Organ regrowth is the process of utilizing biomass and a patient's DNA to regrow organs that are damaged in some way. The process is widely available, though certain organs are more costly to regrow than others. Some individuals may choose to forgo regrowth of nonvital organs for personal reasons. Organ regrowth is also an important part of the cloning process.
Organ regrowth has a long history. Early organ regrowth was a slow and inexact science, usually utilizing traditional cloning methods. Organs had to be regrown essentially from scratch, a process that could be accelerated somewhat, but might have taken years for organs that needed to fully develop such as the lungs or heart. In those days, it was often safer and more expedient to simply repair an organ utilizing stem cells, except in cases of extreme failure. Of course, in such situations, the wait for a fully regrown organ was usually too long, resulting in death without a donor transplant.
Modern organ regrowth only came into being within the last century, presaging the rise of modern full-body cloning techniques. The major breakthrough was the discovery of methods to take generic biomass and mold it into whatever form desired. Coupled with DNA injections and genetic restructuring of cells, this allowed organs to be regrown in a few days or weeks, rather than the years of before.
Modern organ regrowth is a three step process that utilizes several different technologies.
The first step is molding the new organ. This is a relatively simple process for most organs such as kidneys or livers, as only the basic size and shape of the organ need be replicated. For these organs, mass produced gel molds exist that can be quickly used. The most complicated organ to regrow is the brain, as it must be sculpted to match the patient's original brain closely, but brain regrowth is typically limited only to those planning on undergoing cloning. External organs, such as ears and noses, are typically customized for the patient as well.
Once the mold is prepared, it is seeded with biomass that has been impregnated with the patient's DNA. DNA taken from the healthy cells of the organ being regrown produce the most favorable results, but in the event of total organ failure, other DNA can be substituted. Similarly, the best biomass to use is high grade human biomass, though other biomass may be used to reduce costs, though this increases the risks of rejection and future organ failure.
After the seeding is complete, the biomass is subjected to cellular regeneration, inducing extremely fast regrowth. Depending on the size of the organ and the quality of the donor DNA and biomass, this process can take between a few days to a few weeks to complete. Organs such as lungs take the longest to grow, as they consist of numerous small structures, while simpler organs such as the stomach can be regrown fairly quickly.
Once the organ has finished being regrown it is tested for integrity. At times, the regrowth process can introduce cancerous elements to the organ. These must be purged prior to implanting, else they can impact the patient's health further. In extreme cases, an organ must be completely scrapped, as excising the cancerous cells would render the organ inoperable.
Modern organ regrowth has a high success rate, though the exact percentages vary based on a number of factors. Damage to a patient's DNA through exposure to radiation or toxins can greatly reduce the chances of an organ being regrown successfully.
A recent decade-long study bytracked 1000 patients who had undergone heart regrowth following cardiac arrest. After a year, 95% were in good health and reported only either minor problems or none at all. After five years, this number lowered to 89%, with 3% being deceased from heart-related problems, 1% having died from unrelated factors, 5% having undergone a second heart replacement, and 2% reporting major complications. After ten years, the percentage was 86%, with 8% having died from heart-related problems, 5% having passed from unrelated factors, 8% having undergone an additional replacement, and 3% reporting major complications.
As the study was not controlled for factors such as patient wealth and the quality of their regrown organs, the study has been criticized in some circles. Two conflicting arguments have stated the study was either unrealistically optimistic or pessimistic. Those who believe it was optimistic state that the study followed an unrealistic percentage of individuals who could afford the highest quality biomass and doctors, while the other side believes it followed too many who were forced into using low quality animal biomass. Regardless, survival percentages are generally higher than those who receive donor transplants.