The present disclosure relates generally to customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instruments and to methods, devices, and systems for fabricating and positioning such instruments.
Joint arthroplasty is a well-known surgical procedure by which a diseased and/or damaged natural joint is replaced by a prosthetic joint. A typical knee prosthesis includes a tibial tray, a femoral component, a polymer insert or bearing positioned between the tibial tray and the femoral component, and, in some cases, a polymer patella button. To facilitate the replacement of the natural joint with the knee prosthesis, orthopaedic surgeons use a variety of orthopaedic surgical instruments such as, for example, cutting blocks, drill guides, milling guides, and other surgical instruments. Typically, the orthopaedic surgical instruments are generic with respect to the patient such that the same orthopaedic surgical instrument may be used on a number of different patients during similar orthopaedic surgical procedures.
According to one aspect, a method for a vendor to create a customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument for a patient of a healthcare facility that is external to the vendor, includes receiving, from the healthcare facility external to the vendor, an instrument request that includes data relevant to a bone of the patient. In response to receiving the instrument request, a surgical design plan that has been customized for the patient is created, per data of the instrument request. The surgical design plan includes a preoperatively planned size of at least one bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the bone of the patient consistent with the surgical design plan. A manufacturing machine located at the vendor is operated to fabricate the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument per data of the surgical design plan. Indicia is applied on an outer surface of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument. The indicia is indicative of the preoperatively planned size of at least one bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the bone of the patient consistent with the surgical design plan.
The indicia may be etched on the outer surface of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument. Alternatively, it may be painted or engraved on the outer surface of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument.
The surgical design plan may be based upon the one or more medical images of the bone of the patient.
The surgical design plan that may include a preoperatively planned size of a distal medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal medial portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan, and a distal lateral bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal lateral portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan.
The surgical design plan may include a preoperatively planned size of a posterior medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior medial portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan, and a posterior lateral bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior lateral portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan.
The surgical design plan may include a preoperatively planned size of a bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the proximal medial portion and the proximal lateral portion of the patient's proximal tibia consistent with the surgical design plan.
The method may also include applying indicia indicative of a resection alignment line on the outer surface of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument.
According to another aspect, a method of a fabricating a customized patient-specific cutting block for use in performing an orthopaedic surgical procedure on a bone of a patient includes preoperatively planning the size of each of a plurality of bone chips produced as a result of use of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument to cut the bone of the patient. The method also includes applying a plurality of indicia on an outer surface of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument. Each of the plurality of indicia is indicative of one of the preoperatively planned sizes of the plurality of bone chips produced as a result of use of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument to cut the bone of the patient.
The indicia may be etched on the outer surface of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument. Alternatively, it may be painted or engraved on the outer surface of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument.
The surgical design plan may be based upon the one or more medical images of the bone of the patient.
The indicia may be indicative of a preoperatively planned size of a distal medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal medial portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan, and a distal lateral bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal lateral portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan.
The indicia may be indicative of a preoperatively planned size of a posterior medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior medial portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan, and a posterior lateral bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior lateral portion of the patient's distal femur consistent with the surgical design plan.
The indicia may be indicative of a preoperatively planned size of a bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the proximal medial portion and the p
According to another aspect, a customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument includes a customized patient-specific cutting block that includes a body having a bone-facing surface that includes a negative contour configured to receive a portion of a patient's bone having a corresponding contour. The cutting block also includes a cutting slot. Indicia is applied to the body, with the indicia being indicative of a preoperatively planned size of at least one bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of a patient's bone through the cutting slot.
The customized patient-specific cutting block may be embodied as a customized patient-specific femoral cutting block or a customized patient-specific tibial cutting block.
The detailed description particularly refers to the following figures, in which:
While the concepts of the present disclosure are susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific exemplary embodiments thereof have been shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that there is no intent to limit the concepts of the present disclosure to the particular forms disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
Terms representing anatomical references, such as anterior, posterior, medial, lateral, superior, inferior, etcetera, may be used throughout this disclosure in reference to the orthopaedic implants and instruments described herein, along with a patient's natural anatomy. Such terms have well-understood meanings in both the study of anatomy and the field of orthopaedics. Use of such anatomical reference terms in the specification and claims is intended to be consistent with their well-understood meanings unless noted otherwise.
Referring to
In some embodiments, the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument may be customized to the particular patient based on the location at which the instrument is to be coupled to one or more bones of the patient, such as the femur and/or tibia. For example, in some embodiments, the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument may include a bone-contacting or facing surface having a negative contour that matches or substantially matches the contour of a portion of the relevant bone of the patient. As such, the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument is configured to be coupled to the bone of a patient in a unique location and position with respect to the patient's bone. That is, the negative contour of the bone-contacting surface is configured to receive the matching contour surface of the portion of the patient's bone. As such, the orthopaedic surgeon's guesswork and/or intra-operative decision-making with respect to the placement of the orthopaedic surgical instrument are reduced. For example, the orthopaedic surgeon may not be required to locate landmarks of the patient's bone to facilitate the placement of the orthopaedic surgical instrument, which typically requires some amount of estimation on part of the surgeon. Rather, the orthopaedic surgeon may simply couple the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument on the bone or bones of the patient in the unique location. When so coupled, the cutting plane, drilling holes, milling holes, and/or other guides are defined in the proper location relative to the bone and intended orthopaedic prosthesis. The customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument may be embodied as any type of orthopaedic surgical instrument such as, for example, a bone-cutting block, a drilling guide, a milling guide, or other type of orthopaedic surgical instrument configured to be coupled to a bone of a patient.
As shown in
In process step 14, the orthopaedic surgeon may determine any additional pre-operative constraint data. The constraint data may be based on the orthopaedic surgeon's preferences, preferences of the patient, anatomical aspects of the patient, guidelines established by the healthcare facility, or the like. For example, the constraint data may include the orthopaedic surgeon's preference for a metal-on-metal interface, amount of inclination for implantation, the thickness of the bone to resect, size range of the orthopaedic implant, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the orthopaedic surgeon's preferences are saved as a surgeon's profile, which may used as a default constraint values for further surgical plans.
