Hubbry Logo
Jet injectorJet injectorMain
Open search
Jet injector
Community hub
Jet injector
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Jet injector
Jet injector
Jet injector
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A jet injector being used in mass vaccinations, 1976 swine flu outbreak, United States

A jet injector is a type of medical injecting syringe device used for a method of drug delivery known as jet injection. A narrow, high-pressure stream of liquid is made to penetrate the outermost layer of the skin (stratum corneum) to deliver medication to targeted underlying tissues of the epidermis or dermis (cutaneous injection, also known as classical intradermal injection), fat (subcutaneous injection), or muscle (intramuscular injection).

The jet stream is usually generated by the pressure of a piston in an enclosed liquid-filled chamber. The piston is usually pushed by the release of a compressed metal spring, although devices being studied may use piezoelectric effects and other novel technologies to pressurize the liquid in the chamber. The springs of currently marketed and historical devices may be compressed by operator muscle power, hydraulic fluid, built-in battery-operated motors, compressed air or gas, and other means. Gas-powered and hydraulically powered devices may involve hoses that carry compressed gas or hydraulic fluid from separate cylinders of gas, electric air pumps, foot-pedal pumps, or other components to reduce the size and weight of the hand-held part of the system and to allow faster and less-tiring methods to perform numerous consecutive vaccinations.

Jet injectors were used for mass vaccination, and as an alternative to needle syringes for diabetics to inject insulin. However, the World Health Organization no longer recommends jet injectors for vaccination due to risks of disease transmission.[1] Similar devices are used in other industries to inject grease or other fluid.

The term "hypospray", although better known from its usage in the 1960s television show Star Trek, is attested in the medical literature as early as 1956.[2]

Types

[edit]
A Med-E-Jet vaccination gun from 1980

A jet injector, also known as a jet gun injector, air gun, or pneumatic injector, is a medical instrument that uses a high-pressure jet of liquid medication to penetrate the skin and deliver medication under the skin without a needle. Jet injectors can be single-dose or multi-dose.

Throughout the years jet injectors have been redesigned to overcome the risk of carrying contamination to successive subjects. To try to stop the risk, researchers placed a single-use protective cap over the reusable nozzle. The protective cap was intended to act as a shield between the reusable nozzle and the patient's skin. After each injection the cap would be discarded and replaced with a sterile one. These devices were known as protector cap needle-free injectors or PCNFI.[3] A safety test by Kelly and colleagues (2008)[4] found a PCNFI device failed to prevent contamination. After administering injections to hepatitis B patients, researchers found hepatitis B had penetrated the protective cap and contaminated the internal components of the jet injector, showing that the internal fluid pathway and patient-contacting parts cannot safely be reused.

Researchers developed a new jet injection design by combining the drug reservoir, plunger and nozzle into a single-use disposable cartridge. The cartridge is placed onto the tip of the jet injector and, when activated, a rod pushes the plunger forward. This device is known as a disposable-cartridge jet injector (DCJI).[3]

The International Standards Organization recommended abandoning the use of the name "jet injector", which is associated with a risk of cross-contamination and rather refer to newer devices as "needle-free injectors".[5]

Modern needle-free injector brands

[edit]

Since the late 1970s, jet injectors have been increasingly used by diabetics in the United States. These devices have all been spring-loaded. At their peak, jet injectors accounted for 7% of the injector market. Currently, the only model available in the United States is the Injex 23. In the United Kingdom, the Insujet has recently entered the market. As of June 2015, the Insujet is available in the UK and a few select countries.[citation needed]

Researchers from the University of Twente in the Netherlands patented a Jet Injection System, comprising a microfluidic device for jet ejection and a laser-based heating system. A continuous laser beam – also called a continuous-wave laser – heats the liquid to be administered, which is launched in a droplet form across the epidermis and slows down into the tissue below.[6]

Concerns

[edit]

Since the jet injector breaks the barrier of the skin, there is a risk of blood and biological material being transferred from one user to the next. Research on the risks of cross-contamination arose immediately after the invention of jet injection technology.

There are three inherent problems with jet injectors:

Splash-back

[edit]

Splash-back refers to the jet stream penetrating the outer skin at a high velocity, causing the jet stream to ricochet backward and contaminate the nozzle.[7]

Instances of splash-back have been published by several researchers. Samir Mitragrotri visually captured splash-back after discharging a multi-use nozzle jet injector using high-speed microcinematography.[8] Hoffman and colleagues (2001) also observed the nozzle and internal fluid pathway of the jet injector becoming contaminated.[9]

Fluid suck-back

[edit]

Fluid suck-back occurs when blood left on the nozzle of the jet injector is sucked back into the injector orifice, contaminating the next dose to be fired.[7]

The CDC has acknowledged that the most widely used jet injector in the world, the Ped-O-Jet, sucked fluid back into the gun. "After injections, they [CDC] observed fluid remaining on the Ped-O-Jet nozzle being sucked back into the device upon its cocking and refilling for the next injection (beyond the reach of alcohol swabbing or acetone swabbing)," stated Dr. Bruce Weniger.[10]

Retrograde flow

[edit]

