Electromyography system

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9743853
  • Patent Number
    9,743,853
  • Date Filed
    Friday, February 13, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 29, 2017
    7 years ago
Abstract
Methods for determining structural integrity of a bone within the spine of a patient, the bone having a first aspect and a second aspect, wherein the second aspect separated from the first aspect by a width and located adjacent to a spinal nerve. The methods involve (a) applying an electrical stimulus to the first aspect of the bone; (b) electrically monitoring a muscle myotome associated with the spinal nerve to detect if an onset neuro-muscular response occurs in response to the application of the electrical stimulus to the first aspect of the bone; (c) automatically increasing the magnitude of the electrical stimulus to until the onset neuro-muscular response is detected; and (d) communicating to a user via at least one of visual and audible information representing the magnitude of the electrical stimulus which caused the onset neuro-muscular response.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to electromyography (EMG) and to systems for detecting the presence of nerves during surgical procedures.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

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.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

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.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is an illustration of various components of the present invention in operation.



FIG. 2 shows a current intensity staircase for an electromyographic stimulation (nerve status) electrode.



FIG. 3 shows a current intensity staircase for an electromyographic stimulation pulse for a nerve detection electrode disposed on a probe.



FIG. 4 corresponds to FIG. 1, but also shows exemplary “high”, “medium” and “low” warning levels corresponding to exemplary neuro-muscular response onset levels.



FIG. 5 shows a patient's spinal nerves, and corresponding myotome monitoring locations.



FIG. 6 is an illustration of the waveform characteristics of a stimulus pulse and a corresponding neuro-muscular (EMG) response as detected at a myotome location.



FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram of a nerve detection system.



FIG. 8A is an illustration of the front panel of one design of the present nerve status and detection system.



FIG. 8B is an illustration of the front panel of another design of the present nerve status and detection system.



FIG. 9A is an illustration of a cannula and a probe for use with the nerve status and detection system.



FIG. 9B is an illustration the probe of FIG. 9A situated in the cannula of FIG. 9A.





DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

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 FIG. 1, a patient's vertebrae L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and S1 are shown. In a preferred aspect of the present invention, a portion of the patient's cauda equina is stimulated (i.e. depolarized). This depolarization of a portion of the patient's cauda equina may be achieved by conducting a stimulus pulse having a known current level between an epidural stimulating electrode 11 and a patient return electrode 13. Electrodes 11 and 13 are referred to herein as “status” electrodes, as they assist in determining the initial status of the various nerve pathways). The epidural electrode is placed in the epidural space of the spine. Alternatively, the depolarization of a portion of the patient's cauda equina may be achieved by conducting a stimulus pulse having a known current level between a pair of status (baseline) electrodes 12 and 14, which may be positioned adjacent the (thoracic/lumbar) T/L junction (above vertebra L1), as shown. Status electrodes 12 and 14 may be positioned in-line at the T/L junction, (as shown in FIG. 1). Status electrodes 12 and 14 could also be positioned on opposite lateral sides of the T/L junction.


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 FIG. 1. Generally, as greater numbers of distal myotome locations are monitored, a greater number of spinal nerves corresponding to each of these myotome locations can be individually monitored, thereby enhancing the present system's nerve detection ability over a larger section of the patient's spinal column.


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 FIG. 1). In this case an appropriate portion of the spinal column is depolarized and myotome-sensing locations are selected according to the physiology of the associated nerves for portion of the spinal column of interest. In exemplary aspects, therefore, preferred myotome-sensing locations may therefore include locations on the patient's arms, anal sphincter, bladder, and other areas, depending upon the vertebrae level where the spinal surgery is to be performed.