In process step 16, the medical images and the constraint data, if any, are transmitted or otherwise provided to an orthopaedic surgical instrument vendor or manufacturer. The medical images and the constraint data may be transmitted to the vendor via electronic means such as a network or the like. After the vendor has received the medical images and the constraint data, the vendor processes the images in step 18. The orthopaedic surgical instrument vendor or manufacturer process the medical images to facilitate the determination of the bone cutting planes, implant sizing, and fabrication of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument as discussed in more detail below. For example, in process step 20 the vendor may convert or otherwise generate three-dimensional images from the medical images. For example, in embodiments wherein the medical images are embodied as a number of two-dimensional images, the vendor may use a suitable computer algorithm to generate one or more three-dimensional images form the number of two-dimensional images. Additionally, in some embodiments, the medical images may be generated based on an established standard such as the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard. In such embodiments, an edge-detection, thresholding, watershead, or shape-matching algorithm may be used to convert or reconstruct images to a format acceptable in a computer aided design application or other image processing application. Further, in some embodiments, an algorithm may be used to account for tissue such as cartilage not discernable in the generated medical images. In such embodiments, any three-dimensional model of the patient-specific instrument (see, e.g., process step 26 below) may be modified according to such algorithm to increase the fit and function of the instrument.
In process step 22, the vendor may process the medical images, and/or the converted/reconstructed images from process step 20, to determine a number of aspects related to the bony anatomy of the patient such as the anatomical axis of the patient's bones, the mechanical axis of the patient's bone, other axes and various landmarks, and/or other aspects of the patient's bony anatomy. To do so, the vendor may use any suitable algorithm to process the images.
In process step 24, the cutting planes of the patient's bone are determined. The planned cutting planes are determined based on the type, size, and position of the orthopaedic prosthesis to be used during the orthopaedic surgical procedure, on the process images such as specific landmarks identified in the images, and on the constraint data supplied by the orthopaedic surgeon in process steps 14 and 16. The type and/or size of the orthopaedic prosthesis may be determined based on the patient's anatomy and the constraint data. For example, the constraint data may dictate the type, make, model, size, or other characteristic of the orthopaedic prosthesis. The selection of the orthopaedic prosthesis may also be modified based on the medical images such that an orthopaedic prosthesis that is usable with the bony anatomy of the patient and that matches the constraint data or preferences of the orthopaedic surgeon is selected.
In addition to the type and size of the orthopaedic prosthesis, the planned location and position of the orthopaedic prosthesis relative to the patient's bony anatomy is determined. To do so, a digital template of the selected orthopaedic prosthesis may be overlaid onto one or more of the processed medical images. The vendor may use any suitable algorithm to determine a recommended location and orientation of the orthopaedic prosthesis (i.e., the digital template) with respect to the patient's bone based on the processed medical images (e.g., landmarks of the patient's bone defined in the images) and/or the constraint data. Additionally, any one or more other aspects of the patient's bony anatomy may be used to determine the proper positioning of the digital template.
In some embodiments, the digital template along with surgical alignment parameters may be presented to the orthopaedic surgeon for approval. The approval document may include the implant's rotation with respect to bony landmarks such as the femoral epicondyle, posterior condyles, sulcus groove (Whiteside's line), and the mechanical axis as defined by the hip, knee, and/or ankle centers.
The planned cutting planes for the patient's bone(s) may then be determined based on the determined size, location, and orientation of the orthopaedic prosthesis. In addition, other aspects of the patient's bony anatomy, as determined in process step 22, may be used to determine or adjust the planned cutting planes. For example, the determined mechanical axis, landmarks, and/or other determined aspects of the relevant bones of the patient may be used to determine the planned cutting planes.
Along with determining the planned cutting planes, the planned sizes of the of the resultant bone chips are also determined. In particular, the preoperative surgical design plan created by the vendor includes a determination of the size of the bone chips that will be created when a surgeon executes the surgical design plan and resects the patient's bone along the planned cutting planes. In other words, a part of the surgical design plan is to create a model that includes the individual sizes of the “bone scrap” created by proper execution of the surgical design plan. As will be discussed below in greater detail, inclusion of the size of the bone chips created by proper execution of the surgical design plan provides a relatively easy way for the surgeon to confirm conformance with the surgical design plan. For example, if the surgical design plan preoperatively informs the surgeon that a proper resection of the distal lateral portion of the patient's femur along the planned cutting plane results in a distal lateral bone chip that is 11.0 mm thick, the surgeon can quickly and easily confirm his conformance with the surgical design plan by simply measuring the thickness of the distal lateral bone chip with, for example, a set of calipers after it has been resected from the patient's femur.
In the case of creation of a customized patient-specific femoral cutting block, the surgical design plan may include a model of the planned size of a distal medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal medial portion of the patient's distal femur (DMF) consistent with the surgical design plan. It may also include the planned size of a distal lateral bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal lateral portion of the patient's distal femur (DLF) consistent with the surgical design plan. The surgical design plan for use with a customized patient-specific femoral cutting block may also include the size of a posterior medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior medial portion of the patient's distal femur (PMF) consistent with the surgical design plan, and a posterior lateral bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior lateral portion of the patient's distal femur (PLF) consistent with the surgical design plan.
In the case of creation of a customized patient-specific tibial cutting block, the surgical design plan may include a model of the planned size of the bone chip (or chips) produced as a result of a surgical resection of the proximal medial portion (MT) and the proximal lateral portion (LT) of the patient's proximal tibia consistent with the surgical design plan.
In process step 26, a model of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument is generated. In some embodiments, the model is embodied as a three-dimensional rendering of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument. In other embodiments, the model may be embodied as a mock-up or fast prototype of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument. The particular type of orthopaedic surgical instrument to be modeled and fabricated may be determined based on the orthopaedic surgical procedure to be performed, the constraint data, and/or the type of orthopaedic prosthesis to be implanted in the patient. As such, the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument may be embodied as any type of orthopaedic surgical instrument for use in the performance of an orthopaedic surgical procedure. For example, the orthopaedic surgical instrument may be embodied as a bone-cutting block, a drilling guide, a milling guide, and/or any other type of orthopaedic surgical tool or instrument.