Retrograde flow happens after the jet stream penetrates the skin and creates a hole, if the pressure of the jet stream causes the spray, after mixing with tissue fluids and blood, to rebound back out of the hole, against the incoming jet stream and back into the nozzle orifice.[7]

This problem has been reported by numerous researchers.[11][12][9][13][14]

Hepatitis B can be transmitted by less than one nanolitre[15] so makers of injectors must ensure there is no cross-contamination between applications. The World Health Organization no longer recommends jet injectors for vaccination due to risks of disease transmission.[1]

Numerous studies have found cross-infection of diseases from jet injections. An experiment using mice, published in 1985, showed that jet injectors would frequently transmit the viral infection lactate dehydrogenase elevating virus (LDV) from one mouse to another.[16] Another study used the device on a calf, then tested the fluid remaining in the injector for blood. Every injector they tested had detectable blood in a quantity sufficient to pass on a virus such as hepatitis B.[15]

From 1984 to 1985, a weight-loss clinic in Los Angeles administered human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) with a Med-E-Jet injector. A CDC investigation found 57 out of 239 people who had received the jet injection tested positive for hepatitis B.[17]

Jet injectors have also been found to inoculate bacteria from the environment into users. In 1988 a podiatry clinic used a jet injector to deliver local anaesthetic into patients' toes. Eight of these patients developed infections caused by Mycobacterium chelonae. The injector was stored in a container of water and disinfectant between use, but the organism grew in the container.[18] This species of bacteria is sometimes found in tap water, and had been previously associated with infections from jet injectors.[19]

History

[edit]
Hypospray Jet Injector used in typhus vaccination at a US military base, 1959
A jet injector being used in 1973, in Campada, Guinea-Bissau
  • 19th century: Workmen in France had accidental jet injections with high-powered grease guns.[20]
  • December 18, 1866: Jules-Auguste Béclard presented Dr. Jean Sales-Girons invention, Appareil pour l'aquapuncture to l'Académie Impériale de Médecine in Paris. This is the earliest documented jet injector to administer water or medicine under enough pressure to penetrate the skin without the use of a needle.[21]
  • 1920s: Diesel engines began to be made in large quantities: thus the start of serious risk of accidental jet-injection by their fuel injectors in workshop accidents.
  • 1935: Arnold K. Sutermeister, a mechanical engineer, witnessed a worker injure his hand from a high-pressure jet stream and theorized of using the concept to administer medicine. Sutermeister collaborates with Dr. John Roberts in creating a prototype jet injector.[22]
  • 1937: First published accidental jet injection by a diesel engine's fuel injector.[23]
  • 1936: Marshall Lockhart, an engineer, filed a patent for his idea of a jet injector after learning of Sutermeister's invention.[24]
  • 1947: Lockhart's jet injector, known as the Hypospray, was introduced for clinical evaluation by Dr. Robert Hingson and Dr. James Hughes.[25]
  • 1951: The Commission on Immunization of the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board requested the Army Medical Service Graduate School to develop "jet injection equipment specifically intended for rapid semiautomatic operation in large-scale immunization programs."[26] This device became known as the multi-use nozzle jet injector (MUNJI).
  • 1954–1967: Dr. Robert Hingson partook in numerous health expeditions with his charity, Brother's Brother Foundation. Hingson stated he vaccinated upwards of 2 million people across the globe using various multi-use nozzle jet injectors.[27]
  • 1955: Warren and colleagues (1955) reported on the introduction of a prototype multi-dose jet injector, known as the Press-O-Jet, which had successfully undergone clinical testing upon 1,685 soldiers within the U.S. Army.[26]
  • 1959: Abram Benenson, the Lieutenant Colonel for the Division of Immunology at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, reported on the development of what became widely known as the Ped-O-Jet. The invention was the collaboration of Dr. Benenson and Aaron Ismach. Ismach was a civilian scientist working for the US Army Medical Equipment and Research Development Laboratory.[28]
  • 1961: The Department of the Army made multi-use nozzle jet injectors the standard for administering immunizations.[29]
  • 1961: The CDC implemented mass vaccination programs across the United States called Babies and Breadwinners to combat polio. These vaccination events used multi-use nozzle jet injectors.[30]
  • 1964: Aaron Ismach invented an intradermal nozzle for the Ped-O-Jet injector, which allowed delivery of the shallower smallpox vaccinations.[31]
  • 1964: Aaron Ismach was awarded the Exceptional Civilian Service Award at the Eighth Annual Secretary of the Army Awards ceremonies for his invention of the intradermal nozzle.[32]
  • 1966: Oscar Banker, an engineer, patented his invention of a portable multi-use nozzle jet injector that utilizes CO2 as its energy source. This would become known as the Med-E-Jet.[33]
  • September 1966: The Star Trek series started to use its own jet injector device under the name "hypospray".
  • 1967: Nicaraguans undergoing smallpox vaccinations nicknamed the gun-like jet injectors (Ped-O-Jet and Med-E-Jet) as "la pistola de la paz", meaning "the pistol of peace". The name "Peace Guns" stuck.[34]
  • 1976: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) published a book called War on Hunger which detailed the War Against Smallpox which Ismach's Jet Injector gun was used to eradicate the disease in Africa and Asia. The US government spent $150 million a year to prevent its recurrence in North America.
  • 1986: A hepatitis B outbreak occurs amongst 57 patients at a Los Angeles clinic due to a Med-E-Jet injector.[17]
  • 1997: The US Department of Defense, the jet injector's biggest user, announced that it would stop using it for mass vaccinations due to concerns about infection.[35][36]
  • 2003: The US Department of Veterans Affairs recognized for the first time that a veteran acquired Hepatitis C from his military jet injections and awarded service-connection for his disability.[37]
  • April 2010: A laser-based reusable microjet injector for transdermal drug delivery was made by Tae-hee Han and Jack J. Yoh.[38]
  • February 13, 2013: The PharmaJet Stratis Needle-Free Injector received WHO PQS Certification.[39]
  • 2013: The most comprehensive review and history of jet injection to date is published in the 6th edition of the textbook Vaccines.[40]
  • August 14, 2014: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the PharmaJet Stratis 0.5ml Needle-free Jet Injector for delivery of one particular flu vaccine (AFLURIA by bioCSL Inc.) in people 18 through 64 years of age.[41][42]
  • October 2017: A group of scientists publishes an academic study in the Journal of Biomedical Optics, about a new jet injection technique of jet injection by continuous-wave laser cavitation aimed to "develop a needle-free device for eliminating major global healthcare problems caused by needles".[43]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Jet injector

