This invention relates generally to the treatment of spinal conditions, and more particularly, to the treatment of spinal stenosis using devices for implantation between adjacent spinous processes.
The spine is divided into regions that include the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacrococcygeal regions. The cervical region includes the top seven vertebrae identified as C1-C7. The thoracic region includes the next twelve vertebrae identified as T1-T12. The lumbar region includes five vertebrae L1-L5. The sacrococcygeal region includes nine fused vertebrae that make up the sacrum and the coccyx. The vertebrae of the sacrum are identified as the S1-S5 vertebrae. Four or five rudimentary members form the coccyx.
The clinical syndrome of neurogenic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis is a frequent source of pain in the lower back and extremities, leading to impaired walking, and causing other forms of disability in the elderly. Although the incidence and prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis have not been established, this condition is the most frequent indication of spinal surgery in patients older than 65 years of age.
Lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition of the spine characterized by a narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. With spinal stenosis, the spinal canal narrows and pinches the spinal cord and nerves, causing pain in the back and legs. It is estimated that approximately 5 in 10,000 people develop lumbar spinal stenosis each year. For patients who seek the aid of a physician for back pain, approximately 12%-15% are diagnosed as having lumbar spinal stenosis.
Common treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis include physical therapy (including changes in posture), medication, and occasionally surgery. Changes in posture and physical therapy may be effective in flexing the spine to decompress and enlarge the space available to the spinal cord and nerves—thus relieving pressure on pinched nerves. Medications such as NSAIDS and other anti-inflammatory medications are often used to alleviate pain, although they are not typically effective at addressing spinal compression, which is the cause of the pain.
Surgical treatments are more aggressive than medication or physical therapy, and in appropriate cases surgery may be the best way to achieve lessening of the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. The principal goal of surgery is to decompress the central spinal canal and the neural foramina, creating more space and eliminating pressure on the spinal nerve roots. The most common surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis is direct decompression via a laminectomy and partial facetectomy. In this procedure, the patient is given a general anesthesia and an incision is made in the patient to access the spine. The lamina of one or more vertebrae is removed to create more space for the nerves. The intervertebral disc may also be removed, and the adjacent vertebrae may be fused to strengthen the unstable segments. The success rate of decompressive laminectomy has been reported to be in excess of 65%. A significant reduction of the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis is also achieved in many of these cases.
Alternatively, the vertebrae can be distracted and an interspinous process device implanted between adjacent spinous processes of the vertebrae to maintain the desired separation between the vertebral segments. Such interspinous process devices typically work for their intended purposes but they could be improved. Current devices for spacing adjacent interspinous processes are typically preformed, and are not customizable for different sizes and dimensions of the anatomy of an interspinous space of an actual patient. Instead, preformed devices of an approximately correct size are inserted into the interspinous space of the patient. Unfortunately, because of individual differences in patient anatomy, it is possible that such preformed devices may not comfortably fit in the interspinous space. Moreover, current devices may be difficult to implant because of the tissue obstructing the interspinous space. The necessity to have a configuration for current devices that ensures that the device remains in the proper location may also make it difficult to implant the device in a minimally invasive or percutaneous manner. Further, current devices are relatively stiff, which may cause subsidence in the spinous processes contacting the device after implantation. Thus a need exists for improvements to surgical spacers, such as those for spacing adjacent interspinous processes.
An injectable, flexible interspinous process device is described herein. The interspinous process device is flexible and can be fillable in situ with a desired amount of material such as a biocompatible fluid. In addition, the interspinous process device is substantially impervious to the material with which it will be filled, although the interspinous process device may be permeable to other materials if desired. The interspinous process device is formed from an outer container portion and contains a supporting element such as a mesh or tube that provides added structural support to the container. The supporting element may be self-expanding to facilitate expansion of the device in situ. The supporting element may be located adjacent to an inner surface of the container, although it may be located within the container material itself or bonded to the outer surface of the container material.
As mentioned above, the supporting element may be self expanding so that once the interspinous process device is delivered to the desired position and any constraints removed, the interspinous process device will be deployed to its desired final configuration. The interspinous process device may then be filled with a suitable material such as a biocompatible fluid or a material that is in a liquid state when the interspinous process device is being filled but cures to a more viscous, or generally solid state after the interspinous process device is filled. The interspinous process device has a deployed configuration that includes a central spacer portion that is adapted to be disposed in the interspinous space and enlarged proximal and distal portions that prevent the interspinous process device from moving proximally or distally out of the interspinous process space.
A conduit is coupled to the interspinous process device and is long enough so that it can extend from the interspinous process device to a position outside of the patient to allow for easy manipulation by the surgeon. The conduit thus allows the interspinous process device to be filled with the desired filler material. A breakaway seal may be formed at the interface of the conduit and the interspinous process device. Alternatively, a valve may be located at that location. With either embodiment, the surgeon can inject a material into the interspinous process device to provide the device with its desired final flexibility characteristic and then remove the conduit from the interspinous process device without the injected material flowing back out of the interspinous process device.
