Air Force Treating Wounds With Lasers and Nanotech 92
An anonymous reader passes along a piece up on Wired's Danger Room about advanced medical tech that's being used in the military, but is not available generally due to the lack of FDA approval. "Forget stitches and old-school sutures. The Air Force is funding scientists who are using nanotechnology and lasers to seal up wounds at a molecular level. It might sound like Star Trek tech, but it's actually the latest in a series of ambitious Pentagon efforts to create faster, more effective methods of treating war-zone injuries. ... Instead of being sealed up with a needle and thread, a patient's wound would be coated in a dye, then exposed to green light for 2-3 minutes. The dye absorbs the light and catalyzes molecular bonds between the tissue's collagen. The bonds instantly create a seal that's watertight, which prevents inflammation or risk of infection, and speeds up the formation of scar tissue."
TNG (Score:2)
yes, it was. RTFA
Re: (Score:1)
Amazing! (Score:2)
Pretty soon, you'll be able to play Crysis without a computer!
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent, because I'm not able to play Crysis WITH a computer.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible that they can use this system to repair underwater wires that transmit internet data.
Wait, what!?
The systems referenced in this article promote the clotting of blood and creation of scar tissue to speed the natural healing process of a body. Last time I checked, those are mechanisms that aren't present in undersea cables.
Re: (Score:1)
They could use it to FIX THE OIL SPILL!
quick somebody get me the president on the phone!
Re: (Score:1)
intro disclaimer: "This is a work of fiction - any resemblance to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental".
PURELY COINCIDENTAL!
QuikClot (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like a fancy-scmancy version of Quikclot, the powder you can pour on a wound to form an instant clot.
Not only is it widely used, you can buy it for your own first aid kit from Amazon and others.
Re:QuikClot (Score:5, Insightful)
this sounds better than quick-clot (which is probably still the first-step treatment) in that it cauterizes and dis-infects. Qick-clot isn't a "permanent" treatment, and it doesn't replace stitches/staples/glue
Re:QuikClot (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's great for military use because a soldier typically becomes wounded and incapacitated during combat. Spending precious time to stop the bleeding isn't an option when you have automatic gunfire streaming overhead and mortars falling around you.
When you receive an injury in a non-combat environment(camping, hiking, or hunti
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I'd say it's similar generally, but significantly better.
All you do here is dope the wound with some pigment to enhance the excitation of collagen bonding in the wound itself; in a sense you're taking the mechanism of wound-healing, and simply speeding it up.
Quik-clot, a great tool by the way, adds EXTERNAL substance(s) that promote quick clotting. Sure in the former you're adding a pink dye, but the amount of external (ie possibly rejection-inducing and complication-causing) material is substantially
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The consumer version is supposed to have less risk of clot and burn. I wonder if there's a reason why they issue you a more powerful/dangerous version.
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Superglue is too fast now?
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with superglue/dermabond is that it is a bit toxic and is only really suitable for surface application. This new method looks like it is for internal use on deeper wounds.
Is this necessary? (Score:1)
Like the article says, these techniques are for superficial wounds. Is that really something our military is having a problem with? I think the military should be a little more concerned with critical injuries than lacerations that can be closed with superglue. Maybe it's a bigger problem than I realize?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, those soldiers that complain of superficial wounds are just pussies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a flesh wound!
'Tis not! Your arm's off!
Re:Is this necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can, with the right technology, make it so that anybody who can handle a syringe full of glue, basic aseptic technique, and a flashlight can swiftly close superficial wounds, you can probably reduce the mean-time-to-treatment for the lightly to moderately wounded, reduce the number of gross, scar-tastic rushed suture jobs, and preserve the time and attention of the most skilled medics for the more serious injuries.
Assuming the light source can be shrunk and hardened(which given the impressive performance of modern solid state lighting and diode lasers is a definite possibility), you could probably get the whole system down to something that consists of a funny looking flashlight and some disposable tubes of glue, suitable for forward operating use by anybody who has had cursory training...