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A jet injector is a needle-free that delivers liquid medication, such as or insulin, by propelling a high-pressure stream of the fluid through a narrow to penetrate the skin and deposit the substance into underlying tissues. Invented in during the 1860s, jet injectors remained experimental until the mid-20th century, when they were adapted for efficient mass vaccinations, including the World Health Organization's global eradication campaign starting in 1967, where devices like the "peace gun" enabled the rapid administration of tens of millions of doses without needles. These devices offer advantages such as eliminating risks, standardizing dose delivery, and facilitating high-volume immunizations, making them particularly valuable in settings and for patients with needle phobia. However, early multi-use jet injectors faced significant challenges, including potential transmission of bloodborne pathogens like and due to incomplete sterilization between uses, which contributed to their decline in routine clinical practice by the . Modern iterations, featuring disposable nozzles and improved safety mechanisms, have renewed their application in areas like care for insulin delivery and programs, with ongoing addressing , drug compatibility, and cost barriers to broader adoption. As of 2025, advancements such as Crossject's ZENEO auto-injector are progressing for emergency drug delivery like epinephrine, backed by partnerships with regulatory bodies and the .

Mechanism and design

Operating principles

Jet injection is a needle-free method that employs a high-pressure stream of liquid medication to penetrate the skin and deposit the substance into targeted tissue layers, such as subcutaneous or intramuscular regions. This technique creates a temporary micro-hole in the skin without the use of traditional , relying instead on the of the fluid jet to breach the dermal barrier and facilitate absorption. The process begins with the loaded into a pressurized chamber, where it is then propelled through a narrow orifice at velocities typically ranging from 100 to 200 m/s. The orifice is usually 0.1 to 0.15 mm, and the system generates pressures up to 27,500 kPa (approximately 4,000 psi) to achieve sufficient for penetration. Injection volumes commonly fall between 0.5 and 1.5 mL, with the entire delivery occurring in fractions of a second: an initial high-pressure phase pierces the skin, followed by dispersion of the into the tissue. Fundamentally, the operating principles draw on , particularly , which governs the acceleration of the liquid as it exits the , converting energy into to form a coherent, high-velocity jet. Penetration into the tissue occurs via momentum transfer from the jet to the skin layers, where the force exerted—qualitatively understood as the product of and the orifice area—determines the jet's ability to displace and enter biological barriers without fragmentation. Key factors influencing delivery depth and efficacy include the orifice size, which affects jet coherence and initial penetration force; the of the medication, as higher can reduce jet and limit depth; and the injected volume, which impacts dispersion patterns. By adjusting pressure and nozzle design, jet injectors can target varying layers: lower pressures for epidermal or dermal delivery, and higher pressures for subcutaneous or intramuscular deposition, enabling precise control over the site of action.