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 FIG. 2 from a low value until an onset EMG response is detected at one or more myotome locations. In a preferred embodiment, onset EMG response peak-to-peak value is between 60 mV and 80 mV. (It is noted, however, that depending on the location the stimulating electrode relative to the nerve corresponding to a myotome and the nerve health/status, an onset EMG response may not be detected as the current level is incremented from the lowest level to the highest level shown in FIG. 2.) In the illustrated exemplary aspect, the current level is shown as increasing from 4 mA to 32 mA, in eight 4 mA increments where the current level is incremented until an onset EMG response is detected. The present invention is not limited to these values and other current ranges (and other numbers “steps” in the staircase) may also be used, as is desired.


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 FIG. 1, a stimulus signal having an initial current level is conducted between electrodes 11 and 13 (or between electrodes 12 and 14). The current level of the stimulus pulse is increased step-by-step according to the intensity staircase shown in FIG. 2 until an onset EMG response is detected at one or more selected myotomes. In particular, a response to the increasing current level stimulus pulse is detected at each of the various myotome locations ML1 through MR3. Because each of the spinal nerve paths corresponding to the various myotome locations ML1 through MR3 may have different sensitivities (as noted), different onset EMG responses may be detected at the different onset current levels for different myotome locations.


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:









TABLE 1





Stimulus Current Level at Which


Onset EMG Response is Detected:


















ML1-4 mA
MR1-16 mA



ML2-16 mA
MR2-24 mA



ML3-20 mA
MR3-12 mA










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.









TABLE 2





Scaled Neuro-muscular


Response Onset Values:


















ML1-1
MR1-4



ML2-4
MR2-6



ML3-5
MR3-3










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 FIG. 2) (provided a response has been detected at each of the myotome locations).


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 FIG. 8A or 8B. At a later point, the nerve status of the nerves corresponding to the myotomes may be determined again by applying a varying current level signal to the midline electrodes. If a procedure is being performed on the patient, the onset current level for one or more of the corresponding nerves may change.


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 (FIG. 8A/8B). In one embodiment, the baseline onset current level is shown as a particular color LED in the bar graph for each myotome location and the increased onset current level value is shown as a different color LED on the bar graph. When the onset current level decreases for a nerve this may indicate that a nerve has been aided by the procedure. The decreased onset current level may also be displayed on the bar graft for the respective myotome. In a preferred embodiment, the decreased onset current level value is shown as a third color LED on the bar graph. When the onset current level remains constant, only the first color for the baseline onset current level is shown on the bar graph. In one embodiment, a blue LED is depicted for the baseline onset current level, an orange LED is depicted for an increased (over the baseline) onset current level, and a green LED is depicted for a decreased onset current level. In one embodiment when the maximum current level in the staircase does not elicit an onset EMG response for a myotome, the baseline LED may be set to flash to indicate this condition. Accordingly, a clinician may periodically request nerve status (midline stimulation) readings to determine what impact, positive, negative, or neutral, a procedure has had on a patient. The clinician can make this assessment by viewing the bar graphs on the display shown in FIG. 8 for each of the myotome locations.


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 FIG. 1, a system is provided to determine whether a nerve is positioned closely adjacent to either of two probes 20 and 22. In accordance with the present invention, probes 20 and 22 can be any manner of surgical tool, including (electrified) cannulae through which other surgical tools are introduced into the patient. In one aspect of the invention only one probe (e.g.: probe 20) is used. In another aspect, as illustrated, two probes (e.g.: 20 and 22) are used. Keeping within the scope of the present invention, more than two probes may also be used. In one preferred aspect, probe 20 is an electrified cannula and probe 22 is a “confirmation electrode” which can be inserted through cannula/probe 20, as will be explained. Probes 20 and 22 may have electrified distal ends, with electrodes 21 and 23 positioned thereon, respectively, which is shown schematically in FIGS. 9A and 9B. (In the case of probe 20 being a cannula, electrode 21 may be positioned on an electrified distal end of the cannula, or alternatively, the entire surface of the electrified cannula may function as the electrode).