Re:Is this necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Remember that an injured soldier typically takes three soldiers to remove him/her, whereas a dead soldier takes one. Injured soldiers are a real drain on tactical effectiveness, unless one accepts the premise that it is best to just let them die or "put them out of their misery" so the mission can continue with the least loss of effectiveness. I submit that that may be tactically effective, but (a) unacceptably brutal, and (b) strategically ineffective unless one can sustain a war of attrition.
Rapid treatment not only saves lives (and provides a soldier to live to fight another day), but helps minimize the "expense" of triage and evac.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why "assault rifles" are so puny. (Score:2)
Remember that an injured soldier typically takes three soldiers to remove him/her, whereas a dead soldier takes one. Injured soldiers are a real drain on tactical effectiveness, ...
This is one of the main reasons that military weapons are designed to wound rather than kill. (Another being that, once the war is over, it's nice to have patched up as many as possible of the enemy wounded and thus have fewer killed and fewer grieving families pushing for future unfriendly relations between the countries or run
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the main reasons that military weapons are designed to wound rather than kill.
Wounding may be more likely due to the choice of smaller fmj rounds for assault rifles, but they were not designed specifically to be less than lethal. The vast majority of military weapons are clearly designed for killing not wounding, and weapons designed for such are prohibited by convention. A hollowpoint of the same caliber may be more likely to kill, but they are banned for every caliber because they cause
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. When I was a medic, the vast majority of wounds I treated were superficial. And, as you say, the demands of triage are such that in combat, soldiers with "superficial" wounds which are still painful and debilitating enough to take them off the line can wait a long time for treatment.
And when I was an infantryman, I learned that even when people aren't actively trying to kill you, just being in the field is enough to generate a constant low-level stream of injuries. Crawling around in rocks and brush
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you just leave the army?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that with their superficial wounds safely closed they are pretty much immediately fit for full duty. Soldiers who have to keep stitches dry are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Read your military history. Up until very, very recently, the vast majority of war deaths were due to infections and disease. During the Civil War, disease and infection caused something like 2/3 of the casualites. I believe it was the Vietnam War where, for the first time, battlefield injuries caused more deaths than disease, mostly due to 1) dedicated civil engineering and sanitation teams, and 2) rapid evacuation by helicopter.
So yes, "minor" wounds are something the military takes very seriously. Wh
Bad Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Before there are rants on the unapproved use of medical procedures on the troops, as suggested by the summary, read the article. It states they are only doing clinical trials, and mention the difficulty in getting FDA approval.
Re:Bad Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's the possibility of damaging DNA that would be trouble
Risk/reward. What if there's a .00000001 chance of getting a melanoma from it? How does that stack up to post-surgical infection risk?
We're pretty good at DNA repair. Humans can take a 3 Rem exposure without much change in outcomes. Diet Coke contains mitochondrial DNA mutagens.
Given the choice at my local hospital, I'd take the chance and not have a big scar. My existing scar tissue has more problems than normal skin, so there are other risks d
Frickin Lasers (Score:2)
Shark troops! Heh heh heh.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shark medics" more likely, though I predict a conflict of interest between their Hippocratic Oath and their stomachs...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The future is awesome (Score:3)
and I love living in it...now where is my anti-aging pill?
Re:The future is awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no anti-aging pill (except maybe more Vitamin D than you're probably getting).
There is, though, an aging pill. It's called a "donut."
Re: (Score:2)
There is no anti-aging pill
Wrong. It is called Viagra.
Re:The future is awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
except maybe more Vitamin D than you're probably getting
Recently discovered this myself.
Had some lab work done not too long ago... Turns out I've got almost no Vitamin D in me. "trace amounts" is what the Doctor said. He was horrified and put me on some supplements pretty quickly. Told me to get outside in the sun, eat better, etc.
I had no idea just how many horrible things can happen when you're low on Vitamin D.
And, according to my doctor, just about everyone is deficient to one degree or another. And it's especially bad around here in the winter (less sunlight and people don't like to go out in the cold).
Amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But try not to point it at your anus. (Score:2)
Protoplasers. Party drugs. NEVER mix!
Re: (Score:2)
Cauterization?