Key components

A jet injector consists of several core physical and functional components that work together to generate and deliver a high-velocity stream for subcutaneous or intramuscular administration. These include a reservoir, a precision , a power source to propel the , a trigger mechanism for activation, and integrated safety features. Materials are selected for sterility, durability, and , with designs often incorporating disposable elements to maintain hygiene. The , or drug chamber, holds the in volumes typically ranging from 0.05 to 3 mL, often constructed from sterile to ensure containment and prevent during storage and delivery. This chamber interfaces directly with the injector's propulsion system, allowing for precise dosing without the need for . In reusable models, the may be refillable, while disposable variants use pre-filled cartridges or ampoules for single-use . The serves as the critical exit point for the medication, featuring a small orifice with a of 0.1 to 0.3 mm to create the fine, high-speed jet that penetrates the skin. Materials such as or are commonly used for the due to their hardness and resistance to wear under , ensuring consistent jet formation over multiple uses. For example, nozzles with orifices around 0.127 mm have been employed in delivery systems to achieve penetration depths of 2 to 5.5 mm. Power sources vary by design but generally provide the needed to accelerate the to velocities of about 100 m/s, generating s up to 4000 psi (approximately 27.6 MPa) within the chamber. Common options include compressed gas (e.g., CO2 or cartridges), spring-loaded mechanisms, or battery-powered actuators, each building and releasing to drive the fluid through the . The trigger mechanism enables controlled activation, either manually via a or that releases stored from the power source, or automatically in advanced electronic models. This component ensures the buildup and sudden release occur in a fraction of a second, typically 0.1 seconds, for efficient injection. Safety features are integral to modern jet injectors, including pressure regulators to maintain consistent output and prevent over-pressurization, as well as auto-disable mechanisms that render the device inoperable after a single use to reduce cross-contamination risks. Dual safety systems, such as locking triggers and visual indicators for readiness, further enhance user safety and device reliability. Overall, the injector's body and internal parts are made from biocompatible materials like sterile plastics for lightweight construction and corrosion resistance, with metallic elements (e.g., or aluminum) used for durable components such as the and pistons. Disposable aspects, including single-use ampoules or syringes, are emphasized in contemporary designs to promote , contrasting with earlier reusable models that required thorough sterilization.

History

Early invention and development

The earliest documented concept for a jet injector emerged in 1866, when French surgeon Jean Sales-Girons developed the Appareil pour l'aquapuncture, a device that utilized to propel a fine stream of liquid through a small for subcutaneous delivery and . This marked the initial adaptation of high-pressure for medical injection, though it remained largely experimental and was not widely adopted due to technological limitations of the era. Nearly seven decades later, in 1935, mechanical engineer Arnold K. Sutermeister filed a for a high-pressure injection device, inspired by observations of industrial cleaning tools where fluid jets under pressure could penetrate without mechanical aid. Sutermeister's design aimed to apply this principle to hypodermic delivery, using a pressurized reservoir to force liquid through a narrow orifice at velocities sufficient for tissue penetration, though the was not granted until 1954 amid ongoing refinements. A significant advancement occurred in 1947 with the introduction of the by anesthesiologist Robert A. Hingson and pediatrician James G. Hughes, who conducted the first clinical evaluations of a practical compressed-air-powered jet injector for painless drug administration. Their device, based on earlier concepts like Marshall Lockhart's prototype, delivered precise doses of anesthetics and other medications via a high-velocity liquid stream, demonstrating reduced patient anxiety and faster injection times in trials involving over 100 patients. In the , engineer Aaron Ismach further innovated with -driven mechanisms, patenting designs that used a spring-loaded to generate consistent high pressure, prioritizing pain minimization and rapid delivery for broader clinical use. Ismach's contributions, including foot-pedal variants for field applications, addressed portability issues in earlier air-compressed models while enhancing speed for potential mass treatments. Despite these progresses, pre-1960s jet injectors encountered key challenges, such as inconsistent penetration depths resulting from variations in type and stability, alongside medication waste from incomplete dose delivery or . These issues stemmed from rudimentary control and designs, limiting reliability until subsequent engineering improvements.

Adoption in mass immunizations

In 1959, U.S. military physicians Abram Benenson and Ismach developed the Ped-O-Jet at the Army Institute of Research specifically for rapid vaccinations in large-scale programs. This device utilized to propel medication through the skin without needles, enabling efficient delivery in high-volume military settings. Early designs like the from the 1940s influenced these military models by demonstrating the feasibility of pressure-based injection for insulin and other therapeutics. By 1961, the U.S. Army adopted the Ped-O-Jet for widespread immunizations, including , plague, and vaccines, particularly during the era when troops required quick protection against tropical diseases. The system allowed administration of up to 1,000 doses per hour, with each dose taking approximately 10-15 seconds including positioning and delivery, far surpassing traditional needle methods in speed for mass processing of recruits. Between 1963 and 1980, jet injectors administered an estimated 20 to 40 million doses to U.S. , contributing to over 100 million total injections when including global programs. In the 1960s through the 1980s, the (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) integrated jet injectors into global public health campaigns, notably for eradication and routine vaccinations in developing countries where access to sterile needles was limited. These efforts leveraged the injectors' advantages in mass settings, such as reduced needle phobia among populations, delivery times of 10-15 seconds per dose, and overall cost savings through minimized material use and faster throughput—enabling thousands of immunizations daily by small teams. The program alone utilized jet injectors for 50 to 100 million doses worldwide, accelerating eradication in regions like and .

