The present invention relates to a posterior placed total lumbar artificial disc (“PTTLAD”) without supplemental instrumentation, that uses removable bi-functional screws, sliding expansile plates, and interchangeable cores which enhance individualized custom-fitting. In addition, oblique plate traction spikes are used for enhanced vertebral endplate penetration and incorporation. The present invention also relates to artificial total lumbar discs which can be posteriorly introduced into the lumbar spinal intervertebral disc space, unilaterally, from either left or right side.
Cervical and lumbar total artificial discs are entering the clinical neurosurgical and orthopedic markets. The benefits of these artificial discs are well known. They replace diseased discs, and preserve motion segment mobility. Discogenic and radicular pain are relieved without forfeiting segmental mobility, which is typical of traditional anterior or posterior lumbar fusions. Thus it is currently rational to place prosthetic discs anteriorly where access can be easily obtained, and they can be secured by a variety of anterior screw fixations. This technology is adequate for single level disc replacement in the cervical spine. However based on the current anterior cervical prosthetic disc screw fixation methodology its implantation is periodically complicated by screw failures e.g. partial or complete screw pullouts or breaks, and in most designs it is limited to single level replacement. Furthermore, for lumbar total artificial discs, placement is limited to only the L4/5 and L5/S1 disc spaces, and not above, secondary to aortic and vena caval anatomical restraints. Likewise, for the thoracic spine. Thus far no type of thoracic prosthetic disc device has been reported or described. Furthermore, despite the purported safety of placement of the current anterior total lumbar artificial discs, there is a significant risk of retrograde ejaculations in males, and the risk of vascular injury, which although small, is potentially catastrophic if it occurs.
The design of total artificial discs, which began in the 1970's, and in earnest in the 1980's, consists essentially of a core (synthetic nucleus pulposus) surrounded by a container (pseudo-annulus). Cores have consisted of rubber (polyolefin), polyurethane (Bryan-Cervical), silicon, stainless steel, metal on metal, ball on trough design (Bristol-Cervical, Prestige-Cervical), Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) with either a biconvex design allowing unconstrained kinematic motion (Link SB Charite-Lumbar), or a monoconvex design allowing semiconstrained motion (Prodisc-Lumbar). There is also a biologic 3-D fabric artificial disc interwoven with high molecular weight polyethylene fiber, which has only been tested in animals. Cervical and lumbar artificial discs are premised on either mechanical or viscoelastic design principles. The advantages of mechanical metal on metal designs including the stainless steel ball on trough design and the UHMWPE prostheses include their low friction, and excellent wear characteristics allowing long term motion preservation. Their major limitation is the lack of elasticity and shock absorption capacity. The favorable features of the viscoelastic prosthetics include unconstrained kinematic motion with flexion, extension, lateral bending, axial rotation and translation, as well as its cushioning and shock absorption capacity. On the other hand, their long term durability beyond ten years is not currently known. Containers have consisted of titanium plates, cobalt chrome or bioactive materials. This history is reviewed and well documented in Guyer, R. D., and Ohnmeiss, D. D. “Intervertebral disc prostheses”, Spine 28, Number 15S, S15-S23, 2003; and Wai, E. K., Se'mon, G. P. K. and Fraser, R. D. “Disc replacement arthroplasties: Can the success of hip and knee replacements be repeated in the spine?”, Seminars in Spine Surgery 15, No 4: 473-482, 2003.
It would be ideal if total lumbar artificial discs could be placed posteriorly allowing access to all levels of the lumbar spine. Also one could place these devices posteriorly in thoracic disc spaces through a transpedicular approach. Similarly if these devices can be placed anteriorly particularly in the cervical spine without anterior screw fixation, and custom-fit it for each disc in each individual, the ease of placement would reduce morbidity and allow for multilevel disc replacement. Placement of an artificial disc in the lumbar spine if inserted posteriorly through a unilateral laminotomy by using a classical open microscopic approach or by using a minimally invasive tubular endoscopic approach would significantly reduce the possibility of recurrent disc herniation. If placed without facet joint violation, or with only unilateral mesial facetectomy, and the device can purchase the endplates with spikes there would be no need for supplemental posterior pedicle screw fixation, thus obviating the associated morbidity associated with pedicle screws and bone harvesting. To take it one step further, if artificial lumbar discs can be posteriorly placed successfully and safely throughout the entire lumbar spine, every routine lumbar discectomy could be augmented by artificial disc placement which would simultaneously eliminate discogenic and radicular pain while preserving flexibility. Furthermore by so doing, the probability of recurrent herniation plummets, and subsequently the need for posterior pedicle instrumentation plummets, thereby diminishing overall spinal morbidity, expenditure, and leading to the overall improvement in the quality of life.
