The present invention relates to monitoring compound action potentials during surgery to assist with implantable electrode placement.
A range of implanted neural devices exist, including: spinal cord implants which electrically stimulate the spinal column in order to suppress chronic pain; cochlear implants which electrically stimulate the auditory nerve to produce a hearing sensation; deep brain stimulators which electrically stimulate selected regions of the brain to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease or epilepsy; and neural bypass devices which electrically stimulate either afferent sensory nerve fibres to reproduce impaired sensory function or efferent motor nerve fibres to reproduce impaired motor activity, or both.
Such devices require implantation of an electrode array proximal to the neural pathway of interest, in order to enable electrical stimuli to be delivered from the array to the nerve in order to evoke compound action potentials, or neural responses. For example, the typical procedure for implantation of a spinal cord stimulator having a paddle electrode involves placing the patient under general anaesthesia and performing a laminectomy or removal of part of the dorsal process to access the epidural space. However the success of spinal cord stimulation for pain relief, and of neural device implantation in general, is strongly linked to the accuracy of the placement of the implanted stimulating electrodes during surgery. Physiologic midline placement of paddle leads is important to avoid uncomfortable side-effects during stimulation as a result of the activation of dorsal root fibers. One approach to accurately position the electrode array is to temporarily wake the patient from the general anaesthesia and to ask the patient to report the location of paraesthesia produced by stimuli delivered by the array. Temporarily waking a patient from a general can be difficult, and even once the patient is awake the reports provided by a drowsy patient are often unreliable. Because the patient is not fully alert when temporarily awoken from general anaesthesia, and is otherwise asleep during the remainder of the implantation procedure, they can only provide limited feedback regarding the location of the paraesthesia, or regarding any complications arising from lead placement. Although complications are rare they can be very serious.
Another option is to not wake the patient during surgery, and to use anatomical targeting to guide the positioning of the electrode array, by reference to anatomical markers that can be imaged via fluoroscopy, instead of relying on unreliable patient feedback. However, fluoroscopic imaging resolution is relatively imprecise, compared to the accuracy requirements of lead placement. Moreover, complications of implanting a surgical lead while a patient is asleep can include damage to the spinal cord due to direct pressure of the lead as it is placed into the epidural space, or post-operative damage due to the development of a hematoma over the lead, which can then create pressure on the lead and damage the dorsal column axons.
Another situation requiring accurate electrode lead placement is the case of paddle leads, which comprise a two dimensional array of electrodes which when implanted into the epidural space extend both along (caudorostrally relative to) and across (mediolaterally relative to) the dorsal columns. Paddle leads for example can be used to treat patients with bilateral pain complaints, with the goal to provide paraesthesia to both sides of the body. To accomplish this it is preferable to place the paddle lead over the physiologic midline of the dorsal columns. However the physiologic midline, being the centre line of the spinal cord which demarcates between the fibres innervating the left side and the right side of the body, may or may not be well aligned with the anatomical midline as defined by anatomical markers that can be imaged via fluoroscopy. Consequently, implanting a patient under a general anaesthetic by reference to anatomical markers can result in the paddle electrode array not providing equal stimulation and paraesthesia to both sides of the body.
One technique for defining the physiologic midline is to use somatosensory potentials, observed from electrodes placed on the scalp. In this technique the stimulation of peripheral nerve fibres, such as stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve by needle electrode, evokes a response in the somatosensory cortex. By simultaneously stimulating dorsal column fibres using the spinal cord lead, a collision can be created between the peripherally evoked response and the spinally evoked response. This collision results in an observed depression of the somatosensory responses. Both tibial nerves are stimulated, so that a symmetric depression from left and right somatosensory cortex responses will indicate that the stimulated electrode is above the midline.
Somatosensory response to stimulation of peripheral nerves has also been used to identify the rostral caudal location of the electrode with respect to peripheral locations. However, this has been less successful as when considering a sensory homunculus the representation of the legs for example on the sensory cortex is small, and buried within the longitudinal fissure of the brain. Since many chronic pain patients have lower extremity pain this method has not proved to be useful. Another method has been to record motor evoked potentials from the muscles in the periphery in response to stimulation at the spinal cord. Although more successful at activating muscle fibres, dorsal column motor stimulation requires very high currents and as such does not closely correspond to the area of sensory activation.