Decline and regulatory scrutiny

The decline of jet injectors began in the 1980s amid growing evidence of their potential for transmitting bloodborne pathogens through multi-use devices. A notable incident occurred between 1984 and 1985 at a weight reduction clinic in , where 57 out of 239 patients who received injections via a multi-use jet injector developed acute infection, highlighting risks from inadequate sterilization between uses. This outbreak, linked to retrograde blood flow contaminating the injector's and internal components, prompted investigations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and underscored the device's vulnerability to cross-contamination in clinical settings. By the mid-1990s, research further quantified these risks, with studies demonstrating cross-contamination rates of 1-6% in multi-use nozzle jet injectors during simulated or actual use, primarily due to blood and tissue residue persisting despite surface disinfection. In response, the (WHO) recommended against the routine use of jet injectors in mass immunization campaigns, favoring single-use needles to minimize transmission of , hepatitis C, and . This policy shift reflected broader concerns over iatrogenic infections in resource-limited settings where sterilization protocols were often challenging to enforce. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) formalized these concerns in 1997 by halting the use of jet injectors for military immunizations, citing documented risks of and transmission based on outbreak data and laboratory simulations. During the , manufacturers attempted redesigns incorporating disposable cartridges and improved barriers to reduce , but these efforts failed to reverse the overall decline, as safer, cost-effective alternatives like auto-disable syringes gained preference in global health programs.

Types

Traditional multi-use injectors

Traditional multi-use jet injectors were reusable devices designed for high-volume administration of medications, particularly in mass immunization campaigns, featuring shared nozzles and chambers that required cleaning and sterilization between uses. These injectors propelled liquid medication through a narrow orifice at high velocity to penetrate the skin without , typically delivering intradermal, subcutaneous, or intramuscular doses. Key examples include the Ped-O-Jet and Dermojet, which relied on mechanical mechanisms to generate the necessary for jet formation. The Ped-O-Jet, developed in the , utilized a hydraulic foot as its power source, allowing operators to build manually for repeated firings without external or gas. In contrast, the Dermojet employed a spring-loaded mechanism, achieving pressures around 1,420 psi to eject fixed 0.1 mL doses from a 4 mL reservoir. Other variants, such as the Med-E-Jet, incorporated compressed CO2 canisters for portable, gas-powered operation, enabling consistent propulsion in field settings. These designs emphasized durability for multiple uses, with nozzles often autoclaved at 134°C for 18 minutes between patients to mitigate contamination risks. Early U.S. models, standardized by the in 1961 as multi-use nozzle jet injectors (MUNJIs), exemplified these features for rapid troop immunizations, while the variant from the late 1940s focused on self-administration of insulin using a compact, mechanically simple design. These injectors were prevalent in and environments from the through the , supporting drives where they could deliver 50-100 doses per setup, depending on reservoir capacity and dose volume. Despite their , traditional multi-use injectors had inherent limitations, including higher potential for cross-contamination due to incomplete sterilization of shared components, as residual fluids could persist on nozzles. from repeated use often led to inconsistent dosing, with jets penetrating deeper than intended, causing variable delivery depths, , or tissue . These issues contributed to their eventual decline in favor of safer alternatives.

Modern disposable and single-use designs

Modern disposable and single-use jet injectors represent a significant evolution in needle-free technology, designed primarily to eliminate cross-contamination risks associated with reusable components while enhancing user safety and convenience. These devices are broadly classified into two main types: Protector Cap Needle-Free Injectors (PCNFI), which employ disposable protective caps that shield the reusable and are discarded after each use to prevent transfer, and Disposable-Cartridge Jet Injectors (DCJI), which utilize pre-filled, single-use cartridges containing the to ensure sterility throughout the injection process. PCNFIs, such as early models like the HSI-500, maintain a reusable core mechanism but isolate interface via the cap, while DCJIs fully segregate the from the body, allowing for straightforward disposal after administration. Powering these injectors are typically spring-loaded or compressed gas mechanisms, which generate the high-pressure jet required for skin penetration, often achieving velocities between 100 and 300 m/s to propel the liquid stream effectively without needles. Some advanced designs incorporate battery-powered electromagnetic actuators, such as linear Lorentz-force motors, for more precise control over jet dynamics and portability in self-administration scenarios. Key commercial examples include the PharmaJet Stratis, a DCJI approved by the FDA in 2014 for delivering 0.5 mL doses of inactivated influenza vaccine, demonstrating reliable intradermal and intramuscular performance. In the U.S., the Injex (INJEX 30) serves as a spring-powered option for insulin delivery, while the InsuJet, introduced in the UK around 2015, offers a portable system for subcutaneous injections using disposable nozzles. Additionally, the ZomaJet, acquired by Ferring Pharmaceuticals in 2017, is tailored for growth hormone administration via pre-filled cartridges, supporting doses up to 10 mg/mL. Recent advancements in these designs focus on improving usability and patient comfort, including auto-retracting nozzles that minimize post-injection residue and , alongside precise dosing capabilities ranging from 0.1 mL for intradermal applications to 1 mL for subcutaneous or intramuscular routes. Optimized orifice sizes, often reduced to micrometer scales, contribute to lower pain levels by creating finer jets that penetrate the skin more gently compared to earlier models. These features, combined with ergonomic portability, have driven growing adoption for self-administration, particularly in chronic therapies. Market analyses project the global jet injector sector to expand at a (CAGR) of approximately 7.9% from 2025, reaching $4.2 billion by 2032, fueled by demand for safe, user-friendly alternatives in home-based care.

