On April 9th,
2013, an incredible surgery took place at Chicago Children’s Hospital. A 2 ½
year old, Hannah Warren, was the youngest person ever, to receive a
bioengineered organ. In this case, she received a windpipe developed by Dr.
Paolo Macchiarini because she was born without a windpipe, or trachea. This is
an extremely rare condition and more often than not, results in early death.
For her whole life, Hannah has been breathing out of a tube that was inserted
in her mouth and she has never been able to eat properly or even speak, and for
2 ½ years she has been living in an Intensive Care Unit. Macchiarini, who is a
specialist in regenerative medicine, was able to engineer a windpipe to
surgically place in Hannah. This idea of regenerative medicine also known as
tissue engineering has been able to advance and progress to this stage because
of a better understanding of stem cells and the role they play in signaling the
body to grow and repair itself. In order to make this windpipe, Dr. Macchiarini
made a tube out of plastic fibers, and then placed the tube in a solution
containing stem cells taken from Hannah’s bone marrow, and it was then placed
in a bioreactor before the surgery. Doctors hope that now since the windpipe
has been implanted, the stem cells will signal other cells to go to the
windpipe so tissue will grow in and around the tube. It was a very long
complicated process, but it has paid off for Hannah, as she know longer has to
breathe through a tube and now has a life expectancy beyond the age of six.
With
this surgery being successful, a whole new field of medicine has advanced that
could aid in saving many lives. This procedure performed on Hannah, proves that
this idea of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine could potentially be
the cure for various different conditions. If this idea of creating something
such as a windpipe through plastic fibers and stem cells is proven to work, it
could aid many suffering from various conditions. This surgery is a huge step
forward for the study of tissue engineering, and also medicine as a whole.
Although
this surgery was able to save Hannah’s life, there are still many
complications. The article touched briefly on the fact that this hand made
windpipe will not last forever, so it is not proven that this procedure will
definitely work. The article did not highlight enough on the fact that this
surgery was basically just a trial procedure. This surgery could not be
performed on just anyone, because there is still not enough data or research on
this. The article made it out like Hannah was finally going to be able to
breathe normally for the rest of her life, but the fact was that this procedure
would only be a temporary solution, because the knowledge of tissue engineering
is not to the state where a permanent solution can be made. Otherwise, this was
a very heartwarming story, and I was surprised that this surgery was even
possible.
Citation:
Fountain, Henry. "Groundbreaking Surgery for Girl Born Without Windpipe." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 30 Apr. 2013. Web. 01 May 2013.
An aspect that I felt Delia did well was giving a detailing summary of Hannah Warrens life and situation. It had such good detail that it clearly described what was being affect by Hannah not having a windpipe. I also found that Delia explained the complications of having this procedure done well and made it clear that it was not perfect. However, while she explained the complications, the also explained how important this surgery was to the field of science. Another thing I believe Delia did well was write about how the article could have been improved. I, like Delia, was surprised that this surgery and procedure was even an option. I was also surprised that people could be born and survive for as long as Hannah had before her windpipe surgery without a windpipe. I feel that Delia could have gone into more depth about the actual surgery as I felt that that was a vital part to the article and it was missing in Delias event.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great article and a great summary. I feel as if I don not even need to read the article now, although I would like to because it sounds interesting, because Delia thoroughly described all the important parts. I feel she best described the flaws of the procedure, stating how it wasn't permanent and was just a test, not a final solution. She talked a lot about how the article could be improved which I really liked because I expressed a few of those same questions. Along with Fiona and Delia I had no idea that a procedure such as this could even be done! I always assumed the trachea was an imperative part of the body, crucial for survival beyond a few minutes, I never knew someone could live 2 1/2 years without one, especially a child. I don't have many suggestions, except for maybe a little more detail about the procedure, not just the aftermath and flaws. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed it.
ReplyDelete