Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3-D Printed Skull Successfully Implanted In Woman

Posted by samzenpus on from the new-head dept.

First time accepted submitter djhaskin987 (2147470) writes "The first successful implantation of a 3-D printed skull has taken place in the Netherlands, according to NBC news: 'Doctors in the Netherlands report that they have for the first time successfully replaced most of a human's skull with a 3-D printed plastic one — and likely saved a woman's life in the process. The 23-hour surgery took place three months ago at University Medical Center Utrecht. The hospital announced details of the groundbreaking operation this week and said the patient, a 22-year-old woman, is doing just fine."

89 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet by Max+Threshold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can I get a bulletproof one?

    1. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wouldn't help you much, the impact would still damage your brain even if the bullet did not penetrate.

    2. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So penetrating brain injury is only slightly less severe than non penetrating. Do you have data for this?

    3. Re:Sweet by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it would help quite a lot with smaller bullets. concussion is a lot less severe than scrambled eggs inside your head..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Sweet by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      It wouldn't help you much, the impact would still damage your brain even if the bullet did not penetrate.

      True, but he could still get a job as a PHP developer.

    5. Re:Sweet by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      I would worry about what would happen in the case of a zombie apocalypse if these were ever common ... I say we ban them, just to be safe.



      For the humour-impaired: I'm kidding ... kinda

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    6. Re:Sweet by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Common sense?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Can I get one by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Funny

    with eSATA, USB 3.0, FireWire 800, HDMI, DVI, RJ45, RJ11 and Thunderbolt ports ? With a 40-year upgrade plan for future interface types ?

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Can I get one by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      with eSATA, USB 3.0, FireWire 800, HDMI, DVI, RJ45, RJ11 and Thunderbolt ports ? With a 40-year upgrade plan for future interface types ?

      Terrible choice of ports.

      eSATA is useless when we have USB 3.0. Even if you wanted eSata for some reason, you should have gotten eSATAp
      USB 3.0 is a good choice, but you may as well have listed USB 3.1.
      FireWire? Is this 1996?
      HDMI? Displayport, please.
      DVI? HDMI carries DVI. Again, Displayport, please.
      RJ45 is a jack, not an interface or standard. 10 Gbps or 40 Gbps Ethernet would be a good choice.
      RJ11 is a jack, not an interface or standard. Your Ethernet cable can carry PoTS or VoIP for you.
      Thunderbolt (AKA External PCIe + marketing) is a terrible choice because anyone can just jack in and DMA attack your brain.

    2. Re:Can I get one by pitchpipe · · Score: 2

      with eSATA, USB 3.0, FireWire 800, HDMI, DVI, RJ45, RJ11 and Thunderbolt ports ? With a 40-year upgrade plan for future interface types ?

      FireWire? Is this 1996?

      Firewire is so dead, here's an article talking about how Steve Jobs said Firewire is dead.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    3. Re:Can I get one by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now what makes Jobs the authority on death?

      Oh... right... never mind.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Can I get one by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      What, no analogue 1/4" TRS audio jacks? Weak.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    5. Re:Can I get one by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Of course we are, just a different kind.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    6. Re:Can I get one by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      I actually use an eSATAp SSD hard drive frequently. I have an OS installed on it and used it to work and bring it to home when I need to do home office, avoiding having to bring the whole laptop.

      I went with eSATAp because:
      1) My work and my home computers both have eSATAp ports
      2) My work computer does not have USB3.0
      3) No need for cases/enclosures to hold the circuitry necessary for USB hard drives (it is far more portable).
      4) Theoretical higher performance (and lower latency) compared to USB2.0

      I have not measured performance of eSATAp vs USB2.0 or USB3.0, but the SSD is blazing fast running on eSATAp. If you have more info on performance of USB3.0 vs eSATAp I am interested (latency in special is more important when running OSs on external hdd), if I ever change computers on my work I might go for a USB3.0 case.

      But you are right, eSATAp days are counted, the upsides are not worth the extra port if USB3.0 can provide almost (or better) as good performance. eSATAp ports work as a USB2.0 port as well, but nobody (except me I guess) uses the SATA part, it is hard to justify their inclusion. You have no idea how hard it was to find a eSATAp cable...

    7. Re:Can I get one by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      What, no wireless?

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    8. Re:Can I get one by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      eSATA is the native protocol of the drive. No translation layer will match it's performance. No matter the headroom in the alternate protocol.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Plastic Skull? by divide+overflow · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hope they didn't use that nasty Chinese plastic thats full of phthalates....