A delivery system is also provided for delivering the flexible interspinous process device described above to a desired location. The interspinous process device is in an undeployed, low profile state when it is delivered to the desired location. The delivery system includes an outer catheter that is disposed over the interspinous process device to maintain it in the undeployed state and thus facilitate delivery of the device to the desired location in a minimally invasive or percutaneous manner. If desired, a guidewire may be used to provide a track along which the delivery device can be advanced to simplify the delivery of the interspinous process device to the desired location. Alternatively, the delivery device may include a steerable catheter to facilitate delivery of the interspinous process device to the desired location. The delivery system may also include an outer cannula disposed about the outer catheter. The outer cannula provides added protection to the container to prevent damage to the container during delivery of the interspinous process device through the patient's anatomy to the desired location in the spine. The outer cannula may be relatively stiff. This allows the surgeon to push against the delivery system and facilitates the movement of the delivery system through the patient's anatomy.
In addition, an inner retractable sleeve may be located inside the interspinous process device to hold the supporting element in an undeployed configuration and allows the surgeon to control the deployment of the supporting element once the interspinous process device is located in the desired position. Of course, where the supporting element is located within the material of the container, or bonded to the container, the inner sleeve may not be needed. However, in such an arrangement, the container material for the interspinous process device should be strong enough to resist tearing when the supporting element becomes unconstrained and is allowed to deploy. Where an inner sleeve and/or guidewire is used with the delivery system, the proximal end of the interspinous process device has a self sealing feature that allows the inner sleeve and/or guidewire to be removed without compromising the fluid-tight integrity of the device.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an” and “the” include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, the term “a member” is intended to mean a single member or a combination of members, and “a material” is intended to mean one or more materials, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, the words “proximal” and “distal” refer to directions closer to and away from, respectively, an operator (e.g., surgeon, physician, nurse, technician, etc.) who would insert the medical device into the patient, with the tip-end (i.e., distal end) of the device inserted inside a patient's body first. Thus, for example, the device end first inserted inside the patient's body would be the distal end of the device, while the device end last to enter the patient's body would be the proximal end of the device.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “body” when used in connection with the location where the device of this invention is to be placed to treat lumbar spinal stenosis, or to teach or practice implantation methods for the device, means a mammalian body or a model of a mammalian body. For example, a body can be a patient's body, or a cadaver, or a portion of a patient's body or a portion of a cadaver or a model of any of the foregoing.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “parallel” describes a relationship, given normal manufacturing or measurement or similar tolerances, between two geometric constructions (e.g., two lines, two planes, a line and a plane, two curved surfaces, a line and a curved surface or the like) in which the two geometric constructions are substantially non-intersecting as they extend substantially to infinity. For example, as used herein, a line is said to be parallel to a curved surface when the line and the curved surface do not intersect as they extend to infinity. Similarly, when a planar surface (i.e., a two-dimensional surface) is said to be parallel to a line, every point along the line is spaded apart from the nearest portion of the surface by a substantially equal distance. Two geometric constructions are described herein as being “parallel” or “substantially parallel” to each other when they are nominally parallel to each other, such as for example, when they are parallel to each other within a tolerance. Such tolerances can include, for example, manufacturing tolerances, measurement tolerances or the like.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the terms “normal”, “perpendicular” and “orthogonal” describe a relationship between two geometric constructions (e.g., two lines, two planes, a line and a plane, two curved surfaces, a line and a curved surface or the like) in which the two geometric constructions intersect at an angle of approximately 90 degrees within at least one plane. For example, as used herein, a line is said to be normal, perpendicular or orthogonal to a curved surface when the line and the curved surface intersect at an angle of approximately 90 degrees within a plane. Two geometric constructions are described herein as being “normal”, “perpendicular”, “orthogonal” or “substantially normal”, “substantially perpendicular”, “substantially orthogonal” to each other when they are nominally 90 degrees to each other, such as for example, when they are 90 degrees to each other within a tolerance. Such tolerances can include, for example, manufacturing tolerances, measurement tolerances or the like.
An injectable, flexible interspinous process device is described herein. The interspinous process device 100 includes a container 110, which is flexible and can be fillable in situ with a desired amount of material, such as a biocompatible fluid. Container 110 may be formed from a flexible material that may be compliant or non-compliant. The material may also be tear resistant. The material may also be substantially fluid impermeable so that the material that is used to fill container 110 will not leak from container 110. For example, container 110 may be formed from a silicone material provided by NuSil Technology LLC. Other silicone and polymeric materials may also be used to form container 110. In addition to being flexible, tear resistant and fluid impermeable, the material used to form container 110 may be self-sealing to allow elements of a delivery system or other elements of interspinous process device 100 to be inserted in and removed from container 110 without permanently compromising the fluid impermeable nature of the material that forms container 110.
