The present invention relates to electromyography (EMG) and to systems for detecting the presence of nerves during surgical procedures.
It is important to avoid unintentionally contacting a patient's nerves when performing surgical procedures, especially when using surgical tools and procedures that involve cutting or boring through tissue. Moreover, it is especially important to sense the presence of spinal nerves when performing spinal surgery, since these nerves are responsible for the control of major body functions. However, avoiding inadvertent contact with these nerves is especially difficult due to the high nerve density in the region of the spine and cauda equina.
The advent of minimally invasive surgery offers great benefits to patients through reduced tissue disruption and trauma during surgical procedures. Unfortunately, a downside of such minimally invasive surgical procedures is that they tend to offer a somewhat reduced visibility of the patient's tissues during the surgery. Accordingly, the danger of inadvertently contacting and/or severing a patient's nerves can be increased.
Systems exist that provide remote optical viewing of a surgical site during minimally invasive surgical procedures. However, such systems cannot be used when initially penetrating into the tissue. Moreover, such optical viewing systems cannot reliably be used to detect the location of small diameter peripheral nerves.
Consequently, a need exists for a system that alerts an operator that a particular surgical tool, which is being minimally invasively inserted into a patient's body, is in close proximity to a nerve. As such, the operator may then redirect the path of the tool to avoid inadvertent contact with the nerve. It is especially important that such a system alerts an operator that a nerve is being approached as the surgical tool is advanced into the patient's body prior to contact with the nerve, such that a safety distance margin between the surgical tool and the nerve can be maintained.
A variety of antiquated, existing electrical systems are adapted to sense whether a surgical tool is positioned adjacent to a patient's nerve. Such systems have proven to be particularly advantageous in positioning a hypodermic needle adjacent to a nerve such that the needle can be used to deliver anesthetic to the region of the body adjacent the nerve. Such systems rely on electrifying the needle itself such that as a nerve is approached, the electrical potential of the needle will depolarize the nerve causing the muscle fibers coupled to the nerve to contract and relax, resulting in a visible muscular reaction, seen as a “twitch”.
A disadvantage of such systems is that they rely on a visual indication, being seen as a “twitch” in the patient's body. During precision minimally invasive surgery, uncontrollable patient movement caused by patient twitching, is not at all desirable, since such movement may itself be injurious. In addition, such systems rely on the operator to visually detect the twitch. Accordingly, such systems are quite limited, and are not particularly well adapted for use in minimally invasive surgery.
The present invention provides methods and apparatus for informing an operator that a surgical tool or probe is approaching a nerve. In preferred aspects, the surgical tool or probe may be introduced into the patient in a minimally invasive cannulated approach. In alternate aspects, the surgical tool or probe comprises the minimally invasive cannula itself.
In a first aspect, the present invention provides a system for detecting the presence of a nerve near a surgical tool or probe, based upon the current intensity level of a stimulus pulse applied to the surgical tool or probe. When a measurable neuro-muscular (EMG) response is detected from a stimulus pulse having a current intensity level at or below a pre-determined onset level, the nerve is considered to be near the tool or probe and thus, detected.
In an optional second aspect of the invention, the onset level (i.e.: the stimulus current level at which a neuro-muscular response is detected for a particular nerve) may be based on EMG responses measured for a probe at a predetermined location relative to the nerve. Specifically, onset levels may first be measured for each of a plurality of spinal nerves, (yielding an initial “baseline” set of neuro-muscular response onset threshold levels), which are then used in the first (nerve detection) aspect of the invention. Therefore, in accordance with this optional second aspect of the invention, a system for determining relative neuro-muscular onset values (i.e.: EMG response thresholds), for a plurality of spinal nerves is also provided. Accordingly, the pre-determined onset level may be compared to the current level required to generate a measurable EMG response for a tool or probe being advanced toward one or more nerves of interest.
In alternate aspects, however, the neuro-muscular onset values that are used to accomplish the first (nerve detection) aspect of the invention are not measured for each of the patient's plurality of spinal nerves. Rather, pre-determined levels of current intensity (below which neuro-muscular responses are detected in accordance with the first aspect of the invention) can instead be directly pre-set into the system. Such levels preferably correspond to specific expected or desired onset threshold values, which may have been determined beforehand by experimentation on other patients.
In the aspect of the invention where initial “baseline” neuro-muscular onset values are determined prior to nerve detection, such onset values can optionally be used to calibrate the present nerve-detection system (which in turn operates to detect whether an minimally invasive surgical tool or probe is positioned adjacent to a spinal nerve).
It is to be understood, therefore, that the present invention is not limited to systems that first determine relative neuro-muscular onset values, and then use these neuro-muscular onset values to detect the presence of a nerve. Rather, the present invention includes an optional system to first determine relative neuro-muscular onset values and a system to detect the presence of a nerve (using the neuro-muscular onset values which have been previously determined). As such, the present invention encompasses systems that also use fixed neuro-muscular onset values (which may simply be input into the system hardware/software by the operator prior to use) when performing electromyographic monitoring of spinal nerves to detect the presence of a spinal nerve adjacent a tool or probe.
In optional aspects, the preferred method of sensing for the presence of a nerve may be continuously repeated as the probe/surgical tool is physically advanced further into the patient such that the operator is warned quickly when the probe/surgical tool is closely approaching the nerve.
In the first (nerve sensing) aspect of the invention, the present nerve-detection system comprises an electrode or electrodes positioned on the distal end of the surgical tool or probe, with an electromyographic system used to detect whether a spinal nerve is positioned adjacent to the surgical tool or probe. A conclusion is made that the surgical tool or probe is positioned adjacent to a spinal nerve when a neuro-muscular (e.g.: EMG) response to a stimulus pulse emitted by the electrode or electrodes on the surgical tool or probe is detected (at a distant myotome location, such as on the patient's legs) at or below certain neuro-muscular response onset values (i.e.: pre-determined current intensity levels) for each of the plurality of spinal nerves. The stimulus pulse itself may be emitted from a single probe, but in an optional aspect, the stimulus pulse may be emitted from separate left and right probes with the signals being multiplexed. As stated above, such pre-determined levels may be pre-input by the operator (or be pre-set into the system's hardware or software) and may thus optionally correspond to known or expected values. (For example, values as measured by experimentation on other patients).
In accordance with the optional second (neuro-muscular response onset value determination) aspect of the invention, the neuro-muscular response onset values used in nerve detection may instead be measured for the particular patient's various nerves, as follows.
Prior to attempting to detect the presence of a nerve, an EMG stimulus pulse is first used to depolarize a portion of the patient's cauda equina. This stimulus pulse may be carried out with a pulse passing between an epidural stimulating electrode and a corresponding skin surface return electrode, or alternatively, between a pair of electrodes disposed adjacent to the patient's spine, or alternatively, or alternatively, by a non-invasive magnetic stimulation means. It is to be understood that any suitable means for stimulating (and depolarizing a portion of) the patient's cauda equina can be used in this regard.
After the stimulus pulse depolarizes a portion of the patient's cauda equina, neuro-muscular (i.e., EMG) responses to the stimulus pulse are then detected at various myotome locations corresponding to a plurality of spinal nerves, with the current intensity level of the stimulus pulse at which each neuro-muscular response is first detected being the neuro-muscular response “onset values” for each of the plurality of spinal nerves.
It is to be understood that the term “onset” as used herein is not limited to a condition in which all of the muscle fibers in a bundle of muscle fibers associated with a particular nerve exhibit a neuro-muscular response. Rather, an “onset” condition may comprise any pre-defined majority of the muscle fibers associated with a particular nerve exhibit a neuro-muscular response.
In an additional aspect of the invention, the relative neuro-muscular response onset values can be repeatedly re-determined (at automatic intervals or at intervals determined by the operator) so as to account for any changes to the response onset values caused by the surgical procedure itself. Accordingly, a further advantage of the present invention is that it permits automatic re-assessment of the nerve status, with the relative neuro-muscular response onset values for each of the plurality of spinal nerves being re-determined before, during and after the surgical procedure, or repeatedly determined again and again during the surgical procedure. This optional aspect is advantageous during spinal surgery as the surgery itself may change the relative neuro-muscular response onset values for each of the plurality of nerves, such as would be caused by reducing the pressure on an exiting spinal nerve positioned between two adjacent vertebrae. This periodic re-determination of the onset values can be carried out concurrently with the nerve sensing function.
Accordingly, an advantageous feature of the present invention is that it can simultaneously indicate to an operator both: (1) nerve detection (i.e.: whether the surgical tool/probe is near a nerve); and (2) nerve status changes (i.e.: the change in each nerve's neuro-muscular response onset values over time). The surgeon is thus able to better interpret the accuracy of nerve detection warnings by simultaneously viewing changes in the various onset levels. For example, should the surgeon note that a particular onset value (i.e.: the current level of a stimulus pulse required to elicit an EMG response for a particular nerve) is increasing, this would tend to show that this nerve pathway is becoming less sensitive. Accordingly, a “low” warning may be interpreted to more accurately correspond to a “medium” likelihood of nerve contact; or a “medium” warning may be interpreted to more accurately correspond to a “high” likelihood of nerve contact.
