Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:47 PM
2on2u (1,843 posts)
Skin Cell Gun (Graphic Photo of Burn Victim)
Hats off to this inventor, he deserves some sort of award for this idea and device, bless him.
17 replies, 3983 views
Skin Cell Gun (Graphic Photo of Burn Victim) (Original post)
|Tuesday Afternoon||Dec 2012||#1|
|Lucky Luciano||Dec 2012||#7|
|Baitball Blogger||Dec 2012||#9|
Response to 2on2u (Original post)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:40 PM
trotsky (42,236 posts)
12. Is the Skin Cell Gun real?
What Makes The Video Suspect?
Dramatic before-and-after National Geographic footage is shown. Or is it? Look again. Watch the video yourself and note the omission of published clinical evidence. The smooth skin of the single patient interviewed, Matthew Uram, depicts no evidence of scarring. The "before" image of second degree burns shows what the patient's "skin probably looked like before treatment." The healthy "after" footage of blemish-free skin reportedly depicts "what it looked like four days after it was sprayed with his own stem cells." The entire video is a dramatization.
Returning to the original question, Is the skin cell gun real? Apparently clinical research has been funded. There is an actual company developing the product, investigating and documenting protocols. Other companies have contributed research in the field of skin stem cells. However, this gun is not something available in every hospital or even every burn center. The video clip was a dramatization of various fields of stem cell research — a foregleam of future technologies. On the horizon, perhaps by 2016, other scientists hope to print skin using a modified inkjet printer filled with skin stem cells. Patiently I'll reserve enthusiasm for a more formal introduction of skin cell therapies into mainstream use.
Great work is being done in the area of stem cell research. But we should keep things realistic, too.
Response to trotsky (Reply #12)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:07 PM
eppur_se_muova (25,553 posts)
13. Actually, it says "this is what a second-degree burn looks like".
... so they're not claiming it's his burn at all. They have no "before" photos of this patient, which isn't all that surprising. Photographing patients is not routine, especially when doctors are being trying to save their lives. There's no real reason to suspect the "after" footage. The absence of scarring is, in fact, part of the claimed advantage of this procedure. Claiming the entire video is a dramatization is overstating the case, at minimum.
Author of this analysis just sounds grouchy.
Response to eppur_se_muova (Reply #13)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:36 PM
gkhouston (21,642 posts)
16. +1. I thought it was pretty clear in the video that this is still something they're trying out, as
opposed to an approved product on the shelf at every major ER. That it's reached the point of human trials and is doing so well is tremendously encouraging.
This sounds like early clinical trials, and there wouldn't be published literature on it if the first round of human trials hasn't even finished, unless they did a paper on animal studies.
Response to trotsky (Reply #12)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:40 PM
Warpy (89,069 posts)
14. "printing skin" is the step that might not be necessary, at all
if this research pans out. Simply scattering stem cells across an open wound would likely accomplish the same thing without the intermediary step.
They've been growing sheets of the patient's own skin for decades. Part of the problem is the time it takes to grow them. Another huge problem is the fragility of such sheets and getting them to the wound in a single unbroken sheet of new skin. Scarring is increased by leaving the wound open while waiting for new skin to grow in the lab.
I hope this isn't a hoax because it really should work and work well.