do something. Right now I have a pump, and it's better than doing individual injections, but it's always with me. I'm waiting for the day when I no longer have to worry about this disease any longer because I've been cured.
    • Thanks to advances in needles, there are insulin injection methods even for those of us that don't pump that are basically painless.

      You probably already know this but many other /.ers don't, but modern insulin needles (at least name-brand ones, if your pharmacy tries to sub in generics you're screwed) are TINY. The Becton Dickinson Ultra-Fine II/III series have almost invisible needles that are short and VERY thin. I rarely ever feel them. (Occasionally I hit a nerve directly - ouch. But most of the time they're not felt at all.)

      Bloodsugar tests are a different story. My fingers are slightly callused from all the pinpricks - There are no real painless and definately no viable noninvasive bloodsugar monitoring techniques. Noninvasive bloodsugar monitoring is probably the second biggest Holy Grail in diabetes research (the biggest being an actual cure). The "alternative site testing" advertised by many modern meter manufacturers is highly overrated. If you read the manual of such meters you'll find that alternative site testing is inaccurate and gives a delayed reading and should not be used in many situations. (Of the 5-6 tests per day I run, only one is in conditions where AST is fine. And for that one test it's not worth changing lancet device heads.)

      The thing I want most as a diabetic right now though is not painless/easier insulin injections (my NovoPen Junior with B-D Ultra-Fine III needles is both painless and convenient), or noninvasive testing (fingersticks are annoying but I'm used to it), it's CHEAP diabetes supplies. Bloodsugar meter test strips run on the order of $0.50-$1 per test. Insulin prices are skyrocketing. You're basically screwed unless you have a high-end medical insurance plan, which is TOUGH when you're a grad student.

      But eventually, an actual cure would be damned nice.
      • The only problem with the Edmonton Protocol is that it requires the patient to continually take immune-suppresing drugs to prevent rejection of the islet transplants.

        Here is a company [cercomed.com] that is working on a similar procedure that will not require the use of immune suppressing drugs. Much closer to a true cure. Though they have not yet perfected their technology, it looks very promising.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:10PM (#11991289)
    Hypospray, anyone?
  • Jetgun (Score:2, Interesting)

    Sounds similar to the jetgun [hcvets.com] the military use to use. Does anyone know the difference?
    • Ideally, it won't make you want to chew your own arm off in a desperate attempt to end the pain. If they can solve that minor issue, this might be a good thing.
    • Re:Jetgun (Score:5, Interesting)

      Sounds similar to the jetgun the military use to use. Does anyone know the difference?

      Well, they're promising "far less pain" with this device.

      Once upon a time, I had the misfortune to receive a yellow fever vaccination with one of the military's needleless injectors. It felt like some steroid-pumped baseball player had swung a bat at my shoulder. Nearly as bad as the pain was the gathering anticipation of the pain, as I watched the 200-odd people in line ahead of me get their shots.
        • Re:Jetgun (Score:4, Funny)

          by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Sunday March 20 2005, @01:01PM (#11991625) Homepage Journal
          For some reason, I still have a bright blue dot at the point of one of my vaccinations. Of course, maybe that's just the corner of the GPS/mind-control chip they embedded in me.
          • Re:Jetgun (Score:4, Funny)

            by Spoing (152917) on Sunday March 20 2005, @01:10PM (#11991673) Homepage
            1. For some reason, I still have a bright blue dot at the point of one of my vaccinations. Of course, maybe that's just the corner of the GPS/mind-control chip they embedded in me.

            Hmmmm. Seems like 1/2 of it is malfunctioning. Stay right there, I'll be right over!

          • Yes. That's ok in the military, where the jet gun is part of the indoctrination into doing exactly as you're told, without question, or you will be in a world of hurt.

            But out in the real world, if you tell someone "if you even flinch, you will need stiches" and people will not accept it.
  • So, will we get Tricorders with these?
  • by Emugamer (143719) * on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:11PM (#11991298) Homepage Journal
    Someone got his blog pointed at slashdot, while I love the subject, its 4 days old, been on blogs for 3 days and a poor cut and paste job from the original Press release.http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release s/2005/03/16_microjet.shtml [berkeley.edu]
    Read the press release, its better :)
  • The first? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ImTwoSlick (723185) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:11PM (#11991303)
    I have distinct memories of getting shots in basic training, where a needleless gun was used. How is this any different?