Optionally, such re-assessment of the nerve status can be used to automatically re-calibrate the present nerve detection system. This can be accomplished by continually updating the onset values that are then used in the nerve detection function.
In preferred aspects, the neuro-muscular response onset values for each of the plurality of spinal nerves are measured at each of the spaced-apart myotome locations, and are visually indicated to an operator (for example, by way of an LED scale). Most preferably, the measuring of each of the various neuro-muscular response onset values is repeatedly carried out with the present and previously measured onset value levels being simultaneously visually indicated to an operator such as by way of the LED scale.
Accordingly, in one preferred aspect, for example, different LED lights can be used to indicate whether the value of each of the various neuro-muscular response onset values is remaining constant over time, increasing or decreasing. An advantage of this optional feature of the invention is that a surgeon operating the device can be quickly alerted to the fact that a neuro-muscular response onset value of one or more of the spinal nerves has changed. Should the onset value decrease for a particular nerve, this may indicate that the nerve was previously compressed or impaired, but become uncompressed or no longer impaired.
In a particular preferred embodiment, example, a blue LED can be emitted at a baseline value (i.e.: when the neuro-muscular response onset value remains the same as previously measured); and a yellow light can be emitted when the neuro-muscular response onset value has increased from that previously measured; and a green light being emitted when the neuro-muscular response onset value has decreased from that previously measured.
In an alternate design, different colors of lights may be simultaneously displayed to indicate currently measured onset values for each of the plurality of spinal nerve myotome locations, as compared to previously measured onset values. For example, the present measured onset value levels for each of the plurality of spinal nerve myotome locations can appear as yellow LED lights on the LED scale, with the immediately previously measured onset value levels simultaneously appearing as green LED lights on the LED scale. This also allows the operator to compare presently measured (i.e. just updated) neuro-muscular response onset values to the previously measured neuro-muscular response onset values.
In preferred aspects, the present system also audibly alerts the operator to the presence of a nerve. In addition, the volume or frequency of the alarm may change as the probe/tool moves closer to the nerve.
In a preferred aspect of the present invention, the neuro-muscular onset values, (which may be detected both when initially determining the relative neuro-muscular response onset values in accordance with the second aspect of the invention, and also when detecting a neuro-muscular onset response to the emitted stimulus pulse from the probe/tool in accordance with the first aspect of the invention), are detected by monitoring a plurality of distally spaced-apart myotome locations which anatomically correspond to each of the spinal nerves. Most preferably, these myotome locations are selected to correspond to the associated spinal nerves that are near the surgical site. Therefore, these myotome locations preferably correspond with distally spaced-apart on the patient's legs (when the operating site is in the lower vertebral range), but may also include myotome locations on the patient's arms (when the operating site is in the upper vertebral range). It is to be understood, however, that the present system therefore encompasses monitoring of any relevant myotome locations that are innervated by nerves in the area of surgery. Therefore, the present invention can be adapted for use in cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine applications.
During both the optional initial determination of the relative neuro-muscular response onset values for each of the plurality of spinal nerves (i.e.: the second aspect of the invention) and also during the detection of neuro-muscular onset responses to the stimulus pulse from the surgical probe/tool (i.e.: the first aspect of the invention), the emission of the stimulus pulse is preferably of a varying current intensity. Most preferably, the stimulus pulse is incrementally increased step-by-step in a “staircase” fashion over time, at least until a neuro-muscular response signal is detected. The stimulus pulse itself may be delivered either between a midline epidural electrode and a return electrode, or between two electrodes disposed adjacent the patient's spine, or from an electrode disposed directly on the probe/tool, or by other means.
An important advantage of the present system of increasing the level of stimulus pulse to a level at which a response is first detected is that it avoids overstimulating a nerve (which may cause a patient to “twitch”), or cause other potential nerve damage.
In optional preferred aspects, the “steps” of the staircase of increasing current intensity of the stimulus pulse are carried out in rapid succession, most preferably within the refractory period of the spinal nerves. An advantage of rapidly delivering the stimulus pulses within the refractory period of the spinal nerves is that, at most, only a single “twitch” will be exhibited by the patient, as opposed to a muscular “twitching” response to each level of the stimulation pulse as would be the case if the increasing levels of stimulus pulse were instead delivered at intervals of time greater than the refractory period of the nerves.
In another optional preferred aspect, a second probe is added to the present system, functioning as a “confirmation electrode”. In this optional aspect, an electrode or electroded surface on the second probe is also used to detect the presence of a nerve, (using the same system as was used for the first probe to detect a nerve). Such a second “confirmation electrode” probe is especially useful when the first probe is an electrified cannula itself, and the second “confirmation electrode” probe is a separate probe that can be advanced through the electrified cannula. For example, as the operating (electrified) cannula is advanced into the patient, this operating cannula itself functions as a nerve detection probe. As such, the operating cannula can be advanced to the operating site without causing any nerve damage. After this cannula has been positioned at the surgical site, it may then be used as the operating cannula through which various surgical tools are then advanced. At this stage, its nerve-sensing feature may be optionally disabled, should this feature interfere with other surgical tools or procedures. Thereafter, (and at periodic intervals, if desired) the second “confirmation electrode” probe can be re-advanced through the operating cannula to confirm that a nerve has not slipped into the operating space during the surgical procedure. In the intervals of time during which this second “confirmation electrode” probe is removed from the operating cannula, access is permitted for other surgical tools and procedures. The second “confirmation electrode” probe of the present invention preferably comprises a probe having an electrode on its distal end. This confirmation electrode may either be mono-polar or bi-polar.
In an optional preferred aspect, the second “confirmation electrode” probe may also be used as a “screw test” probe. Specifically, the electrode on the secondary “confirmation” probe may be placed in contact with a pedicle screw, thereby electrifying the pedicle screw. Should the present invention detect a nerve adjacent such an electrified pedicle screw, this would indicate that pedicle wall is cracked (since the electrical stimulus pulse has passed out through the crack in the pedicle wall and stimulated a nerve adjacent the pedicle).
An advantage of the present system is that it may provide both nerve “detection” (i.e.: sensing for the presence of nerves as the probe/tool is being advanced) and nerve “surveillance” (i.e.: sensing for the presence of nerves when the probe/tool had been positioned).
A further important advantage of the present invention is that it simultaneously monitors neuro-muscular responses in a plurality of different nerves. This is especially advantageous when operating in the region of the spinal cord due to the high concentration of different nerves in this region of the body. Moreover, by simultaneously monitoring a plurality of different nerves, the present system can be used to indicate when relative nerve response onset values have changed among the various nerves. This information can be especially important when the surgical procedure being performed can alter the relative nerve response onset value of one or more nerves with respect to one another.
A further advantage of the present system is that a weaker current intensity can be applied at the nerve detecting electrodes (on the probe) than at the stimulus (i.e.: nerve status) electrodes.
The present invention sets forth systems for detecting when a nerve is near or adjacent to an electrified surgical tool, probe, cannula, or other surgical instrument. The present invention also involves optional systems for simultaneously determining the “status” (e.g.: sensitivity) of a plurality of nerves.
As will be explained, the present system involves applying a signal with a current level to a probe near a nerve and determining whether an electromyographic “EMG” (i.e.: neuro-muscular) response for a muscle coupled to the nerve is present.
In preferred aspects, the present system applies a signal with a known current level (mA) to a “probe” (which could be midline probe, a cannula, a needle, etc.) Depending on the current level, distance to the nerve, and health of the nerve, an EMG may be detected in a muscle coupled to the nerve. In accordance with preferred aspects, an EMG response is determined to have been detected when the peak-to-peak response of the EMG signal is greater than some level (mVolts). In other words, an EMG response is determined to have been detected when the stimulus current level generates an EMG having a peak-to-peak value greater than a pre-determined level (for example, 60 mV or 80 mV in spinal nerve applications.) Such stimulus current level at which an EMG response is detected is termed the “onset” current level for the nerve.
In optional aspects, the present invention also sets forth systems for determining these onset current values (i.e.: determining the stimulus current level at which an EMG response is detected with a maximum peak-to-peak value greater than a predetermined level). Such onset values may be determined for a plurality of nerves either in absolute terms, or in relation to one another.
The first aspect of the present invention involves nerve detection. In the optional second aspect of the invention, nerve status information may be used to aid nerve detection. The nerve status aspect determines the minimum current level of a signal applied to a probe near a nerve needed to generate onset EMG response for a muscle coupled to a nerve of interest. The present invention may use this determined minimum current level when determining whether a probe is near the same nerve.