Presumably up to now, technology is not focusing on posterior placement of total lumbar prosthetic discs because of inadequate access to the disc space posteriorly. To circumvent this problem others have been working on the posterior placement, not of a total prosthetic disc but of a prosthetic disc nucleus (PDN), or essentially a core without a container (pseudo annulus). PDNs, which are considered post-discectomy augmentations, have consisted of one of the following materials: 1) hydrogel core surrounded by a polyethylene jacket (Prosthetic Disc Nucleus). Two of these devices have to be put in. There is a very high, 38% extrusion rate, 2) Polyvinyl alcohol (Aquarelle), 3) polycarbonate urethane elastomer with a memory coiling spiral (Newcleus), 4) Hydrogel memory coiling material that hydrates to fill then disc space, 5) Biodisc consisting of in-situ injectable and rapidly curable protein hydrogel, 6) Prosthetic Intervertebral Nucleus (PIN) consisting of a polyurethane balloon implant with in-situ injectable rapidly curable polyurethane and 7) thermopolymer nucleus implant. (See the two publications identified above). The approach of posteriorly placing artificial disc cores appears to be flawed in that: 1) there is a high extrusion rate, 2) it lacks good fixation as does total prosthetic devices that are placed anteriorly, 3) it is restricted only to early symptomatically disrupted discs which have only nucleus pulposus but not annulus or endplate pathology, and 4) are contraindicated in discs with an interspace height of less than 5 mm.
The primary advantages of artificial disc placement include the replacement of diseased discs with prosthetic devices which mimic as much as possible healthy natural discs thereby relieving axial and radicular pain without forfeiting segmental mobility. There are currently in the orthopedic and neurosurgical markets FDA approved anteriorly placed artificial total lumbar discs. The major disadvantages of anterior placement of these devices include vascular injury, blood loss, and retrograde ejaculation in males.
In our previous copending patent application Ser. No. 11/019,351, filed on Dec. 23, 2004 and Ser. No. 10/964,633, filed on Oct. 15, 2004, which are herein incorporated by reference, we have described artificial expansile total discs for placement throughout the entire spine. The relevant history and prior art of artificial discs are summarized and reviewed there. The artificial discs described in our previous patent applications expand in two or three dimensions, and have internal expanding mechanisms which necessitate a bilateral surgical approach for posterior placement into the lumbar spine. In one embodiment of the present invention, we have simplified the design by omitting an internal expansion mechanism, and by having the one-pieced disc plates expand in only one direction. These modifications make it technically easy to place with minimal disruption of the normal spinal anatomy and with minimal morbidity. Currently in the spinal market there exist only anteriorly placed total artificial lumbar discs. The risks of the anterior placement of these discs are well known and documented, and include but are not limited by vascular injury and retrograde ejaculation. Their surgical removal if warranted is technically challenging and potentially fatal in extreme circumstances. Our design retains all the benefits of the anterior artificial disc with respect to motion preservation, and has none of the above mentioned risks. In addition we introduce an additional novel safety feature, ball limiters, which prevent extrusion of the ball from the artificial disc, and limit complete unrestrained motion.
The Medical Device of
Referring now to
The mechanical crux to the PPLTAD height and width expandability are based on the interaction of a bi-functional (height/width) adjustment (BFA) screw 105 with a slotted worm nut 106, and a width adjustment screw 107 and their unified interactions with the dorsal and ventral aspects of each the opposing plates 101, 102, and with their unified interaction with both opposing plates 101, 102.
Located on the outer aspects of the plates 101, 102 are a series of obliquely oriented spikes 108. The obliqueness of the spikes 108 hinders extrusion by orientation as well as by traction. We believe that this is a unique design which is not found in other prosthetic disc devices.
The BFA threads 502 of screw 105 are in direct contact with the external slots 509 of the slotted worm nut 106 (
Another possible embodiment of the opposing plates includes making the opposing plates different sizes, and decreasing the sizes of the screws, thus allowing even more lateral flexion.