The particular shape of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument is determined based on the planned location of the orthopaedic surgical instrument relative to the patient's bony anatomy. The location of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument with respect to the patient's bony anatomy is determined based on the type and determined location of the orthopaedic prosthesis to be used during the orthopaedic surgical procedure. That is, the planned location of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument relative to the patient's bony anatomy may be selected based on, in part, the planned cutting planes of the patient's bone(s) as determined in step 24. For example, in embodiments wherein the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument is embodied as a bone-cutting block, the location of the orthopaedic surgical instrument is selected such that the cutting guide of the bone-cutting block matches one or more of the planned cutting planes determined in process step 24. Additionally, the planned location of the orthopaedic surgical instrument may be based on the identified landmarks of the patient's bone identified in process step 22.
In some embodiments, the particular shape or configuration of the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument may be determined based on the planned location of the instrument relative to the patient's bony anatomy. That is, the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument may include a bone-contacting surface having a negative contour that matches the contour of a portion of the bony anatomy of the patient such that the orthopaedic surgical instrument may be coupled to the bony anatomy of the patient in a unique location, which corresponds to the pre-planned location for the instrument. When the orthopaedic surgical instrument is coupled to the patient's bony anatomy in the unique location, one or more guides (e.g., cutting or drilling guide) of the orthopaedic surgical instrument may be aligned to one or more of the bone cutting plane(s) as discussed above.
One illustrative embodiment of a method 40 for generating a model, such as a computer model, of a patient-specific orthopaedic instrument is illustrated in
In step 44, a reference contour of the patient's relevant bone is determined. The reference contour is based on the surface contour of a three-dimensional model of the patient's relevant bone, such as the three-dimensional model generated in step 20. Initially the reference contour is identical to a region (i.e. the region of interest such as the distal end of the patient's femur or the proximal end of the patient's tibia) of the patient's bone. That is, in some embodiments, the reference contour is juxtaposed on the surface contour of the region of the patient's bone.
Subsequently, in step 46, the reference contour is scaled to compensate for the cartilage thickness value determined in step 42. To do so, in one embodiment, the scale of the reference contour is increased based on the cartilage thickness value. For example, the scale of the reference contour may be increased by an amount equal to or determined from the cartilage thickness value. However, in other embodiments, the reference contour may be scaled using other techniques designed to scale the reference contour to a size at which the reference contour is compensated for the thickness of the cartilage on the patient's bone.
For example, in one particular embodiment, the reference contour is scaled by increasing the distance between a fixed reference point and a point lying on, and defining in part, the reference contour. To do so, in one embodiment, a method 60 for scaling a reference contour as illustrated in
In step 64, an anterior/posterior line segment is established on the three-dimensional model of the patient's relevant bone. The anterior/posterior line segment is defined or otherwise selected so as to extend from a point lying on the anterior surface of the patient's bone to a point lying on posterior surface of the patient's bone. The anterior surface point and the posterior surface point may be selected so as to define the substantially maximum local anterior/posterior width of the patient's bone in some embodiments.
The reference point from which the reference contour will be scaled is defined in step 66 as the intersection point of the medial/lateral line segment and anterior/posterior line segment. As such, it should be appreciated that the medial surface point, the lateral surface point, the anterior surface point, and the posterior surface point lie on the same plane. After the reference point is initially established in step 66, the reference point is moved or otherwise translated toward an end of the patient's bone. For example, in embodiments wherein the patient's bone is embodied as a femur, the reference point is moved inferiorly toward the distal end of the patient's femur. Conversely, in embodiments when the patient's bone is embodied as a tibia, the reference point is moved superiorly toward the proximal end of the patient's tibia. In one embodiment, the reference point is moved a distance equal to about half the length of the anterior/posterior line segment as determined in step 64. However, in other embodiments, the reference point may be moved other distances sufficient to compensate the reference contour for thickness of the cartilage present on the patient's bone.
Once the location of the reference point has been determined in step 68, the distance between the reference point and each point lying on, and defining in part, the reference contour is increased in step 70. To do so, in one particular embodiment, each point of the reference contour is moved a distance away from the reference point based on a percentage value of the original distance defined between the reference point and the particular point on the reference contour. For example, in one embodiment, each point lying on, and defining in part, the reference contour is moved away from the reference point in by a distance equal to a percentage value of the original distance between the reference point and the particular point. In one embodiment, the percentage value is in the range of about 5 percent to about thirty percent. In one particular embodiment, the percentage value is about ten percent.
Referring now to
Conversely, in embodiments wherein the relevant patient's bone is embodied as a femur as illustrated in
Referring now back to
The reference contour may also be adjusted in step 48 for areas of the patient's bone having a reduced thickness of cartilage. Such areas of reduced cartilage thickness may be determined based on the existence of bone-on-bone contact as identified in a medical image, simulation, or the like. Additionally, information indicative of such areas may be provided by the orthopaedic surgeon based on his/her expertise. If one or more areas of reduced cartilage thickness are identified, the reference contour corresponding to such areas of the patient's bone is reduced (i.e., scaled back or down).
Additionally, in some embodiments, one or more osteophytes on the patient's bone may be identified; and the reference contour may be compensated for such presence of the osteophytes. By compensating for such osteophytes, the reference contour more closely matches the surface contour of the patient's bone. Further, in some embodiments, a distal end (in embodiments wherein the patient's bone is embodied as a tibia) or a proximal end (in embodiments wherein the patient's bone is embodied as a femur) of the reference contour may be adjusted to increase the conformity of the reference contour to the surface contour of the bone. For example, in embodiments wherein the patient's bone is a femur, the superior end of the scaled reference contour may be reduced or otherwise moved closer to the surface contour of the patient's femur in the region located superiorly to a cartilage demarcation line defined on the patient's femur. Conversely, in embodiments wherein the patient's bone is embodied as a tibia, an inferior end of the scaled reference contour may be reduced or otherwise moved closer to the surface contour of the patient's tibia in the region located inferiorly to a cartilage demarcation line of the patient's tibia. As such, it should be appreciated that the scaled reference contour is initially enlarged to compensate for the thickness of the patient's cartilage on the patient's bone. Portions of the scaled reference contour are then reduced or otherwise moved back to original positions and/or toward the reference point in those areas where cartilage is lacking, reduced, or otherwise not present.