The dorsoventral position of the electrode array is also of importance, as a large nerve-to-electrode distance can increase the stimulus power required to evoke neural responses and thus decrease battery life. A large electrode-to-nerve distance can also decrease the strength of observed neural signals reaching sense electrodes, in devices configured to measure the neural responses. On the other hand, bringing the electrode array too close to the nerve can apply pressure or direct trauma to the nerve and cause temporary or even permanent nerve damage. However, the dorsoventral position is also difficult to accurately determine during surgery. Occasionally a surgeon may take a lateral view image with fluoroscope, however these images are not of sufficient resolution to sufficiently accurately judge the proximity of the array to the cord.
Any discussion of documents, acts, materials, devices, articles or the like which has been included in the present specification is solely for the purpose of providing a context for the present invention. It is not to be taken as an admission that any or all of these matters form part of the prior art base or were common general knowledge in the field relevant to the present invention as it existed before the priority date of each claim of this application.
Throughout this specification the word “comprise”, or variations such as “comprises” or “comprising”, will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps, but not the exclusion of any other element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps.
In this specification, a statement that an element may be “at least one of” a list of options is to be understood that the element may be any one of the listed options, or may be any combination of two or more of the listed options.
According to a first aspect the present invention provides a method of surgically positioning an electrode array at a desired implantation location relative to a nerve, the method comprising:
According to a second aspect the present invention provides a system for positioning an electrode array at a desired implantation location relative to a nerve, the system comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable medium for surgically positioning an electrode array at a desired implantation location relative to a nerve, comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes performance of the following:
In some embodiments of the invention, the probe electrode is surgically introduced via the same incision as the electrode array. In some such embodiments the probe electrode may be fed from the incision in a first caudorostral direction which is opposite to a second caudorostral direction in which the electrode array is introduced. In further such embodiments, in which the nerve is the dorsal column, the probe electrode may be temporarily fixed so as to be positioned in the same or a nearby vertebral segment as the electrode array. Temporarily fixing the probe electrode near the electrode array, such as in the same vertebral segment or in an adjacent vertebral segment, or nearby within a small number of vertebral segments, is desirable because while the fibres of the dorsal column run approximately parallel over the distances of a few vertebral segments, any twist or rotation of or within the spinal cord could produce a misalignment of the electrophysiological midline relative to the anatomical midline and this risk rises beyond a few vertebral segments, and this might alter or make unclear the spatial representation of the physiological midline of the nerve which is provided by the ECAPs when first evoked. Temporarily fixing the probe electrode near the electrode array is also advantageous when it permits a single surgical incision to be used, such as a single laminectomy, to implant both the probe electrode and the electrode array.
In some embodiments of the invention, the desired positioning of the electrode array is relative mediolaterally to a physiologic midline of the nerve. For example, the desired mediolateral positioning of the electrode array may be centrally over the midline of the nerve. In such embodiments the probe electrode is preferably configured to simultaneously stimulate an even distribution of fibres mediolaterally across the nerve. This may be achieved by the probe electrode comprising a wide electrode element, or a plurality of electrode elements, which extend(s) across substantially an entire mediolateral extent of the nerve, and/or by applying probe stimuli which are sufficiently large, such as being a multiple of 1.5, two or more of the threshold stimulus level, so as to evoke responses in most or all fibres of the nerve. In such embodiments the probe electrode thus launches a compound action potential along the fibres of the nerve which is substantially electrically centred on the nerve, even though the probe electrode itself will not necessarily be precisely centrally positioned. Identification of the physiologic midline of the nerve, and positioning of the electrode array relative to the identified midline, may then be achieved by providing two laterally spaced apart sense electrodes on the electrode array, and monitoring a relative strength of the compound action potential sensed by each of the sense electrodes. If one sense electrode senses a stronger compound action potential, that electrode is likely closer to the physiologic midline and the electrode array can be mediolaterally moved by the surgeon accordingly. If the sense electrodes sense equally strong CAPs, they are likely equidistant mediolaterally from, i.e. centrally positioned over, the physiologic midline of the nerve.
