Slashdot Mirror


Dissolvable Glass For Bone Repair

gpronger writes "Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Glass Will Certainly Mend Them! The old schoolyard ditty may be changed to reflect developments using metallic glass that will dissolve in situ instead of the traditional stainless steel or titanium hardware, which require removal by surgery once the bone has healed. Physics World reports that researcher Jörg Löffler at ETH Zurich has created an alloy of 60% magnesium, 35% zinc, and 5% calcium, molded in the form of metallic glass. Through rapid cooling, the alloy forms a molecularly amorphous glass that slowly dissolves over time, supporting the injury long enough for healing, then slowly dissolving away."

24 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Somehow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I doubt the little schoolyard ditty will be changed.

    1. Re:Somehow... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Funny

      I remember the first time I sing-songed this to a jerk when I was, like, 5. She immediately went outside, picked up a very large stick, and beat me senseless with it. And my older sister asks me why I never come visit her anymore....

    2. Re:Somehow... by skine · · Score: 3, Funny

      They've tried before to change it to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will cause me years of clinical depression and crippling social anxiety," and failed.

      So I do doubt ditty diddling doing diddly dreadfully damaging.

  2. He had a glass jaw! by BigSes · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, really.

  3. end to casts? by MaerD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will this mean an end to casts? If this could be put in place and support the bone from the inside while you heal, why would we need external casts? Especially if it's injectable in some way.

    --
    I put on my robe and wizard hat..
    1. Re:end to casts? by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      excessive soluble Magnesium in the body depletes calcium.
      I'm sure they probably have thought about this. One could see this working both ways. Perhaps having magnesium in the replacment helps precipitate calcium in a useful place near the bone replacment. On the other hand soluble magnesium is know to rob bones of calcium, so a large source of soluble calcium especially concntrated near a weak bone might undermine it.

      I have no idea what the right answer is here, but it does seem like something that need to be considered strongly.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:end to casts? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd be extremely surprised if it did.

      Casts are annoying; but they are dirt cheap, can be performed with comparatively minimal training, and are pretty low risk. For bone breaks that are easily accessible and not too complicated, they are going to be hard to dislodge.

      This stuff would, if it works, turn a two surgery process(one to implant, one to explant) for dealing with nastier sorts of bone breaks into a one surgery process. That would be a win. Turning a zero surgery process into a one surgery process would be a major loss.

    3. Re:end to casts? by TheCycoONE · · Score: 3, Informative

      This technique is a lot more invasive than casting, and it's not injectable. They cut you open and place it just like the metal counterpart; the improvement is that you don't have to be cut open twice. So, better than bolting a metal rod down your leg, then removing it a couple months later, much worse than putting some plaster over your skin to keep you in place.

    4. Re:end to casts? by HaZardman27 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This sounds like a solid business plan: repair broken bones and weaken others so that they will break soon too, thus ensuring a returning customer!

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    5. Re:end to casts? by blueZ3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep. I was going to comment that I have a 10" piece of titanium in my leg from a motorcycle accident, and at my 1-year followup appointment, there was no talk of removing it. I believe that these days they tend to leave the hardware in unless it's causing problems.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    6. Re:end to casts? by Psion · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am holding in my hands ... well, no, I held it, but now I've put it down so I could type ... the implant used twenty years ago to pin my femur back together after a slip on ice. Now that's hardly a comment on modern procedures, BUT while the device was implanted, I was quite aware of it and it impeded my mobility somewhat. I had difficulty squatting, couldn't raise that foot behind my head, etc., although I kept trying. When the device was removed nine months later, the difference was noticeable and my efforts to recover lost mobility resulted in startling flexibility in that leg.

      My point is that I'd hope parts aren't left in place if they interfere even minimally with movement.

      As a side note, I enjoy handing the part to folks and asking them what they think it is. Typically, they'll turn it over and over, examining the screw and slide mechanism (this part went into the femur's ball) and puzzle over it for a while. The usual guess is "bicycle part". When I tell them what it is, while they're still handling it, the result is usually a study in ballistic trajectories. Even funnier was the little bit of gristle left lodged in the threads that, before it completely decayed away, would invariably invoke a look of horror when I pointed out it was a chunk of me.