In optional aspects, the present invention may involve determining an initial set of “baseline” neuro-muscular response onset values for a plurality of different spinal nerve pathways. This optional second (nerve status) aspect of the present invention is preferably carried out prior to the first (nerve detection) aspect of the invention, with the initial set of “baseline” neuro-muscular onset values then optionally being used in the nerve detection function, as will be explained below. As the optional second aspect of the invention is carried out prior to carrying out the first aspect of the invention, it will be described first.
In the nerve status determination, the minimum current level of a signal applied to a probe needed to generate an onset neuro-muscular response (i.e.: EMG response) is first determined for each of a plurality of nerves, as follows. Referring to
In a preferred aspect, neuro-muscular (i.e., EMG), responses to the stimulus pulse by muscles coupled to nerves near the stimulating electrode are detected by electrodes positioned at each of a plurality of myotome locations MR1, MR2, and MR3 on the patient's right leg, and myotome locations ML1, ML2, and ML3 on the patient's left leg. The sensing of neuro-muscular responses at these locations may be performed with needle electrodes, or electrodes placed on the surface of the patient's skin, as desired. An EMG response at each location MR1 to MR6 is detected when the maximum peak-to-peak height of the EMG response to the stimulus pulse is greater than a predetermined mV value (called “onset”). Accordingly, the current level required to elicit an onset EMG response is called the “onset” current level. As described below, the current level of the stimulus pulse or signal applied to the electrode 11 or electrodes 12, 14 may be incremented from a low level until an onset EMG response is detected for one or more of the myotome locations MR1 to ML3.
It is to be understood that myotome sensing may be carried out at more than the three distal locations illustrated on each of the patient's legs in
It is also to be understood that the present invention can be easily adapted to cervical or thoracic spinal applications (in addition to the illustrated lumbar application of
In a preferred aspect, the current level of the stimulus signal conducted between status electrodes 11 and 13 (or 12 and 14) is incrementally increased in a staircase fashion as shown in the current staircase of
At lower current levels, an onset neuro-muscular (i.e., EMG) responses to the stimulus pulse may not be detected at each myotome ML1 to MR3 location. However, as the current level of the stimulus signal is incrementally increased (i.e.: moving up the staircase, step-by-step), an onset neuro-muscular (i.e., EMG) response may eventually be detected at each of the various myotome locations ML1 through MR3 for each of the six associated spinal nerves. As noted whether an onset EMG response is detected for myotome depends on the location of the electrode relative to the corresponding nerve and the nerve status/health. For example, when a nerve is compressed or impaired, the current level required to generate an onset EMG response may be greater than the similar, non-compressed nerve at a similar distance from the stimulating electrode. Accordingly, he onset neuro-muscular response for each of the various myotome ML1 to MR3 locations may be elicited at different stimulus current levels due at least in part to the various individual spinal nerves being compressed, impaired, etc., and also due simply to differences in the individual nerve pathway sensitivities.
For example, referring to the example illustrated in
For example, Table 1 illustrates the current level required to elicit an onset EMG response for myotome location. As seen in Table 1, myotome location ML1 detected an onset EMG response to the stimulus pulse for a current level of 4 mA. Similarly, myotome MR2 detected an onset neuro-muscular/EMG response to the stimulus pulse for a current level of 24 mA, etc. Summarizing in tabular form:
The above detected stimulus current levels may then be optionally scaled to correspond to stimulus staircase levels 1 through 8, with the maximum signal strength of 32 mA corresponding to “8”, as follows, and as illustrated for each of Myotome locations ML1 to MR3, as shown in Table 2 based on the levels shown in Table 1.
Accordingly, by depolarizing a portion of the patient's cauda equina and by then measuring the current amplitude at which an onset neuro-muscular (i.e., EMG) response to the depolarization of the cauda equina is detected in each of a plurality of spinal nerves, (i.e.: at each of the myotome locations corresponding to each of the individual spinal nerves), a method for determining the relative neuro-muscular response for each of the plurality of spinal nerves is provided. As such, the relative sensitivities of the various spinal nerve pathways with respect to one another can initially be determined This information may represent the relative health or status of the nerves coupled to each myotome location where the stimulating electrode is approximately the same distance from each of the corresponding nerves. For example, the nerve corresponding to myotome location MR2 required 24 mA to elicit an onset EMG response in the corresponding muscle. Accordingly, this nerve may be compressed or otherwise physiologically inhibited.
These respective stimulus pulse current levels at which an onset neuro-muscular response is detected for each of myotome locations ML1 through MR3 are detected may then be electronically stored (as an initial “baseline” set of onset EMG response current levels). In a preferred aspect, these stored levels may then be used to perform nerve detection for a probe at a location other than the midline as will be explained. As noted, once an onset neuro-muscular or EMG-response has been detected for each of the myotome locations, it is not necessary to apply further increased current level signals. As such, it may not be necessary for the current level of the signal to reach the top of the current level staircase (as shown in
By either reaching the end of the increasing current amplitude staircase, (or by simply proceeding as far up the staircase as is necessary to detect a response at each myotome location), the present system obtains and stores an initial “baseline” set of current level onset values for each myotome location. These onset values may be stored either as absolute (i.e.: mA) or scaled (i.e.: 1 to 8) values. As noted these values represent the baseline or initial nerve status for each nerve corresponding to one of the myotome locations. This baseline onset current level may be displayed as a fixed value on a bar graft of LEDs such as shown in
When the onset current level increases for a nerve this may indicate that a nerve has been impacted by the procedure. The increased onset current level may also be displayed on the bar graft for the respective myotome (
The above determined initial set baseline neuro-muscular response onset current levels for each nerve pathway (myotome location) may then be used in the first (i.e.: nerve sensing) aspect of the present invention, in which a system is provided for detecting the presence of a spinal nerve adjacent to the distal end of a single probe 20, or either of probes 20 or 22. (It is to be understood, however, that the forgoing nerve status system (which may experimentally determine neuro-muscular response onset values) is an optional aspect of the present nerve detection system. As such, it is not necessary to determine such relative or absolute neuro-muscular response baseline onset current levels as set forth above prior to nerve detection. Rather, generally expected or previously known current onset levels may instead be used instead. Such generally expected or previously known current onset levels may have been determined by experiments performed previously on other patients.
In accordance with the first aspect of the present invention, nerve detection (performed as the surgical tool or probe is advancing toward the operative site), or nerve surveillance (performed in an ongoing fashion when the surgical tool or probe is stationary has already reached the operative site) may be carried out, as follows.
The first (nerve detection/surveillance) aspect of the invention will now be set forth.
Returning to
Nerve detection is accomplished as follows. A stimulus pulse is passed between electrode 21 (disposed on the distal end of a probe 20) and patient return electrode 30. In instances where a second probe (22) is also used, a stimulus pulse is passed between electrode 23 (disposed on the distal end of a probe 22) and patient return electrode 30. In one aspect, electrodes 21 or 23 operate as cathodes and patient return electrode 30 is an anode. In this case, probes 20 and 22 are monopolar. Preferably, when simultaneously using two probes (20 and 22) the stimulus pulse emitted by each of electrodes 21 and 23 is multiplexed, so as to distinguish between their signals.
It should be understood that electrodes 21 and 23 could be replaced by any combination of multiple electrodes, operating either in monopolar or bipolar mode. In the case where a single probe has multiple electrodes (replacing a single electrode such as electrode 21) probe 20 could instead be bi-polar with patient return electrode 30 no longer being required.
Subsequent to the emission of a stimulus pulse from either of electrodes 21 or 23, each of myotome locations ML1 through MR3 are monitored to determine if they exhibit an EMG response.
In a preferred aspect, as shown in
For myotome locations that exhibit an EMG response as a result of the stimulus pulse, the present invention then records the lowest amplitude of current required to elicit such a response. Subsequently, this stimulus level is interpreted so as to produce an appropriate warning indication to the user that the surgical tool/probe is in close proximity to the nerve.
For example, in a simplified preferred aspect, the staircase of stimulus pulses may comprise only three levels, (rather than the 8 levels which are illustrated in
As can be appreciated, an important advantage of increasing the stimulus current intensity in a “staircase” function, increasing from lower to higher levels of current intensity is that a “high” alarm condition would be reached prior to a “low” alarm condition being reached, providing an early warning to the surgeon. Moreover, as soon as a “high” alarm condition is reached, the present invention need not continue through to the end (third step) of the staircase function. In preferred aspects, when the current level of the applied signal to the probe (20 or 22) elicits an EMG response greater than the pre-determined onset EMG response, the current level is not increased.