Once the reference contour has been scaled and adjusted in steps 46 and 48, the position of the cutting guide is defined in step 50. In particular, the position of the cutting guide is defined based on an angle defined between a mechanical axis of the patient's femur and a mechanical axis of the patient's tibia. The angle may be determined by establishing a line segment or ray originating from the proximal end of the patient's femur to the distal end of the patient's femur and defining a second line segment or ray extending from the patient's ankle through the proximal end of the patient's tibia. The angle defined by these two line segments/rays is equal to the angle defined between the mechanical axis of the patient's femur and tibia. The position of the bone cutting guide is then determined based on the angle between the mechanical axes of the patient's femur and tibia. It should be appreciated that the position of the cutting guide defines the position and orientation of the cutting plane of the customized patient-specific cutting block. Subsequently, in step 52, a negative contour of the customized patient-specific cutting block is defined based on the scaled and adjusted reference contour and the angle defined between the mechanical axis of the femur and tibia.
Referring back to
After the model has been validated in process step 28, the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument is fabricated in process step 30. The customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument may be fabricated using any suitable fabrication device and method. Additionally, the customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument may be formed from any suitable material such as a metallic material, a plastic material, or combination thereof depending on, for example, the intended use of the instrument. In fabricating the instrument, customized patient-specific indicia may be applied to the instrument. For example, as noted above, the size of the bone chips produced by proper use of the instrument may be preoperatively determined to facilitate the surgeon's conformance to the surgical plan. Indicia indicative of the size of the bone chips may be applied (e.g., etched, painted, engraved, etcetera) to the outer surface of the instrument in an area near the cutting slot used to create the bone chip. Such indicia makes it easy for the surgeon to quickly ascertain the preoperatively determined size of the bone chip without having to refer to a document or display monitor.
The fabricated customized patient-specific orthopaedic instrument is subsequently shipped or otherwise provided to the orthopaedic surgeon. The surgeon performs the orthopaedic surgical procedure in process step 32 using the customized patient-specific orthopaedic surgical instrument. As discussed above, because the orthopaedic surgeon does not need to determine the proper location of the orthopaedic surgical instrument intra-operatively, which typically requires some amount of estimation on part of the surgeon, the guesswork and/or intra-operative decision-making on part of the orthopaedic surgeon is reduced.
Referring now to
The body 202 includes a bone-contacting or bone-facing surface 212 and an outer surface 214 opposite the bone-facing surface 212. The outer surface 214 includes a number of guide holes or passageways 216 defined therethrough. A guide pin bushing 218 is received in each guide hole 216. The guide pin bushings 218 include an internal passageway 220 sized to receive a respective guide pin to secure the block 200 to the patient's femur. As shown in
The cutting block 200 includes a cutting guide 230 secured to the body 202. In one particular embodiment, the cutting guide 230 is overmolded to the body 202. The cutting guide 230 includes a cutting guide slot 232. The cutting guide 230 may be formed from the same material as the body 202 or from a different material. In one particular embodiment, the cutting guide 230 is formed from a metallic material such as stainless steel. The body 202 also includes a window or opening 234 defined therethough. The opening 234 allows a surgeon to visualize the positioning of the block 200 on the patient's femur by viewing portions of the femur through the opening 234. Additionally, the opening 234 may reduce the amount of air pockets or other perfections created during the fabrication of the block 200. In the illustrative embodiment, the opening 234 extends from the cutting guide 200 to a point more superior than the superior-most point 236 of the guide pin bushings 218. However, in other embodiments, the cutting block 200 may include windows or openings formed in the body 202 having other shapes and sizes.
The bone-facing surface 212 of the body 202 includes a negative contour 238 configured to receive a portion of the anterior side of the patient's femur having a corresponding contour. As discussed above, the customized patient-specific negative contour 238 of the bone-contacting surface 212 allows the positioning of the cutting block 200 on the patient's femur in a unique pre-determined location and orientation.
The tabs 204, 206 include a bone-contacting or bone-facing surface 240, 242, respectively, and an outer surface 244, 246, respectively, opposite the bone-facing surface 240, 242. The bone-facing surface 240 of the tab 204 includes a negative contour 248 configured to receive a portion of the distal side of the patient's femur having a respective corresponding contour. Similarly, the bone-facing surface 242 of the tab 206 includes a negative contour 250 configured to receive a portion of the distal side of the patient's femur having a respective corresponding contour.
As discussed above, the arms or tabs 204, 206 extend posteriorly from the body 200 to define a U-shaped opening 205 therebetween. The tabs 204, 206 may extend from the body 202 the same distance or a different distance. For example, as shown in
The lips 208, 210 of the tabs 204, 206 also include a bone-contacting or bone-facing surface 272, 274, respectively, and an outer surface 276, 278, respectively, opposite the bone-facing surface 272, 274. The bone-facing surface 272 of the lip 208 includes a negative contour 280 configured to receive a portion of the posterior side of the patient's femur having a respective corresponding contour. Similarly, the bone-facing surface 274 of the lip 210 includes a negative contour 282 configured to receive a portion of the posterior side of the patient's femur having a respective corresponding contour. Each the lips 208, 210 include a lateral slot 284 that forms a saw relief slot and is configured to provide an amount of clearance for the bone saw blade used to remove a portion of the patient's bone. That is, during the performance of the orthopaedic surgical procedure, a distal end of the bone saw blade may be received in the slot 284.
In addition, in some embodiments, the negative contours 238, 248, 250, 280, 282 of the bone-contacting surfaces 212, 240, 242, 272, 274 of the cutting block 200 may or may not match the remaining corresponding contour surface of the patient's bone. That is, as discussed above, the negative contours 238, 248, 250, 280, 282 may be scaled or otherwise resized (e.g., enlarged) to compensate for the patient's cartilage or lack thereof.
As shown in
Indicia indicative of the size of each preoperatively planned size of the bone chip is applied to an outer surface of the cutting block. For example, indicia 292 indicative of the preoperatively planned size of a distal medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal medial portion of the patient's distal femur (DMF) with the cutting block 200 is applied to one of the outer medial surfaces of the body 202 of the cutting block 200. Indicia 292 indicative of the preoperatively planned size of a distal medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the distal lateral portion of the patient's distal femur (DLF) with the cutting block 200 is applied to one of the outer lateral surfaces of the body 202 of the cutting block 200. Indicia 292 indicative of the preoperatively planned size of a posterior medial bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior medial portion of the patient's distal femur (PMF) with the cutting block 200 is applied to one of the outer medial or anterior surfaces of the body 202 of the cutting block 200. Indicia 292 indicative of the preoperatively planned size of a posterior lateral bone chip produced as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior lateral portion of the patient's distal femur (PLF) with the cutting block 200 is applied to one of the outer medial or anterior surfaces of the body 202 of the cutting block 200. It should be appreciated that the indicia may be applied to the body 202 of the cutting block 200 in a number of different manners. For example, the indicia 292 may be etched, painted, engraved, etcetera onto the body 202 of the cutting block 200.