  4. OB: Unbreakable. by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They call him Mr.Glass

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  5. I'm involved in something closely related. by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My group is cooperating with a startup that makes, among other things, glass microbeads covered with nanoparticles of whose composition I am not allowed to speak. These nanoparticles cause bone cell growth. In fact, they cause stem cell differentiation into osteoblasts, which I think is beyong cool. The glass slowly dissolves in the body and the bone remains. Our hypothesis (backed by some experimental data) is that these beads will restore fractured bones, such as spinal vertebrae, to patients with extreme osteoporosis.

    Rarely have I wished success to a company, as in this case. Perhaps seeing my aunt succumb to multiple spinal fractures scared the shit out of me.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:I'm involved in something closely related. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you've confused the meaning of "just." But don't feel bad, there are apparently millions of Americans out there (many in the political and chattering classes) who make this same mistake.

      Physical resources are scarce. With scarcity comes the need to ration. Currently, the most efficient model for distributing these limited resources is capitalism (properly regulated by the government). Other models have been tried and shown to be lacking. So at this point you can:

      1) Argue that it's "unjust" that some people can afford certain things while others cannot, set up a "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" system and watch it fail spectacularly

      2) Introduce some alternate "just" form of rationing that better suits you, for instance providing a limited quantity of mediocre quality under price controls to a larger number of people, crippling innovation

      3) Introduce an alternate form of rationing that relies on randomness, or on some particular criteria and have people game your system

      4) Realize that existence is fundamentally "unjust" (in the sense you seem to mean) and allow the system that's given us every modern technological, medical, and industrial advance to continue moving society forward to a point where even the poorest are relatively rich compared to those alive even 100 years ago. All the while vigilantly working to prevent abuses of the system (which allowing people who can afford it to pay for care patently is NOT)

      5) Whine on /. about how "unjust" it is that limited resources have to be rationed, retreat into your mom's basement and return to the imaginary unicorns and flowers world of your imagination, where everything is available to everyone in unlimited quantities.

    2. Re:I'm involved in something closely related. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Grow up.

      Distribution of goods and services are based on monetary wealth. Advanced techniques take enormous amounts of time, energy, and financial backing. Somebody making 47K a year (the current nominal GDP per capita in the US) simply cannot afford state of the art medical treatment. People incapable of paying for the best services do not receive the best services.

      The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of health care expenses are incurred by people who are no longer in the work force. They are no longer generating anything useful for society. From a purely macro economic standpoint using an enormous portion of our resources to keep people who are no longer producing goods/services alive is a decision that would be ridiculously expensive.

      With that said I think that there is a moral imperative to find a system that offers the best service for the lowest price. Unfortunately I seriously doubt that a massive federal program is going to do anything to lower prices unless they dictate what doctors can charge for services.

    3. Re:I'm involved in something closely related. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, for God's sake. The undeniable corruption in the relationship between the medical manufacturing industry (drugs and devices) and the medical industry proper (physicians and other health care providers) is absurd, no one's denying that. Yes, there are serious problems. Yes, enormous amounts of money go to people who neither create new medical technologies nor provide them to patients. Yes, a lot of doctors are easily influenced by hot pharmacy reps in low-cut blouses. Yes, this leads to all sorts of injustice.

      But at the end of the day, advances in medical technology still help people. Next time you get sick or injured, if you want to restrict yourself to the level of medical care that was available in, say, 1850, out some abstract sense of justice ... go ahead. Nobody will stop you. But just during my nine years in patient care, from 1989 to 1998, I saw new devices and drugs that helped our patients get better come on the market at a dizzying pace. You'd better believe we were glad to have them, and our patients were too. Now I work on the research side of things, and while I know that there are a lot of parasites between "bench and bedside," in the long run I really don't care that much. What I care about is that something I do might, possibly, help patients recover who otherwise couldn't.