We will now describe the mechanism of height and width expansion. The closed PPLTAD is inserted into the emptied disc space (
The Surgical Method of
The method of posterior insertion of the PPLTAD into the posterior interspace can be performed open microscopically, or closed tubularly, using endoscopic and/or fluoroscopic guidance.
After the adequate induction of anesthesia the patient is positioned in the prone position. A midline incision is made, bilateral lamina are exposed, and bilateral hemi-laminotomies are performed preserving bilateral facet joints so as not to incur instability.
A complete discectomy is performed and the superior and inferior endplates exposed. The closed PPTLA without the core ball 401 is inserted. The four BFA screws 105 are turned clockwise leading to height extension of the opposing plates 101, 102 via downward sliding of the ventral segments 101b, 102b of the plates. The screws 105 are turned further clockwise thereby turning the width adjustment screws 107 via the turning of the slotted worm nut 106. This drives the opposing plates 101, 102 with their outer plate spikes 108 into the ventral endplates securing their attachment to the vertebral endplates. Fluoroscopic guidance is used to verify placement of the troughs 104 of the inner aspect of the plates 101, 102 at the center of the endplates so that they are at the center of gravity. Once the plates are secured into position the BFA screws are turned counterclockwise, thereby disengaging from the plates 101, 102 and the worm nuts 106. Once disengaged, the BFA screws 105 are removed from their slots, and the slotted worm nuts 106 and widening screws 107 are disengaged from their inserts. We now have two opposing plates 101, 102 with their opposing inner troughs 104 engaged in two opposing vertebral endplates. The size between the opposing troughs 104 is measured, and a custom-sized ball 401 is now inserted in between the troughs 104. The size of the ball 401 is such that it will fit substantially perfectly, and hence not dislodge. The patient is now closed in routine manner.
This device and method of insertion offer safe posterior lumbar placement with equal motion preservation compared to anteriorly placed lumbar discs. This PPLTAD can also be adopted for anterior lumbar placement, and for posterior and anterior placement into thoracic disc interspaces. In our previous patent we have a modified plate shape for anterior cervical disc placement. The mechanism described herein is easily adapted for cervical artificial discs that do and don't expand in height. We believe this PPLTAD treats disc disease with significantly decreased morbidity compared to other current devices, whilst preserving spinal segmental flexibility, and enhancing quality of life.
The Medical Device of
Referring now to
The Surgical Method of
The surgical steps necessary to practice the present invention will now be described.
After the adequate induction of anesthesia the patient is positioned prone on a fluoroscopically amenable table. A unilateral hemi-laminotomy is performed. The procedure can be performed microscopically, endoscopically or tubularly in routine manner. A routine discectomy is performed. The superior and inferior disc plates alignment slots 805 are inserted into the cradles of the insertion device 1800. The nerve root is gently retracted and the disc plates 801, 802 are inserted into the disc space attached to the inserting/spreading device 1800. Under fluoroscopic guidance the plates 801, 802 are then placed at the center of gravity of the vertebral plates i.e. at the anterior—posterior and dorsal-ventral centers. When confirmed radiographically, the surgeon spreads the spreader 1800 which drives the wedge 1806 between the separators 1801, 1802 (
The current device can easily be adapted for placement in cervical and thoracic discs. It may also be suitable for multiple level placements. This current device enables the restoration of motion of diseased discs with minimal anatomical destruction and invasiveness, and avoids the serious complications of anteriorly placed discs. Furthermore when an anteriorly placed lumbar disc is removed, it is extremely technically challenging. Furthermore the artificial disc is then replaced by a fusion device limiting motion. The posterior unilateral placement of this device obviates all the above mentioned risks. The device presented here is safely implanted avoiding anterior vascular structures and nerves which control ejaculation. It is also easily and safely explanted if necessary. The ease and safety of the insertion of this device heralds in a new era of safe and simple artificial lumbar disc technology.