    And trust me.. It is not exactly pain-free.

    • Re:The first? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BobSutan (467781) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:30PM (#11991436)
      I'm right there with you. I had about a half dozen "shots" with that thing in one day. Pain-free is not something we associated with it. And that's not counting the folks who were cut because either they or the tech's hand were moving when they did the injection. IIRC a couple of people ended up with stiches.
  • by Faust7 (314817) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:12PM (#11991310) Homepage
    While they have not yet started tests on humans, the researchers said the range of the injector is well beyond what would be needed to deliver drugs through human skin.

    So for God's sake, ask the nurse to check the settings before she pulls the trigger.
  • these have been around for insulin injections for years.. though not manufactored on a large scale.. here's a modern distributor [healthchecksystems.com], and here's an article [thepigsite.com]about tests on pigs in sept of 2004 that went well.
  • So it's still going to hurt? (Yes I'm a wimp)
  • I remember getting vaccinated in the 1960's (yes, I'm that old) and they used some sort of air gun that shot the vaccination through the skin.

    That thing HURT!
  • I was reading an article a few years ago about how they are going to try reducing the surface area with nerves with syringes by putting tiny hair-like fibres along it, similar to a mosquito's proboscis (which can't be felt by most people).
    I have yet to see them use that idea, and if you ask me that sounded a lot more cost effective then this does.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:15PM (#11991339)
    For some drugs, like those that should diffuse into the body slowly over time, transdermal diffusion devices already exist right now. A prime example of those is the nicotine patch, and I hear there are patches for diabetes too.

    As for lots of micro-needles vs. one big needle, it might not be all that new: I seem to recall getting some vaccine shot at school when I was a kid, where the nurse used some ring-looking plastic thing she put on her middle finger, with the business end of the device being a small, round "nail-bed" in her palm, and she slammed me on the shoulder with it, which probably accounts for the ugly mark I have there at that spot too :-)
  • by binarybum (468664) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:16PM (#11991344) Homepage
    hopefully someone will link or replace this article link - it's awful!

    "The researchers even joke that the MicroJet injector could be used to make getting tattoos much more bearable."

    heh heh heh.... wait.. that's not a funny joke at all.

    and the article fails to address the issue that this technology could become so painless that you do not even realize that you are receiving drugs. This becomes very scary.
    • "The researchers even joke that the MicroJet injector could be used to make getting tattoos much more bearable."

      One of the most attractive aspects of getting a tattoo is that it hurts. It means that not everyone can stand to have it done and that if you have a big tattoo (as I do) that says a lot. I don't want some Blink 182/Lit/Linkin Park loving wuss (anyone else notice that all these bands are from affluent white neighbourhoods?) ruining that.

  • by Emugamer (143719) * on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:18PM (#11991359) Homepage Journal
    a good page to take a look at is http://www.cdc.gov/nip/dev/jetinject.htm [cdc.gov] Its the CDC's index to the technology and hasa lot of useful information
  • I look forward to serving our micro-jet overlords...
  • by canwaf (240401) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:21PM (#11991376) Homepage Journal
    Jet injectors have been around since 1940. They were designed to inoculate in Africa, but they kept on jamming because of dust and sand. It was tossed aside for a 3 pronged fork-like needle which you just stabbed someone a couple of times, or scratched them to vaccinate them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_injector
  • Heroin (Score:5, Funny)

    by yotto (590067) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:22PM (#11991388) Homepage
    Finally, the last barrier to my upcoming heroin addiction (Fear of needles) has been overcome!
  • Its not the needle (Score:5, Informative)

    by dracken (453199) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:32PM (#11991446) Homepage
    Most people dont realize that the needle itself doesnt sting much. Its the medicine. Some medicines when they come into contact with the flesh inside, sting like crazy. Others dont.