In additional or alternative embodiments of the invention a radial spacing of the electrode array from the nerve, such as a dorsoventral position of a dorsal column stimulator, may be determined. In such embodiments, the probe electrode preferably comprises first and second stimulus electrodes each at distinct radii away from the nerve. For example where the probe electrode comprises a sheet substrate, first and second electrodes may be formed on opposing outer surfaces of the sheet and may thereby be positioned at radii from the nerve which differ by the thickness of the sheet. The first and second probe electrodes may then be used to deliver stimuli of equal intensity, at different times. A sense electrode of the electrode array being implanted is then used to sense a first intensity of the CAP evoked by the first probe electrode, and a second intensity of the CAP evoked by the second probe electrode. A difference between the first intensity and the second intensity may then be used to estimate a radial spacing of the electrode array from the nerve. Notably, even though a height of the probe electrode above the nerve may not be known, such embodiments permit a relative height of the electrode array to be monitored by comparing the first and second intensity measurements over time as the electrode array is moved during implantation.
The probe electrode may comprise multiple elements which are caudorostrally spaced apart along the nerve, for example to facilitate embodiments in which the probe electrode senses ECAPs evoked by the electrode array, and/or to enable an optimally caudorostrally positioned probe electrode element to be selected in order to maximise recruitment and or measurement sensitivity.
Because the ECAPs produced by the probe electrode are being used as a point of reference during ongoing positioning of the electrode array, the probe electrode needs to be in a fixed location throughout the procedure. The probe electrode may be fixed by being temporarily anchored upon a vertebra, within the epidural space. Alternatively the probe electrode may be fixed to an external structure such as a surgical stabilising arm and have suitable longitudinal rigidity to maintain a substantially constant implanted position relative to the nerve for the duration of the procedure, or may be fixed by any other suitable temporary fixing means.
In some embodiments of the invention the probe electrode is a peripheral nerve stimulator delivering stimuli to evoke CAPs on peripheral nerve(s) at a location of interest such as a desired site of paraesthesia. In some such embodiments, the electrode array which is being implanted may comprise both stimulus electrodes and sense electrodes, whereby an array location at which the sense electrodes sense a maximal collision of CAPs evoked by the stimulus electrodes with the CAPs evoked by the peripheral nerve stimulator is taken to be an optimal caudorostral position of the stimulus electrodes relative to the location of interest. Collision of CAPs, being the reduced recruitment achieved by a given stimulus due to some or all of the adjacent population of fibres being in their refractory period because of the peripherally evoked CAP, may be determined by a depression in the overall amplitude of sensed CAPs. Preferably the timing of the delivery of the dorsal column pulse is adjusted to uniquely detect collision.
The present invention thus recognises that sensing compound action potentials by use of electrodes of an electrode array, can be used to monitor the placement of the electrode array during surgery. The present invention thus provides a method to better assess the position of the electrode array, in the dorsoventral, caudorostral and/or mediolateral direction, quickly and simply while the patient is under general anaesthesia, without requiring scalp electrodes for somatosensory cortex monitoring, for example.
It is to be appreciated that embodiments of the present invention may be implemented in respect of any suitable neurostimulator such as spinal cord stimulators, cardiac pacemakers/defibrillators, functional electrical stimulators (FES), pain stimulators, etc.
The stimuli may be delivered by the probe electrode, and evoked ECAPs may be sensed by the electrode array. Alternatively, the stimuli may be delivered by the electrode array, and evoked ECAPs may be sensed by the probe electrode, and it is to be understood that in all embodiments described herein the positioning roles of the probe electrode and the electrode array may be reversed, within the scope of the present invention. Moreover, over time the source of stimuli may alternate between the probe electrode and the electrode array, which may assist with position resolution.
An example of the invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
Module controller 116 has an associated memory 118 storing patient settings 120, control programs 122 and the like. Controller 116 controls a pulse generator 124 to generate stimuli in the form of current pulses in accordance with the patient settings 120 and control programs 122. Electrode selection module 126 switches the generated pulses to the appropriate electrode(s) of electrode array 150, for delivery of the current pulse to the tissue surrounding the selected electrode. Measurement circuitry 128 is configured to capture measurements of neural responses sensed at sense electrode(s) of the electrode array as selected by electrode selection module 126.