Applications

Vaccination and immunization

Jet injectors played a significant role in mass campaigns during the and , particularly in the early phases of the World Health Organization's smallpox eradication program, where devices like the Ped-O-Jet administered tens of millions of doses across and . This technology enabled rapid of large populations, with one device capable of delivering up to 1,000 doses per hour, facilitating the delivery of over 100 million vaccinations globally in eradication efforts by the 1980s. Their use extended to other programs, including initiatives in the , where they supported efficient deployment in high-volume settings. Jet injectors are compatible with inactivated vaccines, such as those for and , producing immune responses equivalent to traditional needle methods. For instance, the PharmaJet Stratis device received FDA approval in 2014 for delivering the AFLURIA to individuals aged 18-64, demonstrating non-inferior and safety compared to needle-and-syringe administration. However, live attenuated vaccines present challenges due to potential stability issues from the high shear forces generated during , which can affect viral viability, though responses remain generally comparable when stability is maintained. In vaccination contexts, jet injectors offer benefits like reduced pain—reported as less intense and frequent than with fine-gauge needles—and faster administration rates, making them suitable for outbreak responses. Studies indicate they elicit similar seroconversion rates for vaccines while minimizing and enabling quicker mass deployment, as seen in potential applications where rapid immunization is critical. Limitations include incompatibility with highly viscous formulations, such as certain lipid nanoparticle-based COVID-19 vaccines, where the required pressure exceeds standard jet injector capabilities, potentially leading to inconsistent delivery. Despite advancements in disposable designs, these constraints restrict their use to lower-viscosity vaccines in modern immunization programs.

Therapeutic drug delivery

Jet injectors play a key role in therapeutic drug delivery for chronic conditions, enabling needle-free subcutaneous administration of medications in clinical and home environments. For diabetes management, the InsuJet device delivers insulin rapidly and painlessly, promoting faster absorption and better glycemic control compared to traditional needles. In growth hormone therapy, the Zomajet system administers somatropin formulations like ZOMACTON, offering a convenient option for pediatric and adult patients requiring daily injections. For pain management in arthritis and cancer, devices such as the J-Tip provide virtually painless delivery of local anesthetics or analgesics, reducing procedural discomfort during treatments. Emerging applications extend to , where needle-free jet injectors facilitate superficial delivery of , shortening procedure times from 20-25 minutes to about 5 minutes while enhancing patient comfort and safety, as detailed in a 2025 review. In veterinary practice, these injectors are employed for delivering steroids and to animals, allowing efficient administration to large groups with minimal handling stress. Jet injectors are designed for precise subcutaneous delivery of volumes up to 0.5 , making them ideal for self-use by patients managing chronic conditions like or growth deficiencies. Modern disposable designs support this home-based application, simplifying routine . Key advantages include a lower incidence of needle-stick injuries, safeguarding healthcare workers during administration, and more consistent absorption rates that support predictable therapeutic outcomes. The increasing global prevalence of , affecting 589 million adults (aged 20-79) as of 2025, is fueling demand for jet injectors in therapeutic delivery, with the needle-free injector market anticipated to expand at a (CAGR) of 12.08% from 2025 to 2032.

Benefits and limitations

Advantages over hypodermic needles

Jet injectors offer reduced compared to hypodermic needles due to the absence of needle penetration and the rapid, diffuse delivery of through a high-pressure stream. Studies have demonstrated significantly lower scores during procedures such as injections and arterial cannulation with jet injectors, with one trial reporting mean scores of 3 versus 23 on a 0-100 visual analog scale for needle infiltration. Another investigation found that 76.7% of participants experienced no following jet injection, compared to higher discomfort rates with conventional needles. These devices enhance user safety by eliminating needle phobia and preventing sharps injuries among healthcare workers. Jet injectors are particularly beneficial for patients with needle aversion, providing a viable alternative that minimizes anxiety during injections. By removing the need for needles, they reduce the risk of needlestick injuries, which account for approximately 37% of work-related infections and 39% of infections in healthcare settings, with estimates indicating up to 29% of such injuries are preventable through needle-free methods. Jet injectors improve efficiency in , enabling faster administration—often in fractions of a second—compared to the preparation and injection time required for hypodermic needles. This speed is advantageous in mass campaigns, where historical use allowed up to 1,000 injections per hour, simplifying and reducing overall procedure time. Additionally, they eliminate needle disposal waste, streamlining operations without generating sharps hazards. In terms of accessibility, jet injectors are well-suited for resource-limited settings, children, and the elderly, as their needle-free design facilitates easier use in field conditions or for individuals sensitive to traditional injections. During house-to-house campaigns, 91% of vaccinators highlighted the absence of sharps disposal as a key benefit, enhancing practicality in low-resource environments. Their operational simplicity supports broader efforts without requiring advanced training. Physiologically, jet injectors may improve for certain drugs through even dispersion in tissues, leading to more uniform absorption than the localized delivery of hypodermic needles. This results in faster onset and potentially enhanced efficacy, as observed with insulin where accelerated absorption improved glycemic control. In applications, the broader tissue distribution can boost compared to needle-based methods.