  4. Its transparent.... by tonywestonuk · · Score: 4, Funny

    How cool is that!!! If that was me, I would make sure they didn't put the skin back on, and added a few blue flashing LED's for additional affect.

    1. Re:Its transparent.... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would be awesome until the first time your brain got sunburned.

    2. Re:Its transparent.... by Lairdykinsmcgee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sunburnt brain... Now that's a super villain origin story if I ever heard one.

    3. Re:Its transparent.... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say anything about clear plastic being used...

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:Its transparent.... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Doh! But then there's the picture that loaded this time. *LOL*

      My bad.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    5. Re:Its transparent.... by leftover · · Score: 1

      I did wonder about that, having read that all nerve tissue is light-responsive. What would sunlight do to thought processes? Trans Cranial Optical Stimulation?

      --
      Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    6. Re:Its transparent.... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Affect != Effect

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  5. Adamantium by Jesrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do they make them in adamantium yet ?

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  6. Fantastic. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Printing it is one thing, but I'm amazed that it's possible to install it.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Fantastic. by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Replacing much smaller and less complicated parts.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Fantastic. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not as amazing as it sounds at first. As far as I can tell they didn't try to replace any of the facial skull area. Now THAT would be a feat and a half, considering just how many muscles and nerves are dependent on being on the "right" spot on the skull and being correctly attached, let alone all of our senses. This implant was only for the "brain" part of the skull, i.e. the upper/back half of it. Very important, after all that's what protects our brain, but far less complicated to handle from a medical point of view.

      It's actually less stunning from a medical point of view than from a purely technological one. Operations where the skull cover is removed to ease the pressure on the brain are not so uncommon. What's new now is "merely" that the replacement implant fits far better to the patient, instead of a "one size fits all" that gets shaped and fitted on the OP table, with varying and often limited success, the patient now gets a 100% fitting part.

      That IS a big advancement in medicine. But more for the technical side of medicine, less so for the actual surgical point of view.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Fantastic. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell they didn't try to replace any of the facial skull area

      Around 2000 or so a surgeon near me used a 3D printed plastic skull from scans to plan an operation that did replace a lot of a facial skull area with pieces taken from another part of the patient's heavily deformed skull. The plastic model is probably still on display in the government building where I saw it in 2002. While that example was re-implanting portions of the patient's bone in different places the surgery on the face may be similar to what would be done with an implant.

    4. Re:Fantastic. by narcc · · Score: 4, Funny

      And what can be less complicated than a bowl??????

      A plate.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
  7. Amazing that this has been done by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 2

    The present is looking more and more like Ghost in the Shell. I love it.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  8. Shock waves by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's why helmets for cyclists and motorbike riders are not just made of a hard steel shell. Shock waves from fast impacts can pass through a hard material and transmit through something softer, and if they are carrying a lot of energy they can really mess up the softer material.

    1. Re:Shock waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and if they are carrying a lot of energy they can really mess up the softer material.

      That is the thing, isn't it. Bullets aren't really carrying that much energy. If distributing it over a larger surface didn't help then the shooter would die from the recoil.
      If you can distribute it over your entire head you might change an instantaneous death to a concussion.

    2. Re:Shock waves by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The point of impact on a hard surface is very small. From there the primary shock wave would be very energetic.

      If you can distribute it over your entire head you might change an instantaneous death to a concussion.

      Hence the soft material in the helmets. It spreads the shock wave and absorbs a lot of energy by deforming so that the wearers brain does not need to deform.

    3. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. In discharging a gun, the bullet is given much more kinetic energy than the gun, due to the disparity in masses. This follows from conservation of momentum, and the definition of kinetic energy.

      This is why an armoured soldier can still be injured through his body armour, despite the armour stopping the bullet, whereas the shooter's shoulder is just fine.

    4. Re:Shock waves by dbIII · · Score: 2

      It's a pressure wave and pressure is force divided by area, so something small moving very fast gives you a lot of pressure in a line from the point of impact into the soft tissue underneath. Something really hard that behaves elasticly, like a thin steel plate, is just going to flex and pass a lot of energy on from where the back edge flexes.

    5. Re:Shock waves by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Your brain matter has the same consistency as a bowl of fruit jelly, it barely supports its own weight and would certainly spatter if it fell from your head to the ground. A non-penetrating brain injury such as concussion is where your skull stops suddenly and the jelly inside of it squishes up on one side, it's the jelly's own kinetic energy that does the damage. If you want a car analogy it's the car drivers own kinetic energy that "throws" him through the windscreen when his car abruptly loses all of its kinetic energy.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Shock waves by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 2

      Your brain matter has the same consistency as a bowl of fruit jelly....