Delivery of an appropriate stimulus to the nerve 180 evokes a neural response comprising a compound action potential which will propagate along the nerve 180 as illustrated, for therapeutic purposes which in the case of spinal cord stimulator for chronic pain is to create paraesthesia at a desired location.
The device 100 is further configured to sense the existence and intensity of compound action potentials (CAPs) propagating along nerve 180, whether such CAPs are evoked by the stimulus from electrodes 2 and 4, or otherwise evoked. To this end, any electrodes of the array 150 may be selected by the electrode selection module 126 to serve as measurement electrode 6 and measurement reference electrode 8. Signals sensed by the measurement electrodes 6 and 8 are passed to measurement circuitry 128, which for example may operate in accordance with the teachings of International Patent Application Publication No. WO2012155183 by the present applicant, the content of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Referring to
The arrangement shown in
In other embodiments, percutaneous implantation of a paddle lead may be performed, as follows. A standard 14 gauge tuohy needle is used to access the epidural space. A guide wire is then inserted through the needle to allow access to the epidural space. The standard needle is then removed; a custom needle is then passed over the guide wire with the tip just entering the epidural space. The tip has a sleeve to prevent coring of the tissue. The guide wire and sleeve are removed allowing the custom paddle lead to pass into the epidural space. As the folded lead enters the epidural space it is separated to allow it to unfurl and lie flat over the dorsal columns. A stylet is used to help position the lead.
As shown in the cross sectional view of
Because probe electrode 500 has been inserted caudally of electrode array 150 in the manner shown in
Once again, due to the difficulties of accurate implantation, electrode array 150 will not necessarily be centrally positioned over the physiologic midline 186 of the spinal cord 180. It is further noted that that midline 186 at the location of the array 150 may or may not align precisely with the midline 184 at the location of probe 500.
The compound action potential evoked by the probe electrode 500 propagates rostrally within the dorsal column 182 and passes electrode array 150, as shown in the cross sectional view of
The above described actions can then be incorporated into an implantation process, as follows:
Notably, the method of
ECAPs were recorded on the S8 Lamitrode both during the procedure and while closing, with stimulation on either the S4 or S8 Lamitrode.
Due to the strong twitching observed in the patient during closing, the current was not increased beyond 2.2 mA, while it was previously increased beyond that level during the procedure without issue. During the procedure late responses were observed at 3.39 mA, although these were significantly smaller (<50%) than those observed during closing at 2.2 mA (less than 60% of that current).
To explain the results of
The probe electrodes 1262, 1264 are preferably mounted on a surgical tool and inserted in the retrograde manner in the epidural space opposite to the direction of the insertion of the SCS electrode 1256, in the manner shown in
The distance x between the SCS electrode 1256 and the spinal cord 1280 can vary with insertion, or patient movement such as breathing. The height r of the stimulating electrode 1264 is unknown, but remains fixed with respect to the spinal cord 1280 due to the temporary fixing of the probe electrodes throughout the procedure. As illustrated in
Suitable adjustment of
As shown in
The design of the probe electrode 1260 needs to be considered carefully. It is required to stimulate the same fibres of the spinal cord 1280, from two (or more) different heights. The stimulation location in the caudal rostral direction for the two stimulating electrodes should ideally be at the same caudal-rostral location or as close to each other as possible so as the ECAP responses produced have the same distance to propagate to avoid the problem of different propagation distances resulting in different amplitudes of response. An electrode contact 1260 that achieves this arrangement is depicted in
The ability to monitor, and control optimisation of, the mediolateral, caudorostral and/or dorsoventral location of the electrode, relative to physiological characteristics of the dorsal columns rather than anatomical markers, will thus enable a much higher precision of implantation. The present invention may thus provide feedback to a surgeon that allows the lead to be steered to optimize the final implanted location of the spinal cord stimulation lead. To do so requires surgical tools to assist in the steering and placement of electrodes. Some embodiments may therefore involve a lead comprising a longitudinal pocket or similar parts designed to receive an insertion tool.