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 FIG. 3, the intensity of the stimulus pulse passing between electrodes 21 and 30 or between 22 and 30 is preferably varied over time. Most preferably, the current intensity level of the stimulus pulse is incrementally increased step-by-step in a “staircase” fashion. As can be seen, the current may be increased in ten 0.5 mA steps from 0.5 mA to 5.0 mA. This stimulus pulse is preferably increased one step at a time until a neuro-muscular (i.e., EMG) response to the stimulus pulse is detected in each of myotome locations ML1 through MR3.


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 FIG. 3). If an EMG response is recorded at a particular myotome location for only the highest level of stimulation (i.e.: the third step on a 3-step staircase), then the system could indicate a “low” alarm condition (since it took a relatively high level of stimulation to produce an EMG response, it is therefore unlikely that the tool/probe distal tip(s) are in close proximity to a nerve). If an EMG response is instead first recorded when the middle level of stimulation (i.e.: the second step on the 3-step staircase) is reached, then the system could indicate a “medium” alarm condition. Similarly, if an EMG response is recorded when the lowest level of stimulation (i.e.: the first step on the 3-step staircase) is reached, then it is likely that the probe tips(s) are positioned very close to a nerve, and the system, could indicate a “high” alarm condition.


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 FIG. 1 and Table 1, the stimulation staircase transmitted between electrodes 11 and 13 (or 12 and 14) resulted in measures neuro-muscular (i.e.: EMG) response onset values of 4, 16, 20, 16, 24 and 12 mA at myotome locations ML1, ML2, ML3, MR1, MR2 and MR3, respectively. As can be seen, twice the intensity of current was required to produce a neuro-muscular response at MR2 as was required to produce a neuro-muscular response at MR3 (since “24” mA is twice as big as “12” mA). Thus, the nerve pathway to MR3 is more “sensitive” than to MR2 (since MR3 is able to exhibit a neuro-muscular response at ½ of the current intensity required to exhibit a neuro-muscular response at MR2). Consequently, during nerve detection, when electrode 21 or 23 (positioned on the distal end of tool/probe 20 or 22) is positioned adjacent the nerve root affiliated with MR3, twice the current stimulation intensity was required to produce an EMG response. In contrast, when electrode 21 or 23 (on the distal end of tool/probe 20 or 22) was positioned adjacent to the nerve root affiliated with MR2, the same level of stimulation that produced a response at MR3 would not produce a response at MR2.


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 FIG. 4, “high”, “medium” and “low” warning levels may preferably be mapped onto each stimulation staircase level for each myotome location. For example, the neuro-muscular onset level for ML1 was 4 mA, corresponding to the first level of the 8-level status electrode current staircase of FIG. 2. Thus, the first (4 mA) step on the staircase is assigned a “high” warning level. Level two (8 mA) is assigned a “medium” warning level and level three (12 mA) is assigned a “low” warning level. Thus, if an EMG response is recorded at ML1 at the first stimulation level, (4 mA), a “high” proximity warning is given. If a response is detected at the second level (8 mA), then a “medium” proximity warning is given. If a response is detected at the third level (12 mA), then a “low” proximity warning is given. If responses are detected only above the third level, or if no responses are detected, than no warning indication is given.


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 FIG. 4, ten levels are shown for each of the myotome locations, whereas the illustrated status electrode current staircase has only eight levels. These optional levels “9” and “10” are useful as follows. Should scaled level 8 be the minimum onset level at which a neuro-muscular response is detected, levels “9” and “10” can be used to indicate “medium” and “low” warning levels, respectively.


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 FIG. 2 (i.e.: up to 32 mA) to the current intensities of probe electrodes 21 and 23 as shown in FIG. 3 (i.e.: up to 5.0 mA), the current intensities emitted by probe electrodes 21 and 23 are less than that of electrodes 12 and 14. This feature of the present invention is very advantageous in that electrodes 21 and 23 are positioned much closer to the spinal nerves. As such, electrodes 21 and 23 do not depolarize a large portion of the cauda equina, as do electrodes 12 and 14. In addition, the placement of electrode 11 in the epidural space ensures that the electrode is at a relatively known distance from the spinal nerves.