Operational and practical challenges

Jet injectors present several operational and practical challenges that limit their widespread adoption in clinical settings. One primary hurdle is the high upfront cost of the devices themselves, which typically range from $200 to $700 per unit, significantly exceeding the cost of traditional hypodermic needles at approximately $0.25 each. Additionally, while disposable cartridges or nozzles for jet injectors cost around $0.12 per use, the overall expense per dose remains higher than the $0.10 for disposable syringes, making them less economical for large-scale programs. These costs can strain budgets in resource-limited environments, despite potential long-term savings in high-volume scenarios. Training requirements add another layer of complexity, as operators must learn precise techniques for maintaining skin contact and applying consistent pressure to ensure effective delivery without causing bruising or incomplete injection. Inadequate training can lead to variability in outcomes, with studies noting the need for specialized instruction to optimize performance. This demand for skilled personnel contrasts with the simplicity of syringe use and can hinder deployment in understaffed facilities. Medication constraints further restrict applicability, as jet injectors may face challenges with highly viscous fluids (e.g., above 20-30 cP), as increased resistance can reduce jet velocity and penetration, though some devices can handle up to 87 cP with adjustments. They are also limited to small volumes, typically under 2 mL, beyond which dispersion becomes uneven and multiple injections may be required. Moreover, the high shear forces generated during propulsion can potentially degrade sensitive biologics like proteins, although exposure duration is shorter than in needle-based systems. Maintenance of reusable jet injectors involves rigorous sterilization protocols, such as autoclaving, to prevent between uses, which adds time and logistical burdens compared to single-use syringes. can vary significantly from 1 to 10 mm depending on factors like pressure settings, skin type, and device calibration, necessitating adjustments that may not always be feasible in field conditions. Accessibility remains a key challenge, particularly in low-income regions, where jet injectors are bulkier and less readily available following the World Health Organization's shift toward auto-disable syringes in the early to enhance safety. This transition has reduced distribution networks for jet devices, limiting their use in mass campaigns despite their speed advantages in high-volume settings.

Safety and regulatory aspects

Cross-contamination risks

Jet injectors, particularly multi-use designs, pose significant cross-contamination risks due to mechanical and biological factors that can transfer infectious material between patients. These devices propel medication at high velocity through the skin, but the process can lead to the mixing of patient fluids with the injector or subsequent doses, facilitating the spread of bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). One primary mechanism is splash-back, where the high-velocity jet impacts the skin, causing or to rebound and contaminate the . This forceful rebound expels , including potential viral particles, back toward the device, increasing the risk of transfer to the next user. Another mechanism, suck-back, occurs when pressure is released after injection, creating a vacuum effect that draws or tissue fluids left on the into the injector's internal components, thereby contaminating the reservoir for future doses. Retrograde flow contributes further, as injected mixes with subcutaneous and tissue along the injection path and leaks back through the skin puncture, potentially re-entering the and mixing with the next injection. Evidence of transmission includes documented outbreaks of HBV linked to jet injectors. In a 1985 incident at a weight-reduction clinic, 24% (60 of 287 tested) of patients at the clinic developed evidence of recent HBV infection, with 24% among jet injector users versus 0% among those using syringes only; the outbreak ceased after jet injector use was halted. While direct cases of or HCV transmission via jet injectors are not reported, the potential exists due to the transfer of contaminated fluids, with surface swabs from injection sites detecting viral markers in infected subjects. Key risk factors include the use of multi-use nozzles without adequate disinfection between patients, which allows residual or fluids to persist. Studies modeling contamination have demonstrated that jet injectors can transfer significant volumes of —over 10 picoliters per injection—sufficient to transmit HBV, with transfer frequency and volume varying by device design. These risks prompted the U.S. Department of Defense to halt jet injector use for mass vaccinations in due to concerns.