In all described embodiments the determined position information can be presented to the surgeon by any suitable means, such as by an acoustic tone with pitch indicating relative height or position, or a visual indicia, or otherwise.
It will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that numerous variations and/or modifications may be made to the invention as shown in the specific embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention as broadly described. The present embodiments are, therefore, to be considered in all respects as illustrative and not limiting or restrictive.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2014905030 | Dec 2014 | AU | national |
This application is continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/752,209, filed Jan. 24, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/535,014, filed Jun. 9, 2017 and issued on Mar. 17, 2020 as U.S. Pat. No. 10,588,698, which is a national stage of Application No. PCT/AU 2015/050753, filed Nov. 30, 2015, which application claims the benefit of Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2014905030 filed Dec. 11, 2014, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1743835 | Stimson | Jan 1930 | A |
3724467 | Avery et al. | Apr 1973 | A |
5895416 | Barreras et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
6516227 | Meadows et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6895280 | Meadows et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6909917 | Woods et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
7177675 | Suffin et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7206640 | Overstreet | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7634315 | Chelette | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7890182 | Parramon et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7894905 | Pless et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
8083685 | Fagin et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8249698 | Mugler et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8332047 | Libbus et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8515545 | Trier | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8682447 | Bradley et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
9044155 | Strahl | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9067074 | Polefko et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9079018 | Olsen | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9174048 | Polefko et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9358390 | Polefko et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
9381357 | Min et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9572986 | Moffitt | Feb 2017 | B2 |
10206596 | Single et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10500399 | Single | Dec 2019 | B2 |
10568559 | Parker et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10588524 | Single et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10588698 | Parker et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10632307 | Parker | Apr 2020 | B2 |
10842996 | Baru et al. | Nov 2020 | B2 |
10849525 | Parker et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
10894158 | Parker | Jan 2021 | B2 |
10918872 | Parker et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
11006846 | Parker et al. | May 2021 | B2 |
11006857 | Parker | May 2021 | B2 |
11045129 | Parker et al. | Jun 2021 | B2 |
11110270 | Parker et al. | Sep 2021 | B2 |
11135424 | Bradley et al. | Oct 2021 | B2 |
11167129 | Parker | Nov 2021 | B2 |
11172864 | Parker et al. | Nov 2021 | B2 |
11179091 | Karantonis et al. | Nov 2021 | B2 |
11191966 | Wah | Dec 2021 | B2 |
11589810 | Gerber et al. | Feb 2023 | B2 |
20030153959 | Thacker et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040116978 | Bradley | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050107674 | Parthasarathy et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050216064 | Heruth et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20070225765 | King | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080132964 | Cohen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090030337 | Gozani et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090058635 | Lalonde et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090306533 | Rousche et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100057159 | Lozano | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100100153 | Carlson et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20110077712 | Killian | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110130802 | Libbus et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120059275 | Fagin et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120101826 | Visser et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120109004 | Cadwell | May 2012 | A1 |