      What flavor? Oh, sorry.. What flavour?

    7. Re:Shock waves by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

      But the soldier and his body armor have even more mass than the gun. So I don't really see that your description makes sense. Does the fact that the bullet is accelerated over the length of the barrel make a difference. Upon firing, the bullet is accelerated over 6 inches or so (even longer for a rifle), while on hitting the armor it is stopped in a very short distance.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    8. Re:Shock waves by dbIII · · Score: 1

      OK then - a great big bubble head with a few inches of kevlar, otherwise I'd say a hard plate is implied.

    9. Re:Shock waves by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's why helmets for cyclists and motorbike riders are not just made of a hard steel shell.

      Unless you get one of those stupid army-style helmets that are legal in places with shitty motorcycle safety regulations, or as I like to call them, a "Darwin Special."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Upon firing, the bullet is accelerated over 6 inches or so (even longer for a rifle), while on hitting the armor it is stopped in a very short distance.

      True, but as I understand it that's not really the significant factor here: the disparity in kinetic energy means the duration of the launch doesn't even really matter. Even wearing very thick armour with lots of area, you're still up against far more energy than the shooter.

      It's a good point though.

    11. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Nope, no idea. Perhaps you'd care to explain.

      (I've not mentioned force, which the Wikipedia article does.)

    12. Re:Shock waves by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Actually, after posting I had another thought that sounds even more likely to be an important factor. The force of the firing of the bullet in distributed over the handle of a pistol or the butt of the gun, while the force of impact is over the point of the bullet. I bet if you were to taper the butt of the rifle down to the same size as the bullet, it would be pretty damaging to the shooter as well.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    13. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be good for you, sure, but, comparable to a gunshot wound? Absolutely not, no.

      If you get shot, the bullet hits you at two or three thousand feet-per-second. The fact that the bullet penetrates your tissues is not in itself the really nasty part. The hydrostatic shock, and possible expansion/fragmentation of the round, will do the real damage.

      A gunshot wound to the chest can kill you by means of brain-damage. It is not the equivalent of being stabbed with a bullet-sized knife - it's much, much worse.

      A rifle with a sharp stabby butt would leave you bleeding, but wouldn't cause hydrostatic shock and damage surrounding organs.

      You've also simply ignored the point I have been stressing: the amount of energy transferred to the victim is not equal to the amount of energy transferred to the shooter (even despite energy lost as the bullet flies). The two sources I linked to explain this.

    14. Re:Shock waves by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry. I see from your link that the kinetic energy is much higher due to the velocity squared. That would make a big difference. The pointy butted rifle would be stabbing you at a much slower and thus less energetic rate. I think I must have been looking at the force the bullet imparts on the target compared to the force imparted on the rifle through recoil and it seems it should be equal. (Bullet does not gain speed through the air, so velocity at target is equal or less than velocity at rifle. Shooting the bullet gives equal and opposite forces and catching in armor at target is again equal and opposite force.) But the force the rifle imparts on the shooter is another matter because it's mass helps determine what it's velocity will be.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    15. Re:Shock waves by werepants · · Score: 1

      There is truth to both. KE = mv^2, whereas Momentum = mv. So, conservation of momentum and Newton's laws (equal and opposite force) means that the momentum of the rifle and momentum of the projectile are the same, but the energy of the bullet is much higher. Also, the longer distance you take to slow something down, the less force will be exerted. (F=ma, low acceleration means low force). So the rifle is heavy and long, which means the bullet gets far more energy and takes a proportionally long path to speed up, while on the other end the bullet is stopped in a very short distance and so still deposits a lot of energy very suddenly. If you could slow the bullet down gradually (a Michelin man sort of body armor, perhaps) the force could be greatly reduced.

    16. Re:Shock waves by operagost · · Score: 1

      The point of impact of the gun's stock is much larger than the bullet. A heavier gun has less kick than a lighter gun, but a stock with a larger surface area (contacting the shoulder) also has less kick.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:Shock waves by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      In discharging a gun, the bullet is given much more [yahoo.com] kinetic energy [wikipedia.org] than the gun, due to the disparity in masses.

      We can tell you're not a physics major...

    18. Re:Shock waves by operagost · · Score: 2

      Ask Hannibal.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      That all sounds right to me. (I'm not a 'real physicist' or anything, mind.)