This doesn't require actually burning the tissue.
Re:How is this different than (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Christ, that was more insightful than either the first post or this post, and remarkably concise. Nice work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong. That sounds like it's cauterization, but of a significantly smaller amount of flesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it does.
Hot piece of metal -> rose bengal
Scale: molecular level
Still, energy (ie, heat) is being transferred from the media to the wound.
Re:How is this different than (Score:4, Informative)
The nature of the reactions, despite 'application of energy', is quite different; the energy involved is also on vastly different scales.
Cauterization involves application of heat, burning the tissues (killing the tissues) and denaturating the proteins (completely wrecking their structure), causing them to precipitate out of solution and clump together, plugging things up (plugging up bleeding blood vessels, and also causing blood to clot around the plugs, being a side effect of it). Lots of heat energy, sufficient to burn flesh. Usually done with a fair bit more precision these days of course.
This technique, on the other hand, is quite similar to one which I use from time to time for disinfection of periodontal pockets around teeth... application of a dye (in my case, toluidine blue) which binds to the bacteria, and then activation of the dye with the appropriate frequency of light which is matched to the absorption spectrum of the dye (sorry, not at the office so can't look up the specs), generating free radicals which react with bacterial components and ultimately killing the bacteria. The energy involved is literally that of the photon of the proper wavelength which knocks the electron out of the dye when the dye absorbs it... multiplied many times of course. Without the matched dye to absorb the light though, the light won't be doing a heck of a lot of useful work... sure it'll be absorbed by other molecules, which does heat them up somewhat, but nowhere near the level of heat used in cauterization.
In this situation, the dye is Rose Bengal, which likely has an affinity for collagen. Activation of the dye causes the collagen molecules to form bonds with one another, cross-linking them. Essentially, it turns the existing collagen where it is applied into the 'glue' to hold the wound together. No destruction of living tissue as cautery would (whether tissues die from other factors with the injury, such as insufficient blood supply, are a different story), and also much less of a mess of various byproducts left behind afterwards as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, now I actually have a clue about what is going on! Thanks!
I need to go look up free radicals again. No matter how often I look into that, I keep forgetting it. Odd.
Re: (Score:2)
Cauterization leaves a no-longer bleeding open wound with dead tissue in it. This glues the tissue back together neatly.
Nanotech? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Finally! (Score:2)
The REAL question..What episode was that? (Score:2)
Who else mentally flashed to the episode of TNG?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was the one where the crew was being abducted by sub-space aliens and experimented on...
Re: (Score:2)
A very long instant (Score:2)
The nanotechnology bots better not run out of powe (Score:2)
The nanotechnology bots better not run out of power in side of the body. At least we have code fixed now.
Backwards (Score:2)
I'm not a doctor but it seems to me that for many years the idea of slowing healing to prevent scar tissue formation has been in play. Now they want to generate more scar tissue through faster healing.
Anyone who has ever been around a patient who is having facial tissue restored knows the odor of the acetic acid that is soaked into the bandages to prevent rapid healing,
I think "scar tissue" may be the newsie's word. (Score:2)
I suspect the "scar tissue" bit was from the news article author rather than the researchers. As I understand it (and I'm not a medical type either), quickly cleaning a wound and gluing it shut will lead to minimal scar tissue formation.
Unless the free radicals from the activated die destroy too many of the growth factors from t
Re: (Score:2)
They mention a special light source. Is this a UV acrylic chemistry?
Same idea but using a die that produces the triggering catalytic chemical event when activated by a particular narrow band of GREEN light.
Re: (Score:2)
Most white fillings placed these days are a composite, the resin part typically being something such as Bis-GMA, the 'MA' being 'methacrylate', the chemistry behind it being acrylic chemistry which allows for the polymerization of the individual molecules together. Look up 'acryl' or 'acrylic acid'... same basic end group, but the properties of whatever you end up with vary greatly with what you attach to it.
The light activation itself is not of the Bis-GMA though, but a separate photoinitiator, commonly c
Not just for the military... (Score:1)
I think i saw that movie (Score:2)
Isn't that the one where Jason gets an upgrade?