20120155183 | Aritome | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120185020 | Simon et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120245481 | Blanco et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120310301 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130041449 | Cela et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20140046407 | Ben-Ezra et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140249396 | Shacham-diamand et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140277267 | Vansickle et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140324118 | Simon et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140350634 | Grill et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150025597 | Surth et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150051637 | Osorio | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150126839 | Li et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150148869 | Dorvall, II et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20160082265 | Moffitt et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160082268 | Hershey et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160101289 | Stolen et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160106980 | Surth et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160121124 | Johanek et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160144189 | Bakker et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160367808 | Simon et al. | Dec 2016 | A9 |
20170173335 | Min et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170173341 | Johanek et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20180071513 | Weiss et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180104493 | Doan et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180228547 | Parker | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20190001139 | Mishra et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190015663 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190030339 | Baru et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190125269 | Markovic et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190142325 | Min et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190357788 | Single | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200029914 | Single | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200129108 | Parker et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200215331 | Single | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200282208 | Parker | Sep 2020 | A1 |
20210001133 | Williams et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
20210008373 | Single et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
20210016091 | Parker et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
20210106829 | Bennett et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
20210121696 | Parker et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
20210162214 | Parker | Jun 2021 | A1 |
20210205613 | Bradley et al. | Jul 2021 | A1 |
20210267518 | Parker et al. | Sep 2021 | A1 |
20210308449 | Parker | Oct 2021 | A1 |
20210315502 | Parker et al. | Oct 2021 | A1 |
20210379386 | Parker et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
20210387005 | Parker et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
20210387008 | Single | Dec 2021 | A1 |
20210393964 | Single et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
20220007987 | Huang et al. | Jan 2022 | A1 |
20220039724 | Parker et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
20230248975 | Bennett et al. | Aug 2023 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2013277009 | Jan 2016 | AU |
101142822 | Mar 2008 | CN |
103648583 | Mar 2014 | CN |
103654762 | Mar 2014 | CN |
103842022 | Jun 2014 | CN |
104411360 | Mar 2015 | CN |
1244496 | Oct 2002 | EP |
2520327 | Nov 2012 | EP |
3229893 | Oct 2017 | EP |
2006504494 | Feb 2006 | JP |
2009512505 | Mar 2009 | JP |
2013500779 | Jan 2013 | JP |
2014522261 | Sep 2014 | JP |
2014523261 | Sep 2014 | JP |
WO2000002623 | Jan 2000 | WO |
2002082982 | Oct 2002 | WO |
2005122887 | Dec 2005 | WO |
WO2006107848 | Dec 2006 | WO |
2007050657 | May 2007 | WO |
WO2008030275 | Mar 2008 | WO |
WO2008134059 | Nov 2008 | WO |
WO2009042379 | Apr 2009 | WO |
WO2009148425 | Dec 2009 | WO |
2010051406 | May 2010 | WO |
WO2010065146 | Jun 2010 | WO |
WO2010065379 | Jun 2010 | WO |
2010124139 | Oct 2010 | WO |
WO2010138915 | Dec 2010 | WO |
2011014570 | Feb 2011 | WO |
2011017778 | Feb 2011 | WO |
WO2011025979 | Mar 2011 | WO |
WO2011053432 | May 2011 | WO |
2012016138 | Feb 2012 | WO |
WO2011159688 | Mar 2012 | WO |
WO2012044695 | Oct 2012 | WO |
2012162349 | Nov 2012 | WO |
WO2013003368 | Jan 2013 | WO |
WO2013052706 | Apr 2013 | WO |
WO2013090675 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2013116161 | Aug 2013 | WO |
WO2013154758 | Oct 2013 | WO |
2014150001 | Sep 2014 | WO |
WO2014143577 | Sep 2014 | WO |
WO2014145146 | Sep 2014 | WO |
2016048974 | Mar 2016 | WO |
2016059556 | Apr 2016 | WO |
2016168798 | Oct 2016 | WO |
2017053504 | Mar 2017 | WO |
2017210352 | Dec 2017 | WO |
2018119220 | Jun 2018 | WO |
2018160992 | Sep 2018 | WO |
2019178634 | Sep 2019 | WO |
2019204884 | Oct 2019 | WO |
2019231796 | Dec 2019 | WO |
2020082118 | Apr 2020 | WO |
2020082126 | Apr 2020 | WO |
2020082128 | Apr 2020 | WO |
2020087123 | May 2020 | WO |