In use, the femoral cutting block 200 is coupled to the distal end of the patient's femur. Again, because the bone-contacting surfaces 212, 240, 242, 272, 274 of the cutting block 200 include the negative contours 238, 248, 250, 280, 282, the block 200 may be coupled to the patient's femur in a pre-planned, unique position. When so coupled, the tabs 204, 206 wrap around the distal end of the patient's femur and the lips 208, 210 of the tabs 204, 206 wrap around the posterior side of the patient's femur. Additionally, when the block 200 is coupled to the patient's femur, a portion of the anterior side of the femur is received in the negative contour 238 of the body 202, a portion of the distal side of the patient's femur is received in the negative contours 248, 250 of the tabs 204, 206, and a portion of the posterior side of the femur is received in the negative contours 280, 282 of the lips 208, 210. As such, the anterior, distal, and posterior surfaces of the patient femur are referenced by the femoral cutting block 200.
Once secured to the distal end of the patient's femur, the cutting block 200 is used to resect the patient's bone along the preoperatively planned cutting planes. In doing so, the surgeon produces a distal medial bone chip as a result of resection of the distal medial portion of the patient's distal femur (DMF), and a distal lateral bone chip as a result of resection of the distal lateral portion of the patient's distal femur (DLF). The surgeon also produces a posterior medial bone chip as a result of a surgical resection of the posterior medial portion of the patient's distal femur (PMF), and a posterior lateral bone chip as a result of resection of the posterior lateral portion of the patient's distal femur (PLF). In lieu of simply disregarding or otherwise disposing the bone chips, they are used to validate the surgeon's performance of the surgery in conformance with the preoperative surgical plan. In particular, since the surgeon is aware of the preoperatively determined size of each of the bone chips that are produced if the bone is resected along the preoperatively planned cutting planes, the surgeon can simply measure the actual bone chips created in the surgery and compare them to the preoperatively planned sizes. For example, if a proper resection of the distal medial portion of the patient's distal femur (DMF) according to the preoperative plan should produce a 7.5 mm distal medial bone chip, the surgeon can measure the actual distal medial bone chip produced in the surgery with, for example, a pair of calipers to determine if the chip is, in fact, 7.5 mm. Confirmation of the size of the bone chip is used, therefore, the confirm a proper cut has been made. The surgeon may confirm all four bone chips made during surgical preparation of the patient's femur. If need be, the femur can then be re-cut to remove more bone.
Referring now to
The body 302 includes a bone-contacting or bone-facing surface 312 and an outer surface 314 opposite the bone-facing surface 312. The outer surface 314 includes a depression or recessed area 316, which provides an indication to a surgeon where to apply pressure to the body 302 when coupling the cutting block 300 to the patient's tibia. Additionally, a number of guide pin holes or passageways 318 are defined through the body 302 and have a diameter sized to receive respective guide pins to secure the block 300 to the patient's tibia. In some embodiments, one or more of the guide pin holes 318 may be oblique or otherwise angled with respect to the remaining guide pin holes 318 to further secure the block 300 to the patient's bone.
The body 302 includes a modular cutting guide 320. That is, the body 302 includes a cutting guide receiver slot 322 in which the cutting guide 320 is received. A latch 324 or other locking device secures the cutting guide 320 in place in the cutting guide receiver slot 322. As such, one of a number of different cutting guides 320 having a cutting guide slot 326 defined in various offset positions may be coupled to the body 302 to allow a surgeon to selectively determine the amount of bone of the patient's bone is removed during the bone cutting procedure. For example, a cutting guide 320 having a cutting guide slot 326 offset by +2 millimeters, with respect to a neutral reference cutting guide 320, may be used if the surgeon desires to remove a greater amount of the patient's bone. The cutting guide 320 may be formed from the same material as the body 302 or from a different material. In one particular embodiment, the cutting guide 320 is formed form a metallic material such as stainless steel. It should be appreciated that the cutting block 300 may be embodied without a modular cutting guide 320. That is, the cutting block 300 may be embodied with a fixed cutting guide 320 that is overmolded into the polymer body 302
The bone-facing surface 312 of the body 302 includes a negative contour 328 configured to receive a portion of the anterior side of the patient's tibia having a corresponding contour. As discussed above, the customized patient-specific negative contour 328 of the bone-contacting surface 312 allows the positioning of the cutting block 300 on the patient's tibia in a unique pre-determined location and orientation.
As discussed above, the arms or tabs 304, 306 extend posteriorly from the body 302 to define a U-shaped opening 305 therebetween. The tabs 304, 306 may extend from the body 302 the same distance or a different distance. For example, as shown in
The tabs 304, 306 include a bone-contacting or bone-facing surface 340, 342, respectively, and an outer surface 344, 346, respectively, opposite the bone-facing surface 340, 342. The bone-facing surface 340 of the tab 304 includes a negative contour 348 configured to receive a portion of the patient's proximal tibia having a respective corresponding contour. Similarly, the bone-facing surface 342 of the tab 306 includes a negative contour 350 configured to receive a portion of the patient's proximal tibia having a respective corresponding contour.
In addition, in some embodiments, the negative contours 328, 348, 350 of the bone-contacting surfaces 312, 340, 342 of the cutting block 300 may or may not match the remaining corresponding contour surface of the patient's bone. That is, as discussed above, the negative contours 328, 348, 350 may be scaled or otherwise resized (e.g., enlarged) to compensate for the patient's cartilage or lack thereof.
As shown in
In use, the tibial cutting block 300 is coupled to the proximal end of the patient's tibia. Again, because the bone-contacting surfaces 312, 340, 342 of the cutting block 300 include the negative contours 328, 348, 350, the block 300 may be coupled to the patient's tibia in a pre-planned, unique position. When so coupled, the tabs 304, 306 wrap around the proximal end of the patient's tibia. Additionally, when the block 300 is coupled to the patient's tibia, a portion of the anterior side of the tibia is received in the negative contour 328 of the body 302 and a portion of the proximal side of the patient's tibia is received in the negative contours 348, 350 of the tabs 304, 306. As such, the anterior and proximal surfaces of the patient tibia are referenced by the tibial cutting block 300.