    -Dracken
    • No, for me, it's the needle. I have an INTENSE fear of needles.

      When I was younger, my mom got something (hepatitis maybe?), so they had to test the family. I was about 5 at the time. I go in and they attempt to draw blood from me. They couldn't find the vein. So what do they do? They keep trying. I ended up being pricked about 15 times in each arm, til my mom stopped it. Those fucking idiots scarred me for life by doing that and now I can't stand to be near needles. Whenever I need to have shots, I need to
      • Right... until the first time you encounter another idiot handling one of these things. In the hands of an unskilled operator, they don't just prick you, they SLICE YOU OPEN. I've seen it happen.
      • by xanthines-R-yummy (635710) on Sunday March 20 2005, @01:46PM (#11991908) Homepage Journal
        The tetanus shot (or vaccine to be more accurate) contains something called an adjuvant that actually irritates the area where you receive the injection. This is to promote immunological activity to increase the effiacy of the shot. I took part in an experimental trial where they gave tetanus shots without the adjuvant and my arm didn't hurt at all.
  • by pg110404 (836120) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:39PM (#11991487)
    NURSE: doctor, you're hitting the bone
    DOCTOR: Oh so I am. It does make a lovely scraping sound though.
  • Cute nurse (Score:3, Funny)

    by karvind (833059) <karvind AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:41PM (#11991505) Journal
    As long as they are not replacing the cute nurse ...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:45PM (#11991531)
    I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis four years ago (at the age of 22). Then, the best treatment available was Avonex, which is given intramuscularly once a week. The needle is about 26 gauge and 1 1/4" long. With that needle, the pain was mostly psychological. There is nothing natural about stabbing yourself with a long, sharp object.

    In fact, up until about a century ago, sharp objects piercing into your body has generally been a detrimental event. It meant that you were being bitten (with poison or germs getting injected past your outer layer defenses) or you were getting punctured by something that would result in an infection. So everything about your physical makeup and your psychology is evolved to consider injections to be a bad thing. In a twist of events, now it turns out that shard objects getting jabbed into your body is mostly a beneficial thing. But it will take a long time for evolution to change our aversion to injections. And with new technologies, it may not even be necessary for that adaptation to occur. I certainly hope this becomes the case in the *very* near future. :-)

    The nerves on the surface of your skin tend to cluster. So, the amount of pain related to the actual puncture of the skin varies greatly, depending on whether or not you happen to hit one of those nerve clusters. Sometimes the penetration of the skin would result in a strong pinching sensation; other times, I would not feel anything at all. For the intramuscular injections, it is also possible that you will hit another nerve on your way into the muscle tissue. That usually just results in a reflex reaction (you jump or twitch). The act of the actual injection is painless, since the solution is injected far below the surface pain receptors. But then you tend to get long-term dull pain similar to a charly horse; it's like a blunt end of a stick whacked you in the thigh and you have a nice bruise in your muscle. And $deity help you if you happen to hit your bone with the tip of the needle.

    About a year ago, I switched therapies to Rebif, which is given subcutaneously three times a week. The needle is a smaller gauge and is signifianctly shorter (~1.5cm). It is unintuitive, but the subcutaneous injections, even though the needle is shorter and thinner, are much more painful than the IM injections, because the solution is injected just below the surface of the skin, where you have a lot more pain receptors. So it's not the needle really that I worry about. I hardly even feel that any more; it's the stinging sensation from the liquid getting pushed into the subcutaneous tissue just below the skin.

    I use a spring-loaded injection contraption that hides the needle from my view entirely; I just hold the casing to my skin and push a button. The spring-loaded plunger pushes the needle in and presses the plunger of the syringe down to inject the medicine. I don't even worry about the needle any more; I worry about the sting with the liquid getting pushed under my skin and the subsequent itchy and burning red blotch that stays in that area for weeks afterward. So in my case, at least, the needle is a non-issue; this needle-less technology is neat, but it will not help with the pain associated with liquid getting pushed under my skin, and it will not help with the site reaction.