    20. Re:Shock waves by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      It's a lost word in our language, basically, but they call the rebound "contrecoup"

      --
      -
    21. Re:Shock waves by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Same deal with the old plastic hard shell bicycle helmets of maybe twenty years back. I saw a bit of film of an impact test of one with a rockmelon (cantalope) inside. The helmet took the impact then flexed back into it's original shape without a scratch or crack, but there were bits of squashed melon leaking out everywhere. A polystyrene foam helmet ends up completely trashed in the same sort of test but with the melon inside intact.

    22. Re:Shock waves by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If you could slow the bullet down gradually (a Michelin man sort of body armor, perhaps) the force could be greatly reduced.

      That's how it works in a bullet proof vest. Energy absorbing padding using a material made of a lot of loose fibres, lots of air, and no direct path for the shock wave to travel without expending a lot of energy compressing everything together. Whatever is left over delivers a bruise over a wide area instead of a small fatal impact.

    23. Re:Shock waves by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wrong, both get the same kinetic energy.
      (* facepalm *) this is one of the most fundamental laws of physics.
      Speed, oh, yes ... speed is different due to differences in mass.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Shock waves by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are up to the exact same energy as the shooter.
      FFS read about the law of energy conservation or in this case as well: law of impulse conservation.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Shock waves by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The energy is not higher for the projectile, it is the same as for the rifle.
      How one can bring up the correct formulas and draw so stupid conclusions is beyond me.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:Shock waves by werepants · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the bruise is because the force is high since the projectile is slowed down very quickly. A thicker vest that allowed more penetration (without complete penetration, of course!) would be more forgiving for the wearer.

    27. Re:Shock waves by werepants · · Score: 1

      The energy is not higher for the projectile, it is the same as for the rifle. How one can bring up the correct formulas and draw so stupid conclusions is beyond me.

      The momentum is identical for projectile and rifle. The energy is not. Allow me to demonstrate.

      Suppose a projectile of 15g, going at 500m/s, and a weapon of 500g. These are approximate figures to make life easy for us. Conservation of momentum means m1v1=m2v2, which means that the momentum of this projectile must equal the momentum of the pistol that launched it. .015kg*500m/s = 7.5 kg m/s = .5kg*15m/s. Got it? Now we know the velocity and mass of both objects in the system, we can easily calculate the energy.

      KE actually is 1/2mv^2 if we want to get some real values for this.
      So, for the pistol -> 1/2*.5kg*(15m/s)^2 = 56.25 J
      For the bullet -> 1/2*.015kg*(500m/s)^2 = 1875 J

      I welcome you to draw whatever conclusions (stupid or otherwise) you would like, but it seems quite obvious that the energy in both cases is not, in fact, identical. Feel free to offer specific criticism about my calculations if you believe I have made an error. If you would like me to educate you further about basic physics, respond, and I would be delighted.

    28. Re:Shock waves by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I realized that a few hours after I posted my answert o you, sorry, my appologizes.

      However some guys claimed the bullet would transfer less than its energy to the target, which only can happen if it goes through it. But this is another issue ...

      Strange that I forgot that, as I made more or less the same calculation a year ago when we talked about gravity pulling an asteroid with a probe. Seems I'm indeed getting old.

      Sorry again.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    29. Re:Shock waves by werepants · · Score: 1

      Understood. Mistakes happen to the best of us.

    30. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      No. You are wrong. Go read the articles I linked to. They both get the same momentum.

      When I put, this I meant it:

      This follows from conservation of momentum, and the definition of kinetic energy.

    31. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Again, no, you are conflating momentum and kinetic energy.

      (Do you really think I linked to two different sources explaining the physics of firearms, only to get it tragically wrong? It is painfully clear you haven't taken the time to read either of them.)

    32. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Nope. You'll find it is you who is in fact comically wide of the mark.

      You're right, I'm not a physicist, but no, I'm not wrong about this. You're not the only one to say I'm wrong while ignoring my points and failing to read the articles I linked to, though.

      You too are presumably conflating momentum and kinetic-energy. Please go and read the articles I linked to.

    33. Re:Shock waves by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Actually, the energy lost to heat/sound/etc isn't an important factor here.

      The postage-stamp version: the law of conservation of energy decides the total amount of energy 'released' in the discharge. Conservation of momentum dictates that the 'forward' momentum of the bullet will equal the 'backward' momentum of the gun. Momentum = m * v. Kinetic energy = (m * v^2) / 2. The mass of the bullet is much less than the mass of the gun. Seeing as we know that the m * v of the bullet is equal to the m * v of the gun, and we know that the m is much less in the bullet, that means the v must be much higher in the bullet, meaning the (m * v^2) / 2 will be *much much* higher, on account of the ^2.