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 FIG. 5, a main spinal nerve 50 will continuously branch out downwardly along the spinal column with spinal nerve 51 exiting between vertebrae L2 and L3 while nerve 52 passes downwardly. Spinal nerve 53 exits between vertebrae L3 and L4 while spinal nerve 54 passes downwardly to L4. Lastly, spinal nerve 55 will exit between vertebrae L4 and L5 while spinal nerve 56 passes downwardly. As can be seen, neuro-muscular (i.e., EMG) response measurements taken at myotome location MR1 will correspond to EMG signals in spinal nerve 51, response measurements taken at myotome location MR2 correspond to EMG signals in spinal nerve 53, and response measurements taken at myotome location MR3 correspond to EMG signals in spinal nerve 55.


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 FIG. 6, an illustration of the waveform characteristics of a stimulus pulse and a corresponding neuro-muscular (EMG) response as detected at a myotome location is shown. An “EMG sampling window” 200 may be defined at a fixed internal of time after the stimulus pulse 202 is emitted. The boundaries of window 200 may be determined by the earliest and latest times that an EMG response may occur relative to stimulus pulse 202. In the case of stimulation near the lumbar spine, these times are, for example, about 10 milliseconds and 50 milliseconds, respectively.


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.



FIG. 6 depicts a particular exemplary embodiment of the present invention. Other embodiments are also possible, and are encompassed by the present invention. Pulse generator 100 creates pulse trains of an appropriate frequency and duration when instructed to do so by controller 118. By way of example, the pulse frequency may be between 1 pulse-per-second and 10 pulses-per-second, and the pulse duration may be between 20 μsec and 300 μsec. Pulse generator 100 may be implemented using an integrated circuit (IC), such as an ICL75556 (Intensity) or generated by a software module. Amplitude modulator 102 produces a pulse of appropriate amplitude as instructed by controller 118, and may comprise a digital-to-analog converter such as a DAC08 (National Semiconductor). The output of amplitude modulator 102 drives output stage 103, which puts out a pulse of the desired amplitude. Output stage 103 may comprise a transformer coupled, constant-current output circuit. The output of output stage 103 is directed through output multiplexer 106 by controller 118 to the appropriate electrodes, either to status (baseline) electrodes 11 and 13, or to a combination of screw test probe 109, probe electrode 21, 23 and patient return electrode 13. Impedance monitor 104 senses the voltage and current characteristics of the output pulses and controller 118 elicits an error indication on error display 127 if the impedance falls above or below certain pre-set limits. Input keys 116 may be present on a front panel of a control unit of the present invention, as depicted in FIG. 8, to allow the user to shift between modes of operation.


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).