Once secured to the distal end of the patient's tibia, the cutting block 300 is used to resect the patient's bone along the preoperatively planned cutting planes. In doing so, the surgeon produces a bone chip (or chips) as a result of a surgical resection of the proximal medial portion (MT) and the proximal lateral portion (LT) of the patient's proximal tibia. In lieu of simply disregarding or otherwise disposing the bone chip(s), it is used to validate the surgeon's performance of the surgery in conformance with the preoperative surgical plan. In particular, since the surgeon is aware of the preoperatively determined size of the bone chip(s) produced if the tibia is resected along the preoperatively planned cutting plane(s), the surgeon can simply measure the actual bone chip(s) created in the surgery and compare it to the preoperatively planned size. For example, if a proper resection of the of the proximal medial portion (MT) and the proximal lateral portion (LT) of the patient's proximal tibia should produce a bone chip that is 3.0 mm thick on the proximal medial side (MT) and 10.0 mm thick on the proximal lateral side (LT), the surgeon can measure the actual bone chip produced in the surgery with, for example, a pair of calipers to determine if the chip is, in fact, 3.0 mm thick on the proximal medial side (MT) and 10.0 mm thick on the proximal lateral side (LT). Confirmation of the size of the bone chip is used, therefore, the confirm a proper cut has been made. If need be, the tibia can then be re-cut to remove more bone.
It should be appreciated that certain aspects of the methods described herein may be utilized without the use of customized patient-specific instruments. For example, a surgical design plan can be preoperatively designed in the manner described herein, including a determination of the sizes of the various bone chips that are to be created if a resection of the patient's bone is performed according to the plan. However, the plan may contemplate that the actual resection will be performed with standard instruments (i.e., instruments that are not customized for a particular patient). In such a case, the surgical design plan alone is the output from the preoperative design process. The plan may be transmitted to the surgeon via a printed document or electronic file, and, like the other plans described herein, may include electronic and/or visual representations of the plan's various features.
Like the process described above utilizing customized patient-specific instruments, the surgeon may use information from the preoperatively designed surgical plan even though customized instruments are not being used. For example, the surgeon can utilize the preoperatively planned cutting planes to perform the cuts on the patient's bone. Moreover, the surgeon can save and thereafter measure the resultant bone chips to confirm the surgeon's conformance with the plan.
While the disclosure has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description, such an illustration and description is to be considered as exemplary and not restrictive in character, it being understood that only illustrative embodiments have been shown and described and that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit of the disclosure are desired to be protected.
There are a plurality of advantages of the present disclosure arising from the various features of the apparatus, system, and method described herein. It will be noted that alternative embodiments of the apparatus, system, and method of the present disclosure may not include all of the features described yet still benefit from at least some of the advantages of such features. Those of ordinary skill in the art may readily devise their own implementations of the apparatus, system, and method that incorporate one or more of the features of the present invention and fall within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure as defined by the appended claims.
This application is a national stage entry under 35 USC §371 (b) of International Application No. PCT/US2011/025932, filed Feb. 23,2011, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/308,189, entitled “Customized Patient-Specific Bone Cutting Blocks,” which was filed on Feb. 25, 2010 by Jose F. Guzman et al., and is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. Utility Patent Application Ser. No. 12/240,994, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,425,524, entitled “Customized Patient-Specific Multi-Cutting Block,” which was filed by Chris Aker et al. on Sep. 29, 2008 which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/976,447 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Fabricating Customized Patent Instrumentation,” which was filed on Sep. 30, 2007 by Dan Auger et al.; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/976,448 entitled “Adjustable Customized Patient-Specific Orthopaedic Surgical Instrumentation,” which was filed on Sep. 30, 2007 by Luke Aram et al.; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/976,451 entitled “Customized Patient-Specific Instrumentation For Use In Orthopaedic Surgical Procedures,” which was filed on Sep. 30, 2007 by Jeff Roose et al.; U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/976,444 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Patient-Specific Positioning of Orthopaedic Surgical Instrumentation,” which was filed on Sep. 30, 2007 by Luke Aram et al.; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/976,446 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Aligning Customized Patient-Specific Orthopaedic Surgical Instruments,” which was filed on Sep. 30, 2007 by Luke Aram et al., each of these applications is assigned to the same assignee as the present application, and each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Cross-reference is made to co-pending U.S. Utility Patent Application Ser. Nos. 12/240,985; 12/240,990; 12/240,988; 12/240,992; 12/240,994; 12/240,996; 12/240,997; 12/240,998; 12/241,006; 12/241,002; 12/241,001; and 12/240,999. Each of these applications was filed on Sep. 29, 2008, and is assigned to the same assignee as the present application. Each of these applications is hereby incorporated by reference.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2011/025932 | 2/23/2011 | WO | 00 | 11/6/2012 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2011/106430 | 9/1/2011 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3298410 | Noboru | Jan 1967 | A |
3816855 | Saleh | Jun 1974 | A |
3901298 | Eby | Aug 1975 | A |
3965950 | MacDonald | Jun 1976 | A |
4055862 | Farling | Nov 1977 | A |
4140161 | Russo et al. | Feb 1979 | A |
4197886 | MacDonald | Apr 1980 | A |
4436684 | White | Mar 1984 | A |
4719907 | Banko et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4721104 | Kaufman et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4759350 | Dunn et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4787383 | Kenna | Nov 1988 | A |
4834080 | Brown | May 1989 | A |
4841975 | Woolson | Jun 1989 | A |
4860735 | Davey et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
5053037 | Lackey | Oct 1991 | A |
5067964 | Richmond et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5122144 | Bert et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5129908 | Petersen | Jul 1992 | A |
5133660 | Fenick | Jul 1992 | A |
5186174 | Schlondorff et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5258032 | Bertin | Nov 1993 | A |
5314478 | Oka et al. | May 1994 | A |
5314482 | Goodfellow et al. | May 1994 | A |
5320529 | Pompa | Jun 1994 | A |
5360446 | Kennedy | Nov 1994 | A |
5370692 | Fink et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5417694 | Marik et al. | May 1995 | A |
5423828 | Benson | Jun 1995 | A |
5445642 | McNulty et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5448489 | Reuben | Sep 1995 | A |
5458645 | Bertin | Oct 1995 | A |
5462549 | Glock | Oct 1995 | A |
5474559 | Bertin et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5510066 | Fink et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5514139 | Goldstein et al. | May 1996 | A |
5518680 | Cima et al. | May 1996 | A |
5520695 | Luckman | May 1996 | A |
5542947 | Treacy | Aug 1996 | A |
5562674 | Stalcup et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5601563 | Burke et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5632745 | Schwartz | May 1997 | A |
5683397 | Vendrely et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5683466 | Vitale | Nov 1997 | A |
5702460 | Carls et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5722978 | Jenkins, Jr. | Mar 1998 | A |
5725376 | Poirier | Mar 1998 | A |
5733292 | Gustilo et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5768134 | Swaelens et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5776201 | Colleran et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5791212 | Han | Aug 1998 | A |
5817097 | Howard et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5824085 | Sahay et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5869170 | Cima et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5879393 | Whiteside et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5885296 | Masini | Mar 1999 | A |
5897559 | Masini | Apr 1999 | A |