In the above-described simplified (only three levels of stimulation) illustration of the invention, it was assumed that all nerves respond similarly to similar levels of stimulation, and the proximity (nerve detection) warning was based upon this assumption. Specifically, in the above-described simplified (three levels of stimulation) illustration, there was an assumed one-to-one (i.e. linear) mapping of the EMG onset value data onto the response data when determining what level of proximity warning indication should be elicited, if any. However, in the case of actual spinal nerve roots, there is not only a natural variability in response onset value threshold, but there is often a substantial variation in neuro-muscular response onset values between the nerve pathways caused as a result of certain disease states, such as nerve root compression resulting from a herniated intervertebral disc.
Accordingly, in a preferred aspect of the present invention, the initial “baseline” neuro-muscular EMG response onset value data set which characterizes the relative EMG onset values of the various nerve roots of interest, (as described above), is used to guide the interpretation of EMG response data and any subsequent proximity warning indication, as follows.
Referring back to
In accordance with preferred aspects of the present invention, the sensitivities of the various spinal nerve pathways (to their associated myotomes) are incorporated into the nerve detection function of the invention by incorporating the various neuro-muscular response onset values, as follows.
A decision is made that either of electrodes 21 or 23 are positioned adjacent to a spinal nerve when a neuro-muscular response is detected at a particular myotome location at a current intensity level that is less than, (or optionally equal to), the previously measured or input EMG response onset value for the particular spinal nerve corresponding to that myotome. For example, referring to myotome location ML1, the previously determined neuro-muscular response onset level was 4 mA, as shown in Table 1. Should a neuro-muscular response to the stimulus pulse be detected at a current intensity level at or below 4 mA, this would signal the operator that the respective probe electrode 21 (or 23) emitting the stimulus pulse is in close proximity to the spinal nerve. Similarly, the neuro-muscular response onset value for myotome location ML2 was determined to be 16 mA, as shown in Table 1. Accordingly, should a neuro-muscular response be detected at a current intensity level of less than or equal to 16 mA, this would indicate that respective probe electrode 21 (or 23) emitting the stimulus pulse is in close proximity to the spinal nerve.
In addition, as illustrated in
Similarly, for ML2, with a onset value of 16 mA, (i.e.: the fourth level in the status electrode current staircase sequence), the “high”, “medium” and “low” warning levels are assigned starting at the fourth step on the status electrode current staircase, with the fourth step being “high”, the fifth level being “medium” and the sixth level being “low”, respectively, as shown. Accordingly, if an EMG response is detected for ML2 at (or above) the first, second, third, or fourth surveillance levels, (i.e.: 4, 18, 12 or 16 mA), then a “high” warning indication will be given. For a response initially detected at the fifth level (i.e.: 20 mA), then a “medium” warning indication is given. If a response is not detected until the sixth level (i.e.: 24 mA), then a “low” warning indication is given. If responses are detected only above the sixth level, or not at all, then no indication is given. Preferably, each of myotome locations ML1 through MR3 are monitored at conditions indicating “high”, “medium” and “low” likelihood of a nerve being disposed adjacent the surgical tool/probe.
As can be seen in
As explained above, the various neuro-muscular response current onset levels used in detection of spinal nerves may either have been either determined in accordance with the second aspect of the present invention, or may simply correspond to a set of known or expected values input by the user, or pre-set into the system's hardware/software. In either case, an advantage of the present system is that different neuro-muscular response onset value levels may be used when simultaneously sensing for different nerves. An advantage of this is that the present invention is able to compensate for different sensitivities among the various spinal nerves.
As can be seen comparing the current intensities of stimulus electrodes 11 and 13 (or 12 and 14) as shown in
In an optional preferred aspect of the invention, if a neuro-muscular response (greater than the onset EMG response) is detected for all six myotome sensing locations ML1 through MR3 before all of the steps on the staircase is completed, the remaining steps need not be executed.
Moreover, if it has been determined that a maximal level of stimulation is required to elicit an EMG response at a particular myotome sensing location, then only the top three stimulation levels need to be monitored during the neuro-muscular response detection sequence. In this case, the top three monitored levels will correspond to “high”, “medium”, and “low” probabilities of the surgical tool/probe being disposed adjacent the a nerve. In another optional aspect, if any of the myotome locations do not respond to the maximum stimulation level (i.e.: top step on the staircase), they are assigned the maximum scale value (i.e.: a “low” warning indication).
Preferably, each of the spinal nerves monitored at myotome locations ML1 through MR3 will correspond to nerves exiting from successive vertebrae along the spine. For example, as shown in
In accordance with the present invention, the detection of a neuro-muscular (EMG) response, whether in accordance with the first (i.e.: nerve detection), or second (i.e.: establishing initial “baseline” neuro-muscular response onset values) aspect of the invention, may be accomplished as follows.
Referring to
During EMG sampling window 101, the EMG signal may optionally be amplified and filtered in accordance with guidelines known to those skilled in the art. The signal may then be rectified and passed through a threshold detector to produce a train of pulses representing the number of “humps” of certain amplitudes contained in the EMG waveform. A re-settable counting circuit may then count the number of humps and a comparator may determine whether the number of pulses is within an acceptable range. By way of example only, the number of acceptable pulses for EMG responses elicited by stimulation in the lumbar spine region may range from about two to about five. If only one pulse is counted, then it is unlikely that a true EMG response has occurred, since true EMG waveforms are typically biphasic (having at least one positive curved pulse response and one negative curved pulse response) resulting in at least two pulses. This pulse-counting scheme helps to discriminate between true EMG waveforms and noise, since noise signals are typically either sporadic and monophasic (and therefore produce only one pulse) or repetitive (producing a high number of pulses during the EMG sampling window).
In a further optional refinement, a separate noise-sampling window may be established to remove noise present in the EMG responses to increase the ability of the system to discriminate between true EMG responses and false responses caused by noise. The boundaries of noise sampling window are chosen such that there is no significant change of a true EMG signal occurring during the window. For example, it may be deemed acceptable that one curved pulse of an EMG response may be comprised primarily of noise, but if more than one curved pulse of an EMG response is primarily comprised of noise, an alarm would be triggered indicating that excess noise is present on that particular channel.
In preferred aspects of the present invention, both the optional second aspect of determining the neuro-muscular response onset values for each of the plurality of spinal nerves and the first aspect of sensing to detect if a nerve is positioned adjacent to a surgical tool/probe are repeated over time. Preferably, the sensing of whether a nerve is positioned adjacent to a surgical tool/probe is continuously repeated in very short intervals of time, such that the operator can be warned in real time as the surgical tool/probe is advanced toward the nerve. The present system of determining the neuro-muscular response onset values for each of the plurality of spinal nerves is also preferably repeated, and may be repeated automatically, or under operator control.
Typically, the above two aspects of the present invention will not be carried out simultaneously. Rather, when the neuro-muscular response onset values are being determined (using electrodes 11 and 13 or 12 and 14), the operation of probe electrodes 21 and 23 will be suspended. Conversely, when sensing to determine whether a nerve is positioned adjacent either of probes 20 or 22, the operation of stimulation electrodes 11 and 13 or 12 and 14 will be suspended. A standard reference electrode 32 may be used for grounding the recording electrodes at the myotomes.
EMG inputs 128 to 138 comprise the six pairs of electrodes used to detect EMG activity at six different myotome locations. It will be appreciated that the number of channels may vary depending upon the number of nerve roots and affiliated myotomes that need to be monitored. A reference electrode 140 may also be attached to the patient at a location roughly central to the groupings of EMG electrodes 128 to 138 to serve as a ground reference for the EMG input signals. Electrodes 128 to 140 may either be of the needle-type or of the gelled foam type, or of any type appropriate for detecting low-level physiological signals. EMG input stage 142 may contain input protection circuit comprising, for example, gas discharge elements (to suppress high voltage transients) and/or clamping diodes. Such clamping diodes are preferably of the low-leakage types, such as SST-pads (Siliconix). The signal is then passed through amplifier/filter 144, which may amplify the signal differentially using an instrumentation amplifier such as an AD620 (Analog Devices). The overall gain may be on the order of about 10,000:1 to about 1,000,000:1, and the low and high filter bands may be in the range of about 1-100 Hz and 500 to 5,000 Hz, respectively. Such filtering may be accomplished digitally, in software, or with discrete components using techniques well known to those skilled in the art. The amplified and filtered signal then passes through rectifier 141, which may be either a software rectifier or a hardware rectifier. The output of rectifier 146 goes to threshold detector 147 which may be implemented either in electronic hardware or in software. The output of threshold detector 147 then goes to counter 148 which may also be implemented by either software or hardware.
Controller 118 may be a microcomputer or microcontroller, or it may be a programmable gate array, or other hardware logic device. Display elements 120 to 127 may be of any appropriate type, either individually implemented (such as with multicolor LEDs) or as an integrated display (such as an LCD).