Container 110 is formed from a flexible material so that it can be folded in a first configuration having a low profile and unfolded into a second configuration having a larger profile. In its low profile configuration, container 110 should have a cross-section that allows it to be inserted into the interspinous space with minimal disruption to the surrounding tissue. Thus, container 110 may be delivered in a minimally invasive or percutaneous manner to the desired location in the anatomy. Container 110 has a proximal portion, a distal portion and a medial portion. In the first, low profile configuration, container 110 is folded such that the proximal portion, the medial portion and the distal portion have substantially the same height. In the second, larger profile configuration, see e.g.
Interspinous process device 100 also includes a support member 120 that may be formed as a mesh or tube and that may be self-expanding. Support member 120 may be formed from a metallic material and may be a shape memory material. Support member 120 may extend along the medial portion. Support member 120 has a generally tubular deployed configuration that generally matches the configuration of the medial portion when container 110 is deployed. If desired, support member 120 may also extend along the proximal and distal portions. In this case, support member 120 would have an enlarged proximal portion and an enlarged distal portion that would generally match the overall configuration of container 110, including its proximal and distal portions, when container 110 is deployed. The use of a metallic support member also helps the surgeon visualize the location of interspinous process device under fluoroscopy.
Support member 120 is located inside and adjacent to the inner surface of container 110, although it may be located within the container material itself such that support member 120 may be located within the sidewall container 110. In addition, support member may be bonded to the outside surface of container 110. With self expanding support member 120 contacting container 110, support member 120 moves the medial portion to its unfolded, larger profile configuration, as well as the proximal and distal portions if support member 120 extends along the proximal and distal portions. Container 110 may then be filled with a suitable material such as a biocompatible fluid or a material that is initially a liquid and then cures to a more viscous state or to a solid state. Thus, container 110 may be easily filled and then when the filler material cures, container 110, along with support member 120, will provide adequate support between the two adjacent spinous processes to maintain the desired distraction therebetween. In addition, when the proximal portion and the distal portion are in their unfolded configurations and filled with the filler material, the proximal portion and distal portion prevent the interspinous process device 100 from moving proximally or distally out of the interspinous process space. The volume of material injected into container 110 may be varied to vary the stiffness/flexibility of medial portion 113 as determined by the surgeon.
A conduit 130 is coupled to container 110 and is long enough so that it can extend from container 110 to a position outside of the patient to allow for easy manipulation by the surgeon. Conduit 130 allows container 110 to be filled with the desired flowable material. A breakaway seal may be formed at the interface of conduit 130 and container 110 or a valve 400 may be located at that position. Alternatively, the fillable material may seal the interface between container 110 and conduit 130 when the fillable material cures. In such an embodiment, conduit 130 is connected to container 110 with a frangible connection and no seal. With any of the foregoing embodiments, the surgeon can inject a flowable material into interspinous process device 100 to provide the device with its desired final flexibility characteristic and remove conduit 130 from interspinous process device 100 without the injected material flowing back out of interspinous process device 100.
A delivery device 200 is also provided for implanting interspinous process device 100 described above. Delivery device 200 includes an outer catheter 210. Delivery device 200 may also include a cannula 500 disposed about outer catheter 210. Cannula 500 protects container 110 during delivery of interspinous process device 100 to the desired location in the patient's anatomy. It is also relatively stiff and thus is more easily manipulated by the surgeon during implantation of interspinous process device 100. It is to be noted that although the FIGS. show delivery device 200 being inserted from the left side of a prone patient, delivery device 200 may also be inserted into the right side of a prone patient. It is also within the scope of this invention that delivery device could be inserted in an anterior, lateral to medial approach.
Delivery device 200 may also include an inner catheter 220. In addition, if desired, a guidewire 300 may also be used in conjunction with delivery device 200. Outer catheter 210 is disposed over interspinous process device 100 to maintain it in the collapsed state against the force exerted against container 110 by support member 120. This allows interspinous process device 100 to be delivered to the desired location in a minimally invasive or percutaneous manner. In addition, an inner retractable sleeve 220 may be located inside interspinous process device 100 to hold support member 120 in an undeployed configuration. Inner retractable sleeve 220 allows for more controlled deployment of support member 120 when outer catheter 210 is removed from around undeployed interspinous process device 100 since the surgeon may slowly remove inner retractable sleeve 220 from around support member 120 and confirm, under fluoroscopy, its proper location during this removal step. Of course, where support member 120 is located within the wall of container 110 or bonded to either the inner wall or outer wall of container 110, it may not be necessary to use inner retractable sleeve 220. With this configuration, the surgeon would simply use outer catheter 210 to control deployment of support member 120. The surgeon would slowly remove outer catheter 210 from around container 110 to control its deployment and confirm that it is properly positioned before completely removing outer catheter 210 from around support member 120 and container 110.
Where inner retractable sleeve 