2020087135 | May 2020 | WO |
2021007615 | Jan 2021 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Balzer et al., “Localization of cervical and cervicomedullary stimulation leads for pain treatment using median nerve somatosensay evoked potential collision testing”, Journal of Neurosurgery, Jan. 2011, vol. 114, No. 1 : pp. 200-205. |
Gorman et al., “ECAP Mapping of the Spinal Cord: Influence of Electrode Position on AB Recruitment”, (2012)., In 16th Annual Meeting. Presented at the North American Neuromodulation Society, Las Vegas, NV, 2 pgs. |
Hallstrom et al., “Distribution of lumbar spinal evoked potentials and their correlation with stimulation-induced paresthesiae”, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Mar.-Apr. 1991, vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 126-139, doi:10.1016/0168-5597(91)90150-V. |
Penar et al., “Cortical Evoked Potentials Used for Placement of a Laminotomy Lead Array: A Case Report”, Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, accessed Apr. 19, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2011.00352.x. |
Richter et al., “EMG and SSEP Monitoring During Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation”, Journal of Neurosurgical Review 2011, Southern Academic Press, 1(S1), 2011, pp. 61-63. |
Yingling et al., “Use of Antidromic Evoked Potentials in Placement of Dorsal Cord Disc Electrodes”, Applied Neurophysiology, 1986, vol. 49, pp. 36-41. |
Harvey-Lynch, Inc., “Multibeam and Mobile LIDAR Solutions,” 2014, 2 pages. |
“Evoke 12C Percutaneous Leads”, Saluda Medical, specifications available in the “Evoke Surgical Guide”, version 6, http://www.saludamedical.com/manuals/, retrieved May 2017. |
“Percutaneous Lead Kit”, St. Jude Medical Clinician's Manual, Models 3143, 3146, 3149, 3153, 3156, 3159, 3183, 3186, 3189, published Sep. 2016, 24 pages. |
Abra Rd et al., “A time-frequency blindsignal separation methodapplicable to underdetermined mixtures of dependent sources”, Signal Processing 85 (2005) 1389-1403. |
Australian Examination Report for Application No. 2019283936, Mailed Apr. 1, 2021, 7 pages. |
Bratta et al., “Orderly Stimulation of Skeletal Muscle Motor Units with Tripolar Nerve Cuff Electrode”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 36, No. 8, 1989. |
Casey et al., “Separation of Mixed Audio Sources by Independent Subspace Analysis”, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (2001). |
Celestin et al., “Pretreatment Psychosocial Variables as Predictors of Outcomes Following Lumbar Surgery and Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Literature Synthesis”, American Academy of Pain Medicine, 2009, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 639-653. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637. 2009. 00632 .X. |
Cong et al., “A 32-channel modular bi-directional neural interface system with embedded DSP for closed-loop operation”, 40th European Solid State Circuits Conference (ESSCIRC), 2014, pp. 99-102. |
Connolly et al., “Towards a platform for prototyping control systems for optimization of neuromodulation therapies”, IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS), 2015, pp. 1-4. |
Delgado et al., “Measurement and interpretation of electrokinetic phenomena”, Pure Appl. Chem., 2005, vol. 77, No. 10, pp. 1753-1805. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application 18910394.8 Search Completed Oct. 7, 2021, Mailed Oct. 15, 2021, 8 pgs. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 15789515.2, Search completed Dec. 4, 2017, Mailed Jan. 30, 2018, 7 Pgs. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 16802238.2, Mailed Jan. 14, 2022, 7 Pgs. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 17778477.4, report completed Nov. 12, 2019, mailed Nov. 20, 2019, 7 pgs. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 17814341.8, report completed Dec. 12, 2019, report mailed Jan. 2, 2020, 8 pgs. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 19793420.1, Search completed Dec. 6, 2021, Mailed Dec. 17, 2021, 9 Pgs. |
Fitzpatrick et al., “A Nerve Cuff Design for the Selective Activation and Blocking of Myelinated Nerve Fibers”, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 13, No. 2, 1991. |
Howell et al., “Evaluation of Intradural Stimulation Efficiency and Selectivity in a Computational Model of Spinal Cord Stimulation”, PLOS ONE, DO1:10.1371/journal.pone.0114938, Dec. 23, 2014. |
International Preliminary Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/050384, Mailed Oct. 27, 2020, 8 pgs. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2018/050278, Issued Sep. 29, 2020, 7 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2018/050278, Search completed Jun. 18, 2018, Mailed Jun. 18, 2018, 12 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/050384, Search completed Jun. 25, 2019, Mailed Jun. 25, 2019, 15 pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051385, Search completed Mar. 24, 2020, Mailed Mar. 24, 2020, 8 Pgs. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2020/050725, Search completed Oct. 19, 2020, Mailed Oct. 19, 2020, 8 Pgs. |