      (As I've put elsewhere, it's probably better to get that from a proper article than from my quasi-mathematical explanation.)

  9. Medical grade plastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Medical grade plastics are actually much safer for your health than any metals, so, go back to school before you hurt yourself by saying something retarded....

    1. Re:Medical grade plastics by Racemaniac · · Score: 2

      "Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt"
      Or in this case: if he doesn't know anything about it, why immediately assume the plastics would be dangerous (and that expert doctors pioneering such a procedure wouldn't think of it)...

      He wouldn't have gotten the angry comment if he had simply asked if the plastic can't give health issues, instead of making a sensationalist comment about it without knowing anything about the subject...

    2. Re:Medical grade plastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sensationalist or sarcastic? I think you flew off the handle a little too quick there. His comment was harmless, re-read it.

  10. The advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Titanium very often contains nickel to harden hit, about 4% of people can get pretty severe allergic reactions over an extended period of time.
    the advantage of composites, is that they're easier and safer to replace with less harm to the soft tissue surrounding it.

  11. Re:First? How can outcomes "often" be better? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    It's the "often" that he's objecting to, not the "compared".

    Ie, "How can the outcomes of the new method (which we've used once) "often" be better than the old method?"

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  12. video of the surgery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A short video of the surgery where you can see the implant.

    http://tweakers.net/video/8879/volledige-kunststof-3d-geprinte-schedel-geimplanteerd.html

  13. If it were me by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I'd have made damn sure they slipped a layer of tinfoil atop my brain before buttoning up.

  14. Re:The story bellow it by Clyde+Machine · · Score: 1

    Because Russia didn't 3-D print Ukraine's Dolphin Squad, I guess.

  15. "Doing just fine" by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    Right, sure. If my skull had just been replaced, I a sure I would be doing just fine. This is right out of RoboCop...

  16. Socialized medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article must be a mistake. The Netherlands has socializes medicine. This sort of innovation only happens in capitalistic healthcare systems.

    1. Re: Socialized medicine by Asha2004 · · Score: 2

      Actually in the Netherlands a lot of hospitals are affiliated to universities. That assures they are interested and willing to invest in unique cases for research purposes. Capitalistic systems are only interested in return on investment.

    2. Re: Socialized medicine by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Capitalistic systems are only interested in return on investment.

      I guess that explains the total lack of charitable hospitals in the USA. Oh wait...

  17. Hair? by AndyBaker · · Score: 1

    So this girl's going to be without hair, correct?

    1. Re:Hair? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      They're going to give her brand-new, 3D-printed hairs.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:Hair? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No, her hair's still on her scalp which is on the outside of the skull.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Hair? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I wondered about that too. In the video I watched it looked like they left her with the transparent skull exposed. I'm not sure if they went back later to put the hair on or not. If they did put skin on later I'm not sure if it would grow hair or not. Failing that, they do make some very nice and very well fitting wigs for cancer patients, so I imagine they'll fit her with one of them.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
    4. Re:Hair? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Your skull grows hair?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  18. Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm always surprised when these stories get reported. As a neurosurgeon, this has been done in various forms for >50yrs. I remember as a resident pounding titanium plates on a roundish metal head anvil on the sterile back table, then cutting it to shape. 3-d milled titanium and PEEK implants became commercially available in 2002 - custom generated from the patient's own CT scan. 3-d printed implants have been available for a few years (?2010) and have the advantage of being able to fit more complex shapes than a 4-or 5 axis milled piece, but don't match the strength of milled pieces. Typically the lead time to mill/print a piece is about 3 weeks and cost ranges from 6-10k.

  19. Eve of a new era by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    There. That's much better than a rib.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  20. Re:Ever been shot? by Megol · · Score: 2
    What about this: you bring a .357 magnum revolver and a class IIIA vest to me, you wear the vest and I'll try your hypothesis (that being hit wearing armor "is trivial")?

    A .357 shouldn't penetrate a IIIA vest but the blunt force isn't exactly trivial to handle.

  21. Re:Ever been shot? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    No you just misunderstand how they work. They are thick for a reason.

  22. Re: First? How can outcomes "often" be better? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    They've only just done it. How do they know how it turns out long term? They probably expect it to turn out well, but to say that it often works well is massively jumping the gun.

    --
    Is 1563649 a prime number?
  23. yes by Holi · · Score: 1

    And it hurts like a bitch.

    But more importantly, I have seen people who have been shot while wearing armor. No penetration but Bruises and broken ribs are not uncommon.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  24. Helmet crash video by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's not the one I was looking for but illustrates the situation:
    http://www.stevespanglerscienc...