5925049 | Gustilo et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5942370 | Neckers | Aug 1999 | A |
5980526 | Johnson et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5989261 | Walker et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6007537 | Burkinshaw et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6024746 | Katz | Feb 2000 | A |
6080196 | Bertin | Jun 2000 | A |
6081577 | Webber | Jun 2000 | A |
6096043 | Techiera et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6099313 | Dorken et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6139574 | Vacanti et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6161080 | Aouni-Ateshian et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6176874 | Vacanti et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6177034 | Ferrone | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6206927 | Fell et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6220122 | Forsell et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6241735 | Marmulla | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6244141 | Han | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6251143 | Schwartz et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6319006 | Scherer et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6322728 | Brodkin et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327491 | Franklin et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6382975 | Poirier | May 2002 | B1 |
6454811 | Sherwood et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6463351 | Clynch | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6478799 | Williamson | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6510334 | Schuster et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6530958 | Cima et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6554837 | Hauri et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6554838 | McGovern et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6558391 | Axelson et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6575980 | Robie et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6626945 | Simon et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6668941 | Phillips et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6679917 | Ek | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6711432 | Krause et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6712824 | Millard et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6712856 | Carignan et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6738657 | Franklin et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6766878 | Widmer et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6772026 | Bradbury et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6814735 | Zirngibl et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6916324 | Sanford et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6994549 | Brodkin et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7060074 | Rosa et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7104997 | Lionberger et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7141053 | Rosa et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7172597 | Sanford | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7175435 | Andersson et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194295 | Vilsmeier | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7488324 | Metzger et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7534263 | Burdulis, Jr. et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7618451 | Berez et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7634119 | Tsougarakis et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7717956 | Lang | May 2010 | B2 |
7796791 | Tsougarakis et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7824181 | Sers | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7981158 | Fitz et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7988691 | Schulze et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8265949 | Haddad | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8425524 | Aker et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8460303 | Park | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8532361 | Pavlovskaia | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8532806 | Masson | Sep 2013 | B1 |
D691719 | Park | Oct 2013 | S |
8617171 | Park et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8617175 | Park et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8702712 | Jordan et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8715291 | Park et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8737700 | Park et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8784495 | Bonutti | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8794977 | McGuan et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8834490 | Bonutti | Sep 2014 | B2 |
20020007294 | Bradbury et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020029045 | Bonutti | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020059049 | Bradbury et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020183760 | McGovern et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030055501 | Fell et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030225413 | Sanford et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040039259 | Krause et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040092932 | Aubin et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040153087 | Sanford et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040181144 | Cinquin et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040185422 | Orth et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040204760 | Fitz et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040236424 | Berez et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040249385 | Faoro | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260301 | Lionberger et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050015003 | Lachner et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050037320 | Poirier | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050043835 | Christensen | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050054917 | Kitson | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050075641 | Singhatat et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050133955 | Christensen | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050170311 | Tardieu et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050171545 | Walsh et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050234461 | Burdulis, Jr. et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050261697 | Canonaco et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267485 | Cordes et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050267584 | Burdulis, Jr. et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050273113 | Kuczynski | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060089621 | Fard | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060245627 | Nagamune | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070006887 | Frank | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070059665 | Orentlicher et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070198022 | Lang et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070213738 | Martin et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226986 | Park et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233140 | Metzger et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233141 | Park et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070250169 | Lang | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070288030 | Metzger et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080015602 | Axelson | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080015607 | D'Alessio et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080114370 | Schoenefeld | May 2008 | A1 |