      Also, I broke my leg rather badly four years ago, and I was lucky enough to get the absolute best orthopedic technology out there. I still have a chunk of titanium where bone ought to be, and it will still be there when they put me in the ground -- but before such technology was invented, I'd probably have been on crutches or at least a cane for the rest of my life. Guess which one I prefer? I don't know if my orthopod chose the brand of "nail" he did because he genuinely thought it was the best out there, or because some sweet young thing fluttered her eyelashes at him. What I do know is that it's very very good, substantially better than similar constructs I saw put into patients just a decade before my injury. And I'm not a member of "only the wealthiest" by any stretch of the imagination. Too bad dissolvable bone implants weren't on the market when it happened ... if future patients with the same type of injury are luckier, then this is a good thing.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  6. It won't replace casting by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unlike in a certain X-men movie, this "metallic glass" is NOT going to be injected into living human bodies while molten. It'll be carefully forged in a factory into parts that are currently made out of steel or titanium : various plates, screws, and other orthopedic hardware. For injuries that require surgery, orthopedic surgeons would use these metallic glass parts instead of what they currently use.

    The problem is obvious : it's doubtful that this alloy will be as strong as steel or titanium, and so the screws or plates would have to be thicker and heavier to have the same strength. There's an obvious tradeoff : do you make a bigger incision and drill out bigger holes in the bone to use this dissolvable metallic glass, or do you use conventional hardware? Also, undoubtedly there will be decades of debate over whether the trace minerals leached into the body cause harm or not.

    Bottom line : even if this technology turns out to be safe and effective and is approved for use, it will probably be decades until it is used most of the time.

    1. Re:It won't replace casting by evanbd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trace minerals aren't a problem. These aren't trace amounts. You'll notice the choice of metals: calcium, magnesium, and zinc are all things your body needs in non-trace quantities, and is capable of regulating the level of. A few tens of grams of metal, dissolving over a month or two, is a couple hundred mg per day. That's roughly comparable to the FDA recommended daily intake. It would be a lot like taking a extra multivitamin or two a day.

  7. First do no harm by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    This sounds like a solid business plan: repair broken bones and weaken others so that they will break soon too, thus ensuring a returning customer!

    The FDA and other national regulators of medicine are supposed to protect the people from such business models.

  8. Dissovable by T3xT · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...I don't think it means what you think it means.

  9. Minor misuse of /in situ/ by Torodung · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ

    In biology, in situ means to examine the phenomenon exactly in place where it occurs (i.e. without moving it to some special medium). This usually means something intermediate between in vivo and in vitro. For example, examining a cell within a whole organ intact and under perfusion may be in situ investigation. This would not be in vivo as the donor is sacrificed before experimentation, but it would not be the same as working with the cell alone (a common scenario in in vitro experiments).

    That is, the use of the phrase in situ implies that the person is dead. in situ literally means "as it is," and is more synonymous with untampered. In a literal sense, the bone could heal by itself in situ, but with an implant, tampering has already occurred, and the process is actually occurring in vivo, in a live organism. It's a minor quibble, but don't use Latin when you can just say "in place," "without further intervention," or "on its own." These would have been better choices, and clearer because they are plain English.

    --
    Toro

    Spot the English major in this post. :^)

    1. Re:Minor misuse of /in situ/ by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      In medicine, as distinct from biology, "in situ" has long been used to mean "where it already is inside the patient's body," whether "it" is something that occurred internally (e.g. a tumor) or something that was introduced from outside (e.g. orthopedic equipment.) "Dissolvable in situ" is a phrase used to describe dissolving internal sutures, which is probably the precedent here. Sometimes it refers to things that definitely don't dissolve; as a military medic, I often ran across the usage "bullet left in situ" in older patient records ... and that sure as hell constitutes "tampering," I think you'll agree. (This is much, much rarer in modern military medicine; most such records were those of retirees from the Korean War and WW2 eras, although it still does happen even today.) You may not like the usage, but it's standard enough now that calling it a "misuse" is a mistake.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  10. I can haz a spellchex, plz? Kthxbye by Eggplant62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dissolvable is the proper spelling. I can be a moderator nao?

  11. Re:reply by Chuckstar · · Score: 3, Informative

    First, it's not clear to me that "fluid" and "liquid" have different meanings.

    Second, glass is actually a solid. Flowing glass is a persistent, but untrue, urban myth.