The present application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/726,110, filed Dec. 22, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,958,869, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/196,784, filed Aug. 2, 2011, now issued as U.S. Pat. 8,337,410 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/982,238, filed Oct. 31, 2007, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,991,463 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/830,189, filed Apr. 21, 2004, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,963,927 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/722,070, filed Nov. 24, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,470,236 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/167,416 filed Nov. 24, 1999 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference).
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
208227 | Don | Sep 1878 | A |
972983 | Arthur | Oct 1910 | A |
1003232 | Cerbo | Oct 1910 | A |
1044348 | Cerbo | Jun 1912 | A |
1328624 | Graham | Jan 1920 | A |
1548184 | Cameron | Aug 1925 | A |
1919120 | O'Connor et al. | Jul 1933 | A |
2594086 | Smith | Apr 1952 | A |
2704064 | Fizzell et al. | Mar 1955 | A |
2736002 | Oriel | Feb 1956 | A |
2808826 | Reiner et al. | Oct 1957 | A |
3364929 | Ide et al. | Jan 1968 | A |
3664329 | Naylor | May 1972 | A |
3682162 | Colyer | Aug 1972 | A |
3785368 | McCarthy et al. | Jan 1974 | A |
3803716 | Garnier | Apr 1974 | A |
3830226 | Staub et al. | Aug 1974 | A |
3957036 | Normann | May 1976 | A |
D245789 | Shea et al. | Sep 1977 | S |
4099519 | Warren | Jul 1978 | A |
4164214 | Stark et al. | Aug 1979 | A |
4207897 | Lloyd et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4224949 | Scott et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4226228 | Shin et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
4226288 | Collins, Jr. | Oct 1980 | A |
4235242 | Howson et al. | Nov 1980 | A |
4285347 | Hess | Aug 1981 | A |
4291705 | Severinghaus et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
4449532 | Storz | May 1984 | A |
4461300 | Christensen | Jul 1984 | A |
4512351 | Pohndorf | Apr 1985 | A |
4515168 | Chester et al. | May 1985 | A |
4519403 | Dickhudt | May 1985 | A |
4545374 | Jacobson | Oct 1985 | A |
4561445 | Berke et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
4562832 | Wilder et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
4573448 | Kambin | Mar 1986 | A |
4592369 | Davis et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4595013 | Jones et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4595018 | Rantala | Jun 1986 | A |
4611597 | Kraus | Sep 1986 | A |
4616635 | Caspar et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
4633889 | Talalla | Jan 1987 | A |
4658835 | Pohndorf | Apr 1987 | A |
D295445 | Freeman | Apr 1988 | S |
4744371 | Harris | May 1988 | A |
4753223 | Bremer | Jun 1988 | A |
4759377 | Dykstra | Jul 1988 | A |
4784150 | Voorhies et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4807642 | Brown | Feb 1989 | A |
D300561 | Asa et al. | Apr 1989 | S |
4824433 | Marz et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4892105 | Prass | Jan 1990 | A |
4913134 | Luque | Apr 1990 | A |
4917274 | Asa et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4917704 | Frey et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4926865 | Oman | May 1990 | A |
4950257 | Hibbs et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4962766 | Herzon | Oct 1990 | A |
4964411 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5007902 | Witt | Apr 1991 | A |
5015247 | Michelson | May 1991 | A |
5045054 | Hood et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5052373 | Michelson | Oct 1991 | A |
5058602 | Brody | Oct 1991 | A |
5081990 | Deletis | Jan 1992 | A |
5092344 | Lee | Mar 1992 | A |
5127403 | Brownlee | Jul 1992 | A |
5161533 | Prass et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5171279 | Mathews | Dec 1992 | A |
5192327 | Brantigan | Mar 1993 | A |
5195541 | Obenchain | Mar 1993 | A |
5196015 | Neubardt | Mar 1993 | A |
5215100 | Spitz et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
RE34390 | Culver | Sep 1993 | E |
D340521 | Heinzelman et al. | Oct 1993 | S |
5255691 | Otten | Oct 1993 | A |
5282468 | Klepinski | Feb 1994 | A |
5284153 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5284154 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5295994 | Bonutti | Mar 1994 | A |
5299563 | Seton | Apr 1994 | A |
5312417 | Wilk | May 1994 | A |
5313956 | Knutsson et al. | May 1994 | A |
5313962 | Obenchain | May 1994 | A |
5327902 | Lemmen | Jul 1994 | A |
5331975 | Bonutti | Jul 1994 | A |
5333618 | Lekhtman et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5342384 | Sugarbaker | Aug 1994 | A |
5357983 | Mathews | Oct 1994 | A |
5375067 | Berchin | Dec 1994 | A |
5375594 | Cueva | Dec 1994 | A |
5383876 | Nardella | Jan 1995 | A |
5395317 | Kambin | Mar 1995 | A |
5433739 | Sluijter | Jul 1995 | A |
5450845 | Axelgaard | Sep 1995 | A |
5472426 | Bonati et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5474057 | Makower et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5474558 | Neubardt | Dec 1995 | A |
5480440 | Kambin | Jan 1996 | A |
5482038 | Ruff | Jan 1996 | A |
5484437 | Michelson | Jan 1996 | A |
5487739 | Aebischer et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5509893 | Pracas | Apr 1996 | A |
5514153 | Bonutti | May 1996 | A |
5540235 | Wilson | Jul 1996 | A |
5549656 | Reiss | Aug 1996 | A |
5560372 | Cory | Oct 1996 | A |
5566678 | Cadwell | Oct 1996 | A |
5569290 | McAfee | Oct 1996 | A |
5571149 | Liss et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5579781 | Cooke | Dec 1996 | A |
5593429 | Ruff | Jan 1997 | A |
5599279 | Slotman et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5630813 | Kieturakis | May 1997 | A |
5667508 | Errico et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5671752 | Sinderby et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5681265 | Maeda et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5688223 | Rosendahl | Nov 1997 | A |
5707359 | Bufalini | Jan 1998 | A |
5711307 | Smits | Jan 1998 | A |
5728046 | Mayer et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5741253 | Michelson | Apr 1998 | A |
5741261 | Moskovitz et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5759159 | Masreliez | Jun 1998 | A |
5762629 | Kambin | Jun 1998 | A |
5772661 | Michelson | Jun 1998 | A |
5775331 | Raymond et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5776144 | Leysieffer et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5779642 | Nightengale | Jul 1998 | A |
5785658 | Benaron | Jul 1998 | A |
5792044 | Foley et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5797854 | Hedgecock | Aug 1998 | A |
5797909 | Michelson | Aug 1998 | A |
5806522 | Katims | Sep 1998 | A |
5814073 | Bonutti | Sep 1998 | A |
5830151 | Hadzic et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5851191 | Gozani | Dec 1998 | A |
5853373 | Griffith et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5860973 | Michelson | Jan 1999 | A |
5862314 | Jeddeloh | Jan 1999 | A |
5872314 | Clinton | Feb 1999 | A |
5885210 | Cox | Mar 1999 | A |
5885219 | Nightengale | Mar 1999 | A |
5888196 | Bonutti | Mar 1999 | A |
5891147 | Moskovitz et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5902231 | Foley et al. | May 1999 | A |
5928139 | Koros et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5928158 | Aristides | Jul 1999 | A |
5931777 | Sava | Aug 1999 | A |
5935131 | Bonutti et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5938688 | Schiff | Aug 1999 | A |
5944658 | Koros et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5976094 | Gozani et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6004262 | Putz et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6004312 | Finneran | Dec 1999 | A |
6007487 | Foley et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6010520 | Pattison | Jan 2000 | A |
6024696 | Hoftman et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6024697 | Pisarik | Feb 2000 | A |
6027456 | Feler et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6038469 | Karlsson et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6038477 | Kayyali | Mar 2000 | A |
6050992 | Nichols | Apr 2000 | A |
6074343 | Nathanson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6080105 | Spears | Jun 2000 | A |
6083154 | Liu et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6095987 | Shmulewitz | Aug 2000 | A |
6104957 | Alo et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104960 | Duysens et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119068 | Kannonji | Sep 2000 | A |
6120503 | Michelson | Sep 2000 | A |
6126660 | Dietz | Oct 2000 | A |
6128576 | Nishimoto | Oct 2000 | A |
6132386 | Gozani et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6132387 | Gozani et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6135965 | Tumer et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6138681 | Chen et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6139493 | Koros et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6142931 | Kaji | Nov 2000 | A |
6146335 | Gozani | Nov 2000 | A |
6152871 | Foley et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6159179 | Simonson | Dec 2000 | A |
6161047 | King et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6174311 | Branch et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6181961 | Prass | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6196969 | Bester et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6206826 | Mathews et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6217509 | Foley et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6224549 | Drongelen | May 2001 | B1 |