Mitigation measures and approvals

To address cross-contamination risks such as suck-back in jet injectors, modern designs incorporate single-use protective caps or in partially covered nozzle-free injectors (PCNFI), which shield the reusable nozzle from direct contact and are discarded after each use. Similarly, disposable cartridge jet injectors (DCJI) utilize pre-filled, single-use cartridges that eliminate by separating the drug reservoir from the reusable actuation mechanism, ensuring no fluid pathway for between patients. Regulatory protocols emphasize rigorous sterilization for reusable components in multi-use devices, with guidelines recommending autoclaving or chemical disinfection like immersion in 2% for 30 minutes followed by a sterile rinse to achieve sterility assurance levels comparable to hypodermic . The U.S. (FDA) classifies jet injectors as Class II medical devices, requiring premarket notification via the 510(k) pathway to demonstrate substantial equivalence in safety and effectiveness, including validation of no cross-contamination through and human factors testing. Key regulatory approvals include the FDA's 2014 clearance of the PharmaJet Stratis device for intradermal and intramuscular delivery of influenza vaccines, marking a milestone for needle-free vaccination. The Stratis maintains its WHO PQS certification since 2013 for intramuscular and subcutaneous delivery. By 2025, PharmaJet's Tropis intradermal system has seen expansions including applications for tropical medicine vaccines like polio and tuberculosis screening, and partnerships for DNA-based therapies such as HIV vaccines. In March 2025, the WHO deployed PharmaJet's Tropis needle-free system in global polio eradication efforts, highlighting ongoing regulatory support for safe needle-free technologies in public health. In the European Union, devices like the InsuJet have obtained CE marking under the Medical Device Regulation, certifying compliance for subcutaneous insulin delivery in over 40 countries, with usability for patients aged six and older. Ongoing research focuses on hybrid technologies to enhance , such as laser-generated microjets that enable precise, superficial delivery with minimal tissue disruption, as explored in studies since the mid-2010s. A 2025 review affirms the of needle-free jet injectors in , reporting low adverse event rates for intradermal fillers and anesthetics, with reduced pain and infection risks compared to needles when using disposable components. Future prospects include integration of jet injection with smart auto-injectors, as seen in digitally controlled systems like Portal PRIME, which connect to cloud platforms for dose tracking and adherence monitoring, potentially expanding home-use applications. The global needle-free injector market, encompassing jet technologies, is projected to reach USD 43.54 billion by 2032, driven by safer disposable designs and regulatory advancements.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565248/
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/jet-injector
  3. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_1411247
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12065001/
  5. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/medicaldevices/article/11/1/011011/376568/A-New-Concept-of-Needle-Free-Jet-Injector-by-the
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9261949/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X10016725
  8. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd2076
  9. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/crossject-u-department-defense-relaunch-063000712.html
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8620904/
  11. https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/download/330/324/499
  12. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12206-018-1121-9
  13. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/990977/1/Portaro_PHD_F2022.pdf
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7310953/
  15. https://pharmajet.com/needle-free-technology/
  16. https://pharmajet.com/stratis-imsc/
  17. https://muzeum.nlk.cz/en/2021/03/predmet-mesice-brezen-2021/appareil-pour-laquapuncture/
  18. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2680439A/en
  19. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/211/835/186932/
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18917536/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5936486/
  22. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/achh/AMEDD_history_newsletter_21.pdf
  23. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA495556.pdf
  24. https://jtip.com/history-of-jet-injection/
  25. http://hcvets.com/data/FedAgencies/2001FDAJetInjectionHearing.htm
  26. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/21534/cdc_21534_DS1.pdf
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2393323/
  28. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000744.htm
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18272265/
  30. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-best-practices/vaccine-administration.html
  31. https://www.hepatitis.va.gov/pdf/jet-injectors.pdf
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41987653
  33. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA169791.pdf
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18123044/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7152424/
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X07015150
  37. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=994955
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169409X21005020
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357629718_Jet_injectors_Perspectives_for_small_volume_delivery_with_lasers
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350453311003249
  41. https://www.fiercepharma.com/regulatory/pharmajet-secures-fda-approval-for-jet-injection-system-for-flu-vaccine
  42. https://www.healthline.com/health/type-2-diabetes/insulin-jet-injectors
  43. https://insujet.pl/en/
  44. https://www.ferring.com/ferring-strengthens-growth-hormone-franchise-zomacton-through-acquisition-of-zomajet-needle-free-injector-device/
  45. https://pharmajet.com/tropis-id/
  46. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070055200A1/en
  47. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/jet-injector-287892
  48. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/09/16/666406/10098714/en/FDA-Approves-the-Use-of-a-Needle-Free-Injection-Device-to-Administer-the-Influenza-Vaccine.html
  49. https://www.nature.com/articles/nri1728
  50. https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20190405/jet-injector-effective-and-efficient-for-delivering-flu-vaccine
  51. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/14/6920
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3816925/
  53. https://insujet.com/
  54. https://ferringusa.com/?press=ferring-introduces-zoma-jet-10-a-new-needle-free-delivery-system-for-patients-treated-with-zomacton-10mg
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3728268/
  56. https://jtip.com/
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40351559/
  58. https://hipradermic.com/needle-free-jet-injectors-for-intradermal-vaccination-of-pigs-the-importance-of-precision/
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/jet-injector
  60. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.832726/full
  61. https://idf.org/about-diabetes/diabetes-facts-figures/
  62. https://www.snsinsider.com/reports/needle-free-injector-market-2845
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6844028/
  64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15021286/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11687312/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10126042/
  67. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/213860
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10798111/
  69. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/133280/cdc_133280_DS1.pdf
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10514717/
  71. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/262564/PMC2427792.pdf
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9964240/
  73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26737990/
  74. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/613868/archinte_150_9_020.pdf
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11913954_A_model_to_assess_the_infection_potential_of_jet_injectors_used_in_mass_immunisation
  76. https://www.ocregister.com/2016/02/17/vietnam-vets-blame-jet-guns-for-their-hepatitis-c/
  77. https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553%2898%2970043-4/fulltext
  78. https://pharmajet.com/pharmajet-to-present-latest-results-of-its-intradermal-programs-at-american-society-of-tropical-medicine-and-hygiene-annual-meeting/
  79. https://firstwordpharma.com/story/5941977
  80. https://www.nugenmd.com/news/2022/nugen-md-launches-new-insujet-brand-store-for-direct-purchasing-in-the-european-union/
  81. https://drug-dev.com/needle-free-injection-portal-prime-a-digitally-controlled-cloud-integrated-jet-injection-system/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.