International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051151, International Filing Date Oct. 22, 2019, Search Completed Feb. 24, 2020, Mailed Feb. 24, 2020, 9 pgs. |
International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051160, International Filing Date Oct. 23, 2019, Search Completed Jan. 28, 2020, Mailed Jan. 28, 2020, 13 pgs. |
International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051163, International Filing Date Oct. 23, 2019, Search Completed Jan. 21, 2020, Mailed Jan. 31, 2020, 8 pgs. |
International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051197, International Filing Date Oct. 30, 2019, Search Completed Jan. 21, 2020, Mailed Jan. 21, 2020, 15 pgs. |
International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051210, International Filing Date Nov. 2, 2019, Search Completed Feb. 4, 2020, Mailed Feb. 4, 2020, 10 pgs. |
Jang et al, “Single Channel Signal Separation Using Time-Domain Basis Functions”, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Jun. 2003, vol. 10, No. 6. |
Jang et al., “A Maximum Likelihood Approach to Single-channel Source Separation”, Journal of Machine Learning Research 4 (2003) 1365-1392. |
Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2017-546830, Mailed Feb. 20, 2020, 5 pages with English translation. |
Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2017-553090, Mailed Mar. 16, 2020, 12 pages with English translation. |
Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2018-552138, Mailed Mar. 1, 2021, 7 pages with English translation. |
Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2018-513699, Mailed Jun. 8, 2020, 7 pages with English translation. |
Jones et al., “Scaling of Electrode-Electrolyte Interface Model Parameters In Phosphate Buffered Saline”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2015, vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 441-448. |
Kopelman et al., “Attempted Reversible Sympathetic Ganglion Block by An Implantable Neurostimulator”, Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Feb. 7, 2012, vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 605-609. |
Laird-Wah, “Improving Spinal Cord Stimulation: Model-Based Approaches to Evoked Response Telemetry”, UNSW, Aug. 2015. |
Mannan et al., “Identification and Removal of Physiological Artifacts From Electroencephalogram Signals: A Review”, IEEE Access, May 31, 2018, vol. 6, pp. 30630-30652, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2842082. |
Niazy et al., “Removal of FMRI environment artifacts from EEG data using optimal basis sets”, Neurolmage 28 (2005) 720-737. |
North et al., “Prognostic value of psychological testing in patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation: a prospective study”, Neurosurgery, Aug. 1, 1996, vol. 39, Issue 2, pp. 301-311. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199608000-00013. |
Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 201680020725.4, dated Mar. 16, 2020, 8 pgs. |
Parker et al., “Electrically evoked compound action potential recording in peripheral nerves”, Bioeletron. Med., vol. 1, No. 1, 2018, pp. 71-83, ISSN 2059-1500. |
Peterson et al., “Stimulation artifact rejection in closed-loop, distributed neural interfaces”, ESSCIRC, 42nd European Solid-State Circuits Conference, Lausanne, 2016, pp. 233-235. |
Rijkhoff et al., “Acute Animal Studies on the Use of Anodal Block to Reduce Urethral Resistance in Sacral Root Stimulation”, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 2, No. 2, 1994. |
Rijkhoff et al., “Orderly Recruitment of Motoneurons in an Acute Rabbit Model”, Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 20, No. 5, 1998. |
Scott et al., “Compact Nonlinear Model of an Implantable Electrode Array for Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS)”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2014, vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 382-390. |
Stanslaski et al., “Design and Validation of a Fully Implantable, Chronic, Closed-Loop Neuromodulation Device With Concurrent Sensing and Stimulation”, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, Jul. 2012, Date of Publication: Jan. 23, 2012, vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 410-421, DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2183617. |
Takahashi et al, “Classification of neuronal activities from tetrode recordings using independent component analysis”, Neurocomputing, (2002), vol. 49, Issues 1-4, 289-298. |
Zhang et al., “Automatic Artifact Removal from Electroencephalogram Data Based on A Priori Artifact Information”, BioMed research international. 2015. 720450. Aug. 25, 2015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/720450. |
Zhou et al., “A High Input Impedance Low Noise Integrated Front-End Amplifier for Neural Monitoring”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2016, vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 1079-1086. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20230309886 A1 | Oct 2023 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16752209 | Jan 2020 | US |
Child | 18330311 | US | |
Parent | 15535014 | US | |
Child | 16752209 | US |