6245082 | Gellman et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6259945 | Epstein | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6264651 | Underwood et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266558 | Gozani et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6273905 | Streeter | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292701 | Prass et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6306100 | Prass | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308712 | Shaw | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6312392 | Herzon | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6325764 | Griffith et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6334068 | Hacker | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6348058 | Melkent et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6360750 | Gerber et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6371968 | Kogasaka et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6395007 | Bhatnagar et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6416465 | Brau | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6425859 | Foley et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425887 | McGuckin et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425901 | Zhu et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6450952 | Rioux et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6451015 | Rittman, III et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6466817 | Kaula et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6468205 | Mollenauer et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6468207 | Fowler, Jr. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6500116 | Knapp | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6500128 | Marino | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6520907 | Foley et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6524320 | DiPoto | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6535759 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6564078 | Marino et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6579244 | Goodwin | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6599294 | Fuss et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6620157 | Dabney et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6645194 | Briscoe et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6679833 | Smith et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6719692 | Kleffner et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6760616 | Hoey et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6770074 | Michelson | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6796985 | Bolger et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6810281 | Brock et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6819956 | DiLorenzo | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6829508 | Schulman et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6847849 | Mamo et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6849047 | Goodwin | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6855105 | Jackson, III et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6869398 | Obenchain | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6871099 | Whitehurst et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6902569 | Parmer et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6916330 | Simonson | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6926728 | Zucherman et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6929606 | Ritland | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6945933 | Branch | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6951538 | Ritland | Oct 2005 | B2 |
7047082 | Schrom et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7050848 | Hoey et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7079883 | Marino et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7089059 | Pless | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7177677 | Kaula et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7198598 | Smith et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7207949 | Miles et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7226451 | Shluzas et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7261688 | Smith et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7470236 | Kelleher | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7473222 | Dewey et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7481766 | Lee et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7522953 | Kaula et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7556601 | Branch et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7582058 | Miles et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7643884 | Pond et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7691057 | Miles et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7693562 | Marino et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7717959 | William et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7819801 | Miles et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7935051 | Miles et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7962191 | Marino et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7963927 | Kelleher | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7991463 | Kelleher et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8000782 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8005535 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8021430 | Michelson | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8133173 | Miles et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8165653 | Marino et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8182423 | Miles et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8192356 | Miles et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8251997 | Michelson | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8303458 | Fukano et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8337410 | Kelleher et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8343046 | Miles et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8343224 | Lynn et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8388527 | Miles | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8489170 | Marino et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8740783 | Gharib et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
20010039949 | Loubser | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056280 | Underwood et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020007129 | Marino | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010392 | Desai | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020072686 | Hoey et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077632 | Tsou | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020123744 | Reynard | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020123780 | Grill et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020161415 | Cohen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020193843 | Hill et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030032966 | Foley et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030070682 | Wilson et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030083688 | Simonson | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105503 | Marino | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030139648 | Foley et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149341 | Clifton | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030225405 | Weiner | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236544 | Lunsford et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040199084 | Kelleher et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225228 | Ferree | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050004593 | Simonson | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050004623 | Miles et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033380 | Tanner et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050075578 | Gharib et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080320 | Lee et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050149035 | Pimenta et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050182454 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050192575 | Pacheco | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060025703 | Miles et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060052828 | Kim et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069315 | Miles et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060224078 | Hoey et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070016097 | Farquhar et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070198062 | Miles et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070293782 | Marino | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080058606 | Miles et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080058838 | Steinberg | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080064976 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080064977 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065144 | Marino et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065178 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071191 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080097164 | Miles et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080300465 | Feigenwinter et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090124860 | Miles et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138050 | Ferree | May 2009 | A1 |
20090192403 | Gharib et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090204016 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100069783 | Miles et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100130827 | Pimenta et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100152603 | Miles et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100160738 | Miles et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100174146 | Miles | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100174148 | Miles et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110313530 | Gharib et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120238822 | Miles | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120238893 | Farquhar et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
299 08 259 | Jul 1999 | DE |
100 48 790 | Apr 2002 | DE |
0 334 116 | Sep 1989 | EP |
0 567 424 | Oct 1993 | EP |
0 972 538 | Jan 2000 | EP |
1 002 500 | May 2000 | EP |
2 795 624 | Jan 2001 | FR |
793186 | May 1990 | JP |
10-14928 | Mar 1996 | JP |
3019990007098 | Nov 1999 | KR |
9428824 | Dec 1994 | WO |
9700702 | Jan 1997 | WO |
9823324 | Jun 1998 | WO |
9952446 | Oct 1999 | WO |
0027291 | May 2000 | WO |
0038574 | Jul 2000 | WO |
0044288 | Aug 2000 | WO |
0066217 | Nov 2000 | WO |
0067645 | Nov 2000 | WO |
0108563 | Feb 2001 | WO |
0137728 | May 2001 | WO |
0160263 | Aug 2001 | WO |
02054960 | Jul 2002 | WO |
02058780 | Aug 2002 | WO |
02071953 | Sep 2002 | WO |
02087678 | Nov 2002 | WO |
03005887 | Jan 2003 | WO |
03026482 | Apr 2003 | WO |
03037170 | May 2003 | WO |
2005013805 | Feb 2005 | WO |
2005030318 | Apr 2005 | WO |
2006042241 | Apr 2006 | WO |
2006066217 | Jun 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Calancie et al, Stimulus-Evoked EMG Monitoring During Transpedicular Lumboscaral Spine Instrumentation, Spine, 19(24), 1994, p. 2780-2786. |
“Electromyography System,” International Search report from International Application No. PCT/US00/32329, Apr. 27, 2001, 9 pages. |
“System and Method for Determining Nerve Proximity Direction and Pathology During Surgery,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/22247, Mar. 27, 2003, 4 pages. |
“Systems and Methods for Performing Percutaneous Pedicle Integrity Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/35047, Aug. 11, 2003, 5 pages. |
“Systems and Methods for Performing Surgery Procedures and Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/30617, Jun. 5, 2003, 4 pages. |
Lenke et al., “Triggered Electromyographic Threshold for Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement,” Spine, 1995, 20(4): 1585-1591. |
“Brackmann II EMG System,” Medical Electronics, 1999, 4 pages. |
“Neurovision SE Nerve Locator/Monitor”, RLN Systems Inc. Operators Manual, 1999, 22 pages. |
“The Brackmann II EMG Monitoring System,” Medical Electronics Co. Operator's Manual Version 1.1, 1995, 50 pages. |
“The Nicolet Viking IV,” Nicolet Biomedical Products, 1999, 6 pages. |
Anderson et al., “Pedicle screws with high electrical resistance: a potential source of error with stimulus-evoked EMG,” Spine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery University of Virginia, Jul. 15, 2002, 27(14): 1577-1581. |