This application is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/194,976, filed on Nov. 19, 2018, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/889,328, filed Sep. 23, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,130,493, which is a Divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/487,415, filed Jul. 17, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,854,766, which claims priority of provisional application 60/788,720, filed Apr. 4, 2006; the entire contents of all the above identified patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
200238 | Alker | Feb 1878 | A |
1553623 | McLeod | Sep 1925 | A |
2090872 | Lamb | Aug 1937 | A |
2214985 | Bachmann | Sep 1940 | A |
4554914 | Kapp et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
4636217 | Ogilvie et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4759766 | Buettner-Janz et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4960420 | Goble et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4997432 | Keller | Mar 1991 | A |
5123926 | Pisharodi | Jun 1992 | A |
5401269 | Buettner-Janz et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5514180 | Heggeness et al. | May 1996 | A |
5660188 | Groiso | Aug 1997 | A |
5667472 | Finn et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5782832 | Larsen et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5951564 | Schroder et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960522 | Boe | Oct 1999 | A |
5984922 | McKay | Nov 1999 | A |
6113637 | Gill et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6126689 | Brett | Oct 2000 | A |
6174311 | Branch et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6193757 | Foley et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6261296 | Aebi et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6368350 | Erickson et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6375682 | Fleischmann et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6419704 | Ferree | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6436101 | Hamada | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6458159 | Thalgott | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6527804 | Gauchet et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6533818 | Weber et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6540785 | Gill et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6572653 | Simonson | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6579318 | Varga et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6582468 | Gauchet | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6610093 | Pisharodi | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6641614 | Wagner et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6719794 | Gerber | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6723126 | Berry | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6730088 | Yeh | May 2004 | B2 |
6733532 | Gauchet et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6764491 | Frev et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6770094 | Fehling et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6866682 | An et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6899735 | Coates et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6904308 | Frisch et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6908484 | Zubok et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6955671 | Uchikubo | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6981989 | Fleischmann et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7018415 | McKay | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7030904 | Adair et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7037258 | Chatenever et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7097615 | Banik et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7115144 | Diaz et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7118580 | Beyersdorff et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7217293 | Branch | May 2007 | B2 |
7250060 | Trieu | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7927373 | Parsons | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8858635 | Hovorka et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8998990 | Bertagnoli | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9265618 | Rashbaum et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
20020045904 | Fuss et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20030229355 | Keller | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040088054 | Beny | May 2004 | A1 |
20040088064 | Beny | May 2004 | A1 |
20040177531 | DiBenedetto et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040254644 | Taylor | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050027362 | Williams et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050049590 | Alleyne et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050085910 | Sweeney | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050165485 | Trieu | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050216084 | Fleischmann | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050273170 | Navarro et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050273174 | Gordon et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278026 | Gordon et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060025777 | Weber | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060025862 | de Villiers et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060036325 | Paul et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060136062 | DiNello | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060155377 | Beaurain et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060178745 | Bartish et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195192 | Gordon et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060235527 | Buettner-Janz | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060276902 | Zipnick | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070010826 | Rhoda et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070050032 | Gittings | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070055378 | Ankney et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070072475 | Justin | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070073311 | Williams | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070073400 | Paul | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070088441 | Duggal | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070093901 | Grotz et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100347 | Stad | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100453 | Parsons | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100455 | Parsons | May 2007 | A1 |
20070123903 | Raymond et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070123904 | Stad et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070198089 | Moskowitz | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070233254 | Grotz et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070270970 | Trieu | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080014719 | Shibata | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080015698 | Marino | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20090018661 | Kim | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090204219 | Beaurain et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100137992 | Buttner-Janz et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100249797 | Trudeau | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100286784 | Curran | Nov 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 2004041129 | May 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Vincent C. Traynelis, “Prosthetics and Biologies: The Wave of the Future” Clinical Neurosurgery, vol. 50, Proceedings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Philadelphia, PA 2002, Chapter 9, pp. 207-219. |
E.K. Wai et al., Disk Replacement Arthroplasties: Can The Success of Hip and Knee Replacements be Repeated in the Spine?, Seminars in Spine Surgery, vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec. 2003), pp. 473-482. |
Richard D. Guyer et al., “Intervertebral Disc Prostheses,” Spine Journal, vol. 28, No. 15S, Supp. To 811103, pp. S15-S23. |
International Search Report (ISR) and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Dec. 3, 2007, International Application No. PCT/US 07/05005. |
Dieter Grob et al., “Clinical Experience With the Dynesys Semirigid Fixation System for the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, vol. 30, No. 3, 2005, pp. 24-331. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220110766 A1 | Apr 2022 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60788720 | Apr 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11487415 | Jul 2006 | US |
Child | 12889328 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16194976 | Nov 2018 | US |
Child | 17487360 | US | |
Parent | 12889328 | Sep 2010 | US |
Child | 16194976 | US |