Claims
  • 1. A method of performing a spinal surgical procedure, the method comprising: advancing a stimulation cannula including a stimulation electrode at a distal end of the stimulation cannula along an access path toward an operative site in the region of a patient's lumbar spine;using the stimulation cannula to perform nerve detection of a spinal nerve while the stimulation cannula is advanced in the access path toward the operative site in the region of the lumbar spine by stimulating the stimulation electrode at the distal end of the stimulation cannula and monitoring an electrical current level determined after a neuro-muscular onset response is detected via one or more return electrodes positioned on the patient's leg,using an elongated probe to perform nerve detection of one or more spinal nerves while the elongated probe is advanced toward the operative site in the region of the lumbar spine by stimulating a second stimulation electrode at a distal end of the elongated probe and monitoring for neuro-muscular response via one or more of the plurality of return electrodes on the patient's leg; andpositioning the elongated probe in the stimulation cannula.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein nerve detection is continuously repeated as the stimulation cannula is physically advanced into the patient by a surgeon such that the surgeon is warned when the stimulation cannula closely approaches the spinal nerve.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the spinal nerve is one of a plurality of spinal nerves exiting from successive vertebrae, the method further comprising: performing nerve detection of the plurality of spinal nerves exiting from successive vertebrae as the stimulation cannula is advanced toward the operative site in the region of the lumbar spine by stimulating the stimulation electrode at the distal end of the stimulation cannula and monitoring for neuro-muscular response via one or more of the plurality of return electrodes.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, and further comprising: detecting neuro-muscular responses at a plurality of spaced apart myotome locations corresponding to each of the plurality of spinal nerves.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, and further comprising: measuring current intensity level at which the neuro-muscular response is detected by the one or more of the plurality of return electrodes.
  • 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the spinal nerve is a spinal nerve root.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the spinal nerve is a nerve in the cauda equine.
  • 8. The method of claim 1, and further comprising: repeatedly performing nerve detection while current intensity level of a stimulation pulse emitted by the stimulation electrode is varied over time.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, and further comprising: repeatedly performing nerve detection while current intensity level of a stimulation pulse emitted by the stimulation electrode is varied incrementally.
  • 10. The method of claim 1, and further comprising: visually displaying an intensity level of a neuro-muscular response onset value for the spinal nerve on a display of a nerve monitoring system.
  • 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the stimulation cannula is advanced in the patient by a surgeon in a minimally invasive approach such that the stimulation cannula is advanced without causing any nerve damage.
  • 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the stimulation cannula is part of a nerve detection system operated by a surgeon to provide nerve detection warnings to alert the surgeon operating the nerve detection system that the spinal nerve is in close proximity to the stimulation electrode.
  • 13. The method of claim 1, wherein using the elongated probe to perform nerve detection is performed after using the stimulation cannula to perform nerve detection.
  • 14. A method of performing a spinal surgical procedure, the method comprising: advancing a stimulation cannula including a stimulation electrode at a distal end of the stimulation cannula along an access path toward an operative site in the region of a patient's lumbar spine;using the stimulation cannula to perform nerve detection of a spinal nerve while the stimulation cannula is advanced in the access path toward the operative site in the region of the lumbar spine by stimulating the stimulation electrode at the distal end of the stimulation cannula and monitoring an electrical current level determined after a neuro-muscular onset response is detected via one or more return electrodes positioned on the patient's leg,wherein the stimulation cannula is part of a nerve detection system operated by a surgeon to provide nerve detection warnings to alert the surgeon operating the nerve detection system that the spinal nerve is in close proximity to the stimulation electrode, wherein the spinal nerve is one of a plurality of spinal nerves exiting from successive vertebrae, the method further comprising:positioning an elongated probe in the stimulation cannula;using the stimulation cannula to perform nerve detection of the plurality of spinal nerves exiting from successive vertebrae while the stimulation cannula is advanced toward the operative site in the region of the lumbar spine by stimulating the stimulation electrode at the distal end of the stimulation cannula and monitoring for neuro-muscular response via one or more of the plurality of return electrodes;using the elongated probe to perform nerve detection of the plurality of spinal nerves while the elongated probe is advanced toward the operative site in the region of the lumbar spine by stimulating a second stimulation electrode at a distal end of the elongated probe and monitoring for neuro-muscular response via one or more of the plurality of return electrodes on the patient's leg;detecting neuro-muscular responses at a plurality of spaced apart myotome locations corresponding to each of the plurality of spinal nerves, andpositioning the elongated probe in the stimulation cannula so as to extend into the stimulation cannula.
CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

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).

US Referenced Citations (339)
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
Foreign Referenced Citations (33)
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
Non-Patent Literature Citations (190)
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.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20150157227 A1 Jun 2015 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60167416 Nov 1999 US
Divisions (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 09722070 Nov 2000 US
Child 10830189 US
Continuations (4)
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