Bose et al., “Neurophysiologic Monitoring of Spinal Nerve Root Function During Instrumented Posterior Lumber Spine Surgery,” Spine, 2002, 27(13):1444-1450. |
Clements et al., “Evoked and Spontaneous Electromyography to Evaluate Lumbosacral Pedicle Screw Placement,” Spine, 1996, 21(5): 600-604. |
Danesh-Clough et al. ,“The Use of Evoked EMG in Detecting Misplaced Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screws,” Spine, Orthopaedic Department Dunedin Hospital, Jun. 15, 2001, 26(12): 1313-1316. |
Darden et al., “A Comparison of Impedance and Electromyogram Measurements in Detecting the Presence of Pedicle Wall Breakthrough,” Spine, Charlotte Spine Center, North Carolina, Jan. 15, 1998, 23(2): 256-262. |
Ebraheim et al., “Anatomic Relations Between the Lumbar Pedicle and the Adjacent Neural Structures,” Spine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical College of Ohio, Oct. 15, 1997, 22(20): 2338-2341. |
Glassman et al., “A Prospective Analysis of Intraoperative Electromyographic Monitoring of Pedicle Screw Placement With Computed Tomographic Scan Confirmation,” Spine, 1995, 20(12): 1375-1379. |
Holland et al., “Higher Electrical Stimulus Intensities are Required to Activate Chronically Compressed Nerve Roots: Implications for Intraoperative Electromyographic Pedicle Screw Testing,” Spine, Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Jan. 15, 1998, 23(2): 224-227. |
Holland, “Intraoperative Electromyography During Thoracolumbar Spinal Surgery,” Spine, 1998, 23(17): 1915-1922. |
Journee et al., “System for Intra-Operative Monitoring of the Cortical Integrity of the Pedicle During Pedicle Screw Placement in Low-Back Surgery: Design and Clinical Results,” Sensory and Neuromuscular Diagnostic Instrumentation and Data Analysis I, 18th Annual International Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 144-145. |
Maguire et al., “Evaluation of Intrapedicular Screw Position Using Intraoperative Evoked Electromyography,” Spine, 1995, 20(9): 1068-1074. |
Minahan et al., “The Effect of Neuromuscular Blockade on Pedicle Screw Stimulation Thresholds” Spine, Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Oct. 1, 2000, 25(19): 2526-2530. |
Toleikis et al., “The Usefulness of Electrical Stimulation for Assessing Pedicle Screw Replacements,” Journal of Spinal Disorder, 2000, 13(4): 283-289. |
Welch et al., “Evaluation with evoked and spontaneous electromyography during lumbar instrumentation: a prospective study,” J. Neurosurg. 87, 1997, pp. 397-402. |
“Systems and Methods for Performing Dynamic Pedicle Integrity Assessments,” International Search report, International Application No. PCT/US04/025550, Jun. 3, 2005, 3 pages. |
Zouridakis et al., A Concise Guide to Intraoperative Monitoring, Chapter I (CRC Press 2001). |
“American Society of Electroneurodiagnostic Technologists Position Statement of Unattended Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring,” p. 1 (2007), available at http:www.aset.org/files/public/Position—Statement—on—unattended—monitoring.pdf. |
Isley et al., “Recent Advances in Intraoperative Neuromonitoring of Spinal Cord Function: Pedicle Screw Stimulation Techniques,” American Journal of Electroneurodiagnostic Technology, Jun. 1997, 37(2): 93-126. |
Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine in MED TM MicroEndoscopic Discectomy (1997 Ludann Grand Rapids MI), 14 pgs. |
Dirksmeier et al., “Microendoscopic and Open Laminotomy and Discectomy in Lumbar Disc Disease” Seminars in Spine Surgery, 1999, 11(2): 138-146. |
METRx Delivered Order Form, 1999, 13 pages. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “METRx™ MicroDiscectomy System,” Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, 2000, 21 pgs. |
“MetRx System MicroEndoscopic Discectomy: An Evolution in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery,” Sofamor Danek, 1999, 6 pages. |
Smith and Foley “MetRx System MicroEndoscopic Discectomy: Surgical Technique” Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 2000, 24 pages. |
“Sofamor Danek MED Microendoscopic Discectomy System Brochure” including Rapp “New endoscopic lumbar technique improves access preserves tissue” Reprinted with permission from: Orthopedics Today, 1998, 18(1): 2 pages. |
Japanese Patent Office JP Patent Application No. 2006-528306 Office Action with English Translation, Jun. 10, 2009, 4 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions re U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,207,949; 7,470,236 and 7,582,058, Sep. 18, 2009, 19 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions—Appendices, Sep. 18, 2009, 191 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions re U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,207,949, 7,470,236, and 7,582,058, Sep. 29, 2009, 21 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions—Appendices, Sep. 29, 2009, 294 pages. |
Axon 501(k) Notification: Epoch 2000 Neurological Workstation, Dec. 3, 1997, 464 pages. |
Foley and Smith, “Microendoscopic Discectomy,” Techniques in Neurosurgery, 1997, 3(4):301-307. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “UNION™ / UNION-L™ Anterior & Lateral Impacted Fusion Devices: Clear choice of stabilization,” Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 2000, 4 pages. |
NuVasive Vector™ Cannulae, 2000, 1 page. |
NuVasive Triad™ Tri-Columnar Spinal EndoArthrodesis™ via Minimally Invasive Guidance, 2000, 1 page (prior to Sep. 25, 2003). |
NuVasive Triad™ Cortical Bone Allograft, 2000, 1 page (prior to Sep. 25, 2003). |
NuVasive Vertebral Body Access System, 2000, 1 page. |
Marina, “New Technology for Guided Navigation with Real Time Nerve Surveillance for Minimally Invasive Spine Discectomy & Arthrodesis,” Spineline, 2000, p. 39. |
NuVasive “INS-1 Screw Test,” 2001, 10 pages. |
NuVasive letter re 510k Neuro Vision JJB System, Oct. 16, 2001, 5 pages. |
NuVasive letter re 510k Guided Arthroscopy System, Oct. 5, 1999, 6 pages. |
NuVasive letter re 510k INS-1 Intraoperative Nerve Surveillance System, Nov. 13, 2000, 7 pages. |
“NuVasive™ Receives Clearance to Market Two Key Elem Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery System,” Nov. 27, 2001, 20 pages. |
Schick et al., “Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open surgery: an intraoperative EMG study,” Eur Spine J, 2002, 11: 20-26. |
NuVasive letter re: 510(k) for Neurovision JJB System (Summary), Sep. 25, 2001, 28 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Jul. 3, 2003, 18 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Mar. 1, 2004, 16 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), May 26, 2005, 17 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Jun. 24, 2005, 16 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Sep. 14, 2006, 17 pages. |
NuVasive 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Aug. 20, 2007, 8 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: 510(k) Premarket Notification: Guided Spinal Arthroscopy System (Device Description), Feb. 1, 1999, 40 pages. |
NuVasive 510(k) Premarket Notification: Spinal System (Summary), Apr. 12, 2004, 10 pages. |
NuVasive 510(k) Summary NIM Monitor, Sep. 4, 1998, 4 pages. |
NuVasive correspondence re 510(k) Premarket Notification INS-1 Intraoperative Nerve Surveillance System: Section IV Device Description, pp. 12-51 (prior to Sep. 25 2003). |
Mathews et al., “Laparoscopic Discectomy with Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Spine, 1995, 20(16): 1797-1802. |
Rose et al., “Persistently Electrified Pedicle Stimulation Instruments in Spinal Instrumentation: Techniques and Protocol Development,” Spine, 1997, 22(3): 334-343. |
“Nerve Proximity and Status Detection System and Method,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US01/18606, Oct. 18, 2001, 6 pages. |
“Relative Nerve Movement and Status Detection System and Method,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US01/18579, Jan. 15, 2002, 6 pages. |
“System and Methods for Determining Nerve Direction to a Surgical Instrument,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US03/02056, Aug. 12, 2003, 5 pages. |
Ford et al. “Electrical Characteristics of Peripheral Nerve Stimulators Implications for Nerve Localization,” Regional Anesthesia, 1984, 9: 73-77. |
Greenblatt et al., “Needle Nerve Stimulator-Locator: Nerve Blocks with a New Instrument for Locating Nerves,” Anesthesia& Analgesia, 1962, 41(5): 599-602. |
Haig, “Point of view,” Spine, 2002, 27(24): 2819. |
Haig et al., “The Relation Among Spinal Geometry on MRI, Paraspinal Electromyographic Abnormalities, and Age in Persons Referred for Electrodiagnostic Testing of Low Back Symptoms,” Spine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation University of Michigan, Sep. 1, 2002, 27(17): 1918-1925. |
Martin et al. “Initiation of Erection and Semen Release by Rectal Probe Electrostimulation (RPE),” The Journal of Urology, The Williams& Wilkins Co., 1983, 129: 637-642. |
Pither et al., “The Use of Peripheral Nerve Stimulators for Regional Anesthesia: Review of Experimental Characteristics Technique and Clinical Applications,” Regional Anesthesia, 1985, 10:49-58. |
Raj et al., “Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block—A New Approach” Anesthesia and Analgesia, 1973, (52)6: 897-904. |
Raj et al., “The Use of Peripheral Nerve Stimulators for Regional Anesthesia,” Clinical Issues in Regional Anesthesia, 1985, 1(4):1-6. |
Raj et al., “Use of the Nerve Stimulator for Peripheral Blocks,” Regional Anesthesia, Apr.-Jun. 1980, pp. 14-21. |
Raymond et al., “The Nerve Seeker: A System for Automated Nerve Localization,” Regional Anesthesia, 1992, 17(3): 151-162. |
Shafik, “Cavernous Nerve Simulation through an Extrapelvic Subpubic Approach: Role in Penile Erection,” Eur. Urol, 1994, 26: 98-102. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “UNION™ / UNION-L™ Anterior & Lateral Impacted Fusion Devices: Surgical Technique” Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 2001, 20 pages. |
Defendant's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions Regarding U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,207,949; 7,470,236 and 7,582,058, Aug. 31, 2009, 21 pages. |
Bergey et al., “Endoscopic Lateral Transpsoas Approach to the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, 2004, 29(15): 1681-1688. |
Dezawa et al., “Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine: A New Approach, Technique, and Clinical Trial,” Journal of Spinal Disorders, 2000, 13(2): 138-143. |
Gardocki, “Tubular diskectomy minimizes collateral damage: A logical progression moves spine surgery forward,” AAOS Now, 2009, 5 pages. |
Hovorka et al., “Five years' experience of retroperitoneal lumbar and thoracolumbar surgery,” Eur Spine J., 2000, 9(1): S30-S34. |
Mayer, “A New Microsurgical Technique for Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Spine, 1997, 22(6): 691-699. |
Mayer, “The ALIF Concept,” Eur Spine J., 2000, 9(1): S35-S43. |
Mayer and Wiechert, “Microsurgical Anterior Approaches to the Lumbar Spine for Interbody Fusion and Total Disc Replacement,” Neurosurgery, 2002, 51(2): 159-165. |
McAfee et al., “Minimally Invasive Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach to the Lumbar Spine: Emphasis on the Lateral BAK,” Spine, 1998, 23(13): 1476-1484. |
