Slashdot Mirror


Successful Stem Cell Replacement of Windpipe

thepacketmaster writes "In what is being hailed as a medical milestone, CNN reports a woman suffering from long-term tuberculosis had her lower trachea and bronchial tube replaced by tissue grown from her own stem cells. A team from the universities of Barcelona, Spain; Bristol, England; and Padua and Milan, Italy, decided to go ahead with the surgery instead of having to remove her left lung. The operation, reported Wednesday in the British medical journal The Lancet, has been hailed as a major leap for medicine that could offer new hope for patients suffering from serious illness."

11 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. !embryonic by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just feel like I should point this out before someone decides to go on a rant about embryonic SC.

    1. Re:!embryonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's nothing morally questionable about using embryonic stem cells, and just because it upsets certain people doesn't make it so.

    2. Re:!embryonic by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humm. So you decide what is moral and not for the planet?
      Interesting.....

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:!embryonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you believe that a dozen undifferentiated cells constitute a human being, that's your problem.

    4. Re:!embryonic by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      which makes a reasonable argument against doing something morally questionable and that upsets lots of people, if you can get the same or better resaults without it.

      For specific areas where adult stem cells make sense and indeed have advantages that hardly needs saying.

      Of course you have to acknowledge that embryonic stem cells are different and may provide viable treatments in areas where adult stem cells won't work for some reason.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    5. Re:!embryonic by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From what some friends of mine at Bristol Uni have been saying, yes this was done with non-embryonic stem cells, but embryonic stem cells would raise the likelihood of success in such cases as they are more likely to adapt to the required level.

      And as to whether or not usage of embryonic stem cells is morally questionable, doesn't that depend on a huge set of variables, such as how the cells are harvested (you can save embryonic stem cells from the birth of a living baby for example), and your own personal beliefs?

    6. Re:!embryonic by HanClinto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but embryonic stem cells would raise the likelihood of success in such cases as they are more likely to adapt to the required level.

      IANAB (I am not a biologist), but if the possibility set of the patient-harvested polypotent stem cells include trachea cells, I don't see why you would need pluripotent stem cells in order for it to be a "success"?

      Sadly, your friends are wrong in that if embryonic stem cells had been used in this case, that it somehow would have had a higher chance of success. The very fact that the safer and stabler ASCs (adult stem cells) were used in this operation means that the patient won't reject the organ, and the patient won't get cancer. Embryonic stem cells are too unstable in their pluripotency for them to be usable, and always go cancerous (tumor rates is one of the measures that is used to determine how well the embryonic cells have been accepted by the test mice/rats -- more tumors means that more embryonic cells lived).

      you can save embryonic stem cells from the birth of a living baby for example

      Sorry, but you cannot harvest truly pluripotent cells without destroying the embryo. You can get polypotent ASCs that are very nearly the equivalent of pluripotent embryonic stem cells by using cord blood stem cells, but you cannot actually gain pluripotent stem cells without destroying the living organism.

      This is why many people (such as myself) are truly puzzled as to why so many people aren't more excited about ASC research -- it is usable today, and the cancer and rejection risks are so much lower than ESCs. As you noted, ASCs harvested from live births through cord blood have more than enough polypotency to treat even many neurological disorders, and they are far superior in their cancer-potential-stability.

  2. A step toward donorless transplants? by StreetStealth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FTA:

    To create the new windpipe, the team took a seven-centimeter (2.75-inch) segment of trachea from a 51-year-old who had died. Over a six-week period, the team then removed all the cells from the donor trachea, because those cells could lead to rejection of the organ after transplant.

    While this procedure still does require a donor organ, it basically only uses the donor as a collagen framework to grow the patient's cells into.

    Could the next step be fabricating the collagen frame, perhaps through 3D printing?

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    1. Re:A step toward donorless transplants? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what you're saying is, I can print out my new and improved wang frame, coat it with my special sauce, wait a month or so, and then take it with me to the doctor's office to get it installed?

      SWEET!

    2. Re:A step toward donorless transplants? by TypoNAM · · Score: 4, Funny

      'Meat' Printer: ~$2 million dollars from digikey
      Wang Frame: $1.89 at wal-mart (sizes may vary)
      Special Sauce: 2 minutes?
      Doctor's visit: $200 thousand dollars

      Scaring the shit out of your woman in the middle of the night with your new found creation called "beast": Priceless...

      --
      This space is not for rent.
  3. New and interesting, but over hyped by az-saguaro · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have been listening to this story being hyped in the news all day, but it doesn't deserve quite that much attention. While this is a "great case" that most surgeons would appreciate, and a great outcome for the patient, the CNN report (and NPR and others) does what lay media generally do with medical reports - over-dramatize yesterday's news. This is an evolutionary case based on established surgical technologies which have been validated over the past 12 years, not a revolutionary implementation of new science. And regardless if you have any thoughts or opinions about embryonic stem cell research, this is not an embryonic case, it is just the use of autogenous cells to repopulate a regenerative biomatrix.

    This is the "new surgery" of the 21st century, a move toward live engineering of living tissues rather than using alloplastic implants. Much of this new surgery is done strictly in situ, inserting an implant, and letting pluripotential cells circulating through the host find the implant and then reorganize themselves into a mature tissue. This works well with connective tissue matrices that will support the ingrowth of "connective tissue cells" derived from the embryonic mesoderm. The items available to surgeons are manufactured matrices such as Integra (Integra Life Sciences, New Jersey), and cadaveric matrices, usually dermis (of human, bovine, porcine, and equine origin, eg from LifeCell, Ethicon, TEI Biosciences, et al). Simply put, we implant these materials to reconstruct dermis, fascias, ligaments, and various skeletal and mesenchymal structures, and human host cells find them and make new living dermis-fascia-ligaments-etc. This works extremely well for reconstruction of skin and musculoskeletal structures. Not much progress has been made yet on the generation of glands and organs (which require function specific epithelial or ecto-entodermal cells).

    These technologies and procedures have been a part of regular surgical practice since about 1996. Make no mistake about it - the tracheo-bronchial reconstruction you read about is a great case, but it is just a progressive implementation of existing concepts and methods to a wider range of diseases and indications. There will be more and more and more of this is the coming decades. In fact, existing regenerative materials could have easily made a new trachea-like conduit, avoiding the need for a human anatomical gift or organ donation, except for one thing . . .

    The trachea and bronchi need a special architecture to avoid collapse. Because of the Bernoulli principle, these conduits could collapse during inspiration, so nature prevents that by having these pipes surrounded by semi-rigid cartilage rings. Regenerated cadaveric dermis by itself will not work. So instead, these guys used a donated trachea for its gross architecture and mechanical integrity, processed it in the same way that dermal matrices are processed to get rid of cells and immunogens, and then they seeded some host cells, then let it grow in situ. In actuality, the seeding step was largely irrelevant. When collagen-aminoglycan matrices (decellularized cadaveric materials) are implanted, circulating stem cells find them automatically. Pre-seeding could speed up the process by a week or so, but no big deal.

    The cells which were seeded were NOT embryonic stem cells. They were just autogenous random marrow cells, some of which will be pluripotential, and able to regenerate tissues according to an embryonic model of tissue histogenesis. Note too that even if these were embryonic omnipotent stem cells, there is no such thing as a tracheal cell. What they implanted was a connective tissue matrix, generated by, and then repopulated by two and only two types of cells: fibroblasts and vascular cells. This is the supporting structure of all organs and tissues. Think of it like reinforced concrete. You can use cement and rebar to make a bridge, a road, a building, and so on, all with different shapes, loads, and functions, but it's all just cement and rebar.