    Wake me up when they figure out how to effectively administrate interferon-beta with a pill.
  • Taking Blood (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Sunday March 20 2005, @01:22PM (#11991757)

    I never minded a needle being popped in emptied and being subtracted. As mentioned here it seems a good thing to eliminate the need of needles for that. But as the "recipient" it doesn't make much of a difference it seems.

    Now, when they bypass the need sticking a needle in one's vein to tap off blood for analys I'll be cheering! That is just so uncomfortable.

  • by forevermore (582201) on Sunday March 20 2005, @01:33PM (#11991832) Homepage
    Jet-based injections are nothing new. I know a number of people who got some sort of vaccination in the 70's this way, and it left a nasty 3/4" (or so) scar on your arm. Wasn't that bad the first time, but what about when you go back for your 3rd installment of Hep A/B shots, or that 10th annual flu shot?

    Unfortunately, I see nothing in the article that even mentions the issue of scarring, which imho should be a pretty big deal.

  • by BobaFett (93158) on Sunday March 20 2005, @03:39PM (#11992575) Homepage
    I remember when I was a kid growing up in the Soviet Union, we had yearly tuberculosis tests. Some years they were given not with a syringe but with a device about the size of hand-held bycicle pump: the nurse would "pump" it once, i.e. pull the top half and press it back into the bottom half, this armed some spring which was enough for several shots. The device was placed on the skin but it had no needle, it made a hiss and fired a jet of liquid into the skin. Did not penetrate very far, just under the skin. When I first saw it, it was way cool. But that was about 25 years ago.
    • Re:AIDS (Score:3, Insightful)

      What happens when some crazy guy with AIDS starts shooting his blood at people and infecting them?

      Good point. I really hope there needs be some proximity while 'injecting'. In that case it wouldn't really be different from an HIV patient attacking you with a needle.
    • by Ayaress (662020) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:17PM (#11991345) Journal
      It'll probably only work with injections that go into tissue instead of veins. Accuraccy doesn't matter as much with them, so close enough out to be fine. Also, didn't they already do this some years back? I remember seeing pictures of devices that looked uncomfortably like a pneumatic nail gun that could inject medicine through the skin with pressurized air. Is this just a less sinister-looking version, or did the old one have a habit of giving people embolisms or something?
      • by johnny cashed (590023) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:20PM (#11991372) Homepage
        I got vaccinated with an "air gun" back in the day. it hurts, probably as much as a needle. But you can do a whole group of people quickly, 'cause you don't need to change needles.
        • Such a device was used in the military. At boot camp one of these "air gun" devices was used to inoculate all the recruits:

          Swab, *thwop*, swab, *thwop*, etc. about 3-5 seconds per person.

          Key thing is not to flinch or move when they pull the trigger. If you do, the jet of vaccine works just like a water-cutter on skin.
      • by Ayaress (662020) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:23PM (#11991391) Journal
        Found a picture of one. It's not the one I've seen before, but it was used by the US military back in the 70's, called a Pet-o-Jet [hcvets.com]. There have also been a lot of patents [hcvets.com] on them going back into the 50's.
        • by B'Trey (111263) on Sunday March 20 2005, @12:49PM (#11991562)
          It was used a lot later than the '70s. I joined the Navy in 1985 and I received a number of innoculations using these. I can't say for certain but organic ram suggests it continued until the mid '90s.

          They weren't any less painful than a needle, but they were much quicker and they were foolproof. Literally anybody could use one. You just put it against the arm and pull the trigger.

          I believe they were discontinued because of safety reasons. I believe they found out that there was a possibility of microdrops of blood being blasted back out of the skin, and then injected into the next person.
    • I hate wasting oxy....

      You should try that Proactiv then. Apparently from the infomercials, Vanessa Williams was hideous before using Proactive Solution.

      Vanessa Williams:

      "Having acne is a drag. You're self-conscious; it's embarrassing. You just want to be normal. I know how it feels. I started breaking out when I was about sixteen, and that's a tough enough age without a face full of pimples. Acne doesn't care how old you are; even in my thirties I was still breaking out and in my business, that's unac