20080147072 | Park et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080161815 | Schoenefeld et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183177 | Fox et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195107 | Cuckler et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080228189 | Fox et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080234685 | Gjerde | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080243127 | Lang et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080257363 | Schoenefeld et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080262624 | White et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275452 | Lang et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080281328 | Lang et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080281329 | Fitz et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080281426 | Fitz et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080287954 | Kunz et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080306558 | Hakki | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080312659 | Metzger et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090018546 | Daley | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024131 | Metzger et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090087276 | Rose | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088674 | Caillouette et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088753 | Aram et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088754 | Aker et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088755 | Aker et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088758 | Bennett | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088759 | Aram et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088760 | Aram et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088761 | Roose et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088763 | Aram et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090093816 | Roose et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090099567 | Zajac | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090131941 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090131942 | Aker et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138020 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090149977 | Schendel | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090151736 | Belcher et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090157083 | Park et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090163922 | Meridew et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090164024 | Rudan et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090222014 | Bojarski et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090222016 | Park et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090254093 | White et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254367 | Belcher et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090270868 | Park et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090274350 | Pavlovskaia et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090307893 | Burdulis, Jr. et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100016947 | Dobak et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100023015 | Park | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100087829 | Metzger et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100152782 | Stone et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100160917 | Fitz et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100168754 | Fitz et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100185202 | Lester et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100191244 | White et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100212138 | Carroll et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217270 | Polinski et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217338 | Carroll et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100228257 | Bonutti | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100262150 | Lian | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100274253 | Ure | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100281678 | Burdulis, Jr. et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100286700 | Snider et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100303324 | Lang et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100324692 | Uthgenannt et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110015636 | Katrana et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110015639 | Metzger et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110029091 | Bojarski et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110029116 | Jordan et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110054478 | Vanasse et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110066193 | Lang et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110071533 | Metzger et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110092804 | Schoenefeld et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110093086 | Witt et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20120029520 | Lang et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20130006661 | Haddad | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130066319 | Aram | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20140163568 | Wong et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140200902 | Aram et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
3339259 | Mar 1985 | DE |
3925488 | Feb 1990 | DE |
3902249 | Aug 1990 | DE |
4016704 | Sep 1991 | DE |
3717871 | May 1995 | DE |
97001 | Dec 1983 | EP |
337901 | Oct 1989 | EP |
0645984 | Apr 1995 | EP |
756735 | Feb 1997 | EP |
0908836 | Apr 1999 | EP |
1013231 | Jun 2000 | EP |
1136041 | Sep 2001 | EP |
904158 | Jul 2002 | EP |
709061 | Jul 2003 | EP |
1348393 | Oct 2003 | EP |
1486900 | Dec 2004 | EP |
1498851 | Jan 2005 | EP |
1 669 033 | Jun 2006 | EP |
1444957 | Mar 2007 | EP |
1938749 | Jul 2008 | EP |
1669033 | Feb 2009 | EP |
2042126 | Apr 2009 | EP |
2819168 | Jul 2002 | FR |
2426200 | Nov 2006 | GB |
2437003 | Oct 2007 | GB |
8911257 | Nov 1989 | WO |
9325157 | Dec 1993 | WO |
9325157 | Dec 1993 | WO |
9528688 | Oct 1995 | WO |
WO 9730641 | Aug 1997 | WO |
9800072 | Jan 1998 | WO |
9832384 | Jul 1998 | WO |
9932045 | Jul 1999 | WO |
04000139 | Dec 2003 | WO |
2004032806 | Apr 2004 | WO |
2004017842 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004049981 | Jun 2004 | WO |
2004075771 | Sep 2004 | WO |
2005018453 | Mar 2005 | WO |
2005051239 | Jun 2005 | WO |
2005051240 | Jun 2005 | WO |
2005053564 | Jun 2005 | WO |
2005084558 | Sep 2005 | WO |
2006058057 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2006060795 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2007097854 | Aug 2007 | WO |
2007097853 | Aug 2007 | WO |
2007097854 | Aug 2007 | WO |
WO 2007092841 | Aug 2007 | WO |
2007145937 | Dec 2007 | WO |
WO 2008021494 | Feb 2008 | WO |
WO 2008112996 | Sep 2008 | WO |
2008117028 | Oct 2008 | WO |
WO 2009001083 | Dec 2008 | WO |
2009045960 | Apr 2009 | WO |
WO 2009111512 | Sep 2009 | WO |
2009129063 | Oct 2009 | WO |
2009129067 | Oct 2009 | WO |
2010033431 | Mar 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Berry, Seedhom, et al., “Personalised image-based templates for intra-operative guidance,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 111-118, 2005. |
SurgiTAIX AG, “OrthoTAIX for Orthopaedic Surgery.” Available at http://www.surgitaix.com/Products/OrthoTAIX/OrthoTAlX.pdf. |
Radermacher et al., “Computer-Integrated Orthopaedic Surgery: Connection of Planning and Execution in Surgical Intervention,” Computer Integrated Surgery, 451-463, 1995. |
Radermacher et al., “CT Image-Based Planning and Execution of Interventions in Orthopedic Surgery Using Individual Templates—Experimental Results and Aspects of Clinical Applications,” Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery, L.P Nolte and R. Ganz, eds, 42-52, Hogrefe & Huber Publishing 1999. |
European Search Report; European Patent Application No. 08165418.8-2165; dated Jan. 23, 2009; 6 pages. |
Hube et al.; Orthopaedic Surgery The Essentials, Chaper 36 Knee Reconstruction; 1999; 12 pages. |
Corin Medical Limited; The Corin X-ActTM Instrumentation and Operative Technique; Nov. 1998; 9 pages. |
Kraus et al.; A Comparative Assessment of Alignment Angle of the Knee by Radiographic and Physical Examination Methods; Jun. 6, 2005; 6 pages. |
Depuy; LCS Total Knee System—Surgical Procedure; 1989; 36 pages. |
Engh et al.; Legent II Surgical Technique; The Concept of Personalization—Total Knee Replacement Using the AMK—Legent II; 1992; 31 pages. |
Lotke; Knee Arthroplasty; Primary Total Knees—Standard Principles and Techniques; Raven Press, Ltd.; 5 pages; 1995. |
Mills et al.; Use of Computer Tomographic Reconstruction in Planning Osteotomies of the Hip; Jan. 1992; 6 pages. |
Portheine et al.; Development of a clinical demonstrator fro computer assisted orthopedic surgery with CT-image based individual templates; 1997; 6 pages. |
Radermacher et al.; Image Guided Orthopedic Surgery Using Individual Templates; 10 pages. |
Radermacher et al.; Computer Assisted Matching of Planning and Execution in Orthopedic Surgery; 1993; 2 pages. |
Radermacher et al.; Technique for Better Execution of CT Scan Planned Orthopedic Surgery on Bone Structures; 9 pages. |
Radermacher et al.; Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery with Image Based Individual Templates; No. 354, pp. 28-38; 1998; 11 pages. |
Sharma et al.; The Role of Knee Alignment in Disease Progression and Functional Decline in Knee Osteoarthritis; Jul. 11, 2001; American Medical Association; 10 pages. |
“Insall/Burstein II Surgical Technique”, Zimmer, (18 pages). |
Radermacher er at., “Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery with Image Based Individual Templates”, Clin Orthopaedics and Related Research 354, 28-38, 1998 (11 pages). |
Hafez et al., “Computer-assisted Total Kneed Arthroplasty Using Patient-specific Templating”, Clin Orthopaedics and Related Research, 444, 184-192, 2006 (9 pages). |
PCT Search Report for Application PCT/US2008/078143 (17 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140200902 A1 | Jul 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61308189 | Feb 2010 | US | |
60976447 | Sep 2007 | US | |
60976448 | Sep 2007 | US | |
60976451 | Sep 2007 | US | |
60976444 | Sep 2007 | US | |
60976446 | Sep 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12240994 | Sep 2008 | US |
Child | 13580252 | US |