Rao, et al. “Dynamic retraction of the psoas muscle to expose the lumbar spine using the retroperitoneal approach,” J. Neurosurg Spine, 2006, 5: 468-470. |
Wolfla et al., “Retroperitoneal lateral lumbar interbody fusion with titanium threaded fusion cages,” J. Neurosurg (Spine 1), 2002, 96: 50-55. |
Larson and Maiman, “Surgery of the Lumbar Spine,” Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 1999, pp. 305-319. |
Medtronic XOMED Surgical Products, Inc., NIM-Response Nerve Integrity Monitor Intraoperative EMG Monitor User's Guide, Revision B, 2000, 47 pages. |
Crock, H.V. MD., “Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. One Hundred Sixty Five, 1982, pp. 157-163, 13 pages. |
Mayer and Brock, “Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy: surgical technique and preliminary results compared to microsurgical discectomy,” J. Neurosurg, 1993, 78: 216-225. |
Schaffer and Kambin, “Percutaneous Posterolateral Lumbar Discectomy and Decompression with a 6.9-Millimeter Cannula,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1991, 73A(6): 822-831. |
Friedman, “Percutaneous discectomy: An alternative to chemonucleolysis,” Neurosurgery, 1983, 13(5): 542-547. |
Zdeblick, Thomas A. (ed.). Anterior Approaches to the Spine. 1999. 43 pages. |
Kossman et al., “The use of a retractor system (SynFrame) for open, minimal invasive reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic and lumbar spine,” Eur Spine J, 2001, 10: 396-402. |
de Peretti et al., “New possibilities in L2-L5 lumbar arthrodesis using a lateral retroperitoneal approach assisted by laparoscopy: preliminary results,” Eur Spine J, 1996, 5: 210-216. |
Acland's Video Atlas of Human Anatomy, Section 3.1.7: Paravertebral Muscles. Available online: http://aclandanatomy.com/abstract/4010463. Accessed Jul. 11, 2012. |
Baulot et al., Adjuvant Anterior Spinal Fusion Via Thoracoscopy, Lyon Chirurgical, 1994, 90(5): 347-351 including English Translation and Certificate of Translation. |
Leu et al., “Percutaneous Fusion of the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, 1992, 6(3): 593-604. |
Rosenthal et al., “Removal of a Protruded Thoracic Disc Using Microsurgical Endoscopy,” Spine, 1994, 19(9): 1087-1091. |
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 65 (10th ed. 1998). |
Moed et al., “Evaluation of Intraoperative Nerve-Monitoring During Insertion of an Iliosacral Implant in an Animal Model, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,” 1999, 81-A(11): 9. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “METRx System Surgical Technique,” 2004, 22 pages. |
Kossmann et al., “The use of a retractor system (SynFrame) for open, minimal invasive reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic and lumbar spine,” Eur Spine J., 2001, 10: 396-402. |
“NuVasive's spine surgery system cleared in the US,” Pharm & Medical Industry Week, Dec. 10, 2001, 1 page. |
Pimenta, “Initial Clinical Results of Direct Lateral, Minimally Invasive Access to the Lumbar Spine for Disc Nucleus Replacement Using a Novel Neurophysiological Monitoring System.” The 9th IMAST, May, 2002, 1 page. |
Pimenta et al., “The Lateral Endoscopic Transpsoas Retroperitoneal Approach (Letra) for Implants in the Lumbar Spine,” World Spine II—Second Interdisciplinary Congress on Spine Care, Aug. 2003, 2 pages. |
Request for Inter PartesReexamination in re U.S. Pat. No. 7,905,840, dated Feb. 8, 2012, 204 pages. |
Brau, “Chapter 22: Anterior Retroperitoneal Muscle-Sparing approach to L2-S1 of the Lumbar Spine,” Surgical Approaches to the Spine. Robert G. Watkins, MD. (ed) 2003. pp. 165-181. |
Kossmann et al., “Minimally Invasive Vertebral Replacement with Cages in Thoracic and Lumbar Spine,” European Journal of Trauma, 2001, 27: 292-300. |
Mayer H. M. (ed.) Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Surgical Manual. 2000. 51 pages. |
Pimenta et al., “Implante de protese de nucleo pulposo: analise inicial,” Journal Brasileiro de Neurocirurg, 2001, 12(2): 93-96. |
Traynelis, “Spinal Arthroplasty,” Neurological Focus, 2002, 13(2): 12 pages. |
Amended Complaint for NuVasive, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-0849 (D. Del., Oct. 5, 2010), 28 pages. |
Request for Inter PartesReexamination in re U.S. Pat. No. 7,819,801, dated Feb. 8, 2012, 89 pages. |
Litwin et al., “Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with the handport system,” Annals of Surgery, 2000, 231(5): 715-723. |
MedlinePlus, a Service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. Available online: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/. Accessed Jul. 11, 2012. |
Counterclaim Defendants' Corrected Amended Invalidity Contentions re U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,000,782; 8,005,535; 8,016,767; 8,192,356; 8,187,334; 8,361,156, D652,922; D666,294 re Case No. 3:12-cv-02738-CAB(MDD), dated Aug. 19, 2013, 30 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00034, filed Oct. 8, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00035, filed Oct. 8, 2013, 65 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00034, Oct. 7, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker from IPR2014-00034, Oct. 4, 2013, 64 pages. |
NuVasive, Inc's Opening Claim Construction Brief Regarding U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,000,782; 8,005,535; 8,016,767; 8,192,356; 8,187,334; 8,361,156; D652,922; and 5,676,146 C2, filed Sep. 3, 2013, in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02738-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.)., 34 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00073, filed Oct. 18, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00074, filed Oct. 18, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00075, filed Oct. 21, 2013, 66 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00076, filed Oct. 21, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00081, filed Oct. 22, 2013, 64 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00087, filed Oct. 22, 2013, 64 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/392,214, filed Jun. 26, 2002, 97 pages. |
Amendment in reply to Feb. 15, 2012 Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,418, dated Mar. 16, 2012, 24 pages. |
Decision on Appeal in Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,247, dated Mar. 18, 2013, 49 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00075, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Amendment in reply to Action of Feb. 7, 2011 and Notice of May 12, 2011, in U.S. Appl. No. 11/789,284, dated May 17, 2011, 16 pages. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/789,284, dated Jul. 18, 2011, 8 pages. |
Office action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/789,284, dated Feb. 7, 2011, 10 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-0081, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker from IPR2014-00081, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/325,424, filed Sep. 25, 2001, 346 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-0087, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker from IPR2014-00087, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination in re: U.S. Pat. No. 7,691,057, dated Feb. 8, 2012, 50 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, Ph.D. from IPR2014-00034, Oct. 7, 2013, 1056 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, Ph.D. from IPR2014-00035, Oct. 7, 2013, 661 pages. |
510(K) No. K002677, approved by the FDA on Nov. 13, 2000, 634 pages. |
510(K) No. K013215, approved by the FDA on Oct. 16, 2001, 376 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 18, 2013, 1101 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 12, 2013, 1226 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 18, 2013, 548 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 12, 2013, 565 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00075, Oct. 18, 2013, 674 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00075, Oct. 12, 2013, 1107 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 18, 2013, 543 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 12, 2013, 1247 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-0081, Oct. 21, 2013, 585 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz from IPR2014-0087, Oct. 21, 2013, 585 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00034, dated Jan. 15, 2014, 66 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00034, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 35 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00035, dated Jan. 15, 2014, 42 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00035, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 12 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00073, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 64 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00073, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 34 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00074, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 68 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00074, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 28 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00075, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 54 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00075, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 23 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00076, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 58 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00076, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 11 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00081, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 47 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00081, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 31 pages. |
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00087, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 51 pages. |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00087, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 31 pages. |
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00034, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 48 pages. |
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00073, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 36 pages. |
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00074, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 31 pages. |
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00075, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 39 pages. |
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00081, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 44 pages. |
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00087, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 36 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150157227 A1 | Jun 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60167416 | Nov 1999 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09722070 | Nov 2000 | US |
Child | 10830189 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13726110 | Dec 2012 | US |
Child | 14622585 | US | |
Parent | 13196784 | Aug 2011 | US |
Child | 13726110 | US | |
Parent | 11982238 | Oct 2007 | US |
Child | 13196784 | US | |
Parent | 10830189 | Apr 2004 | US |
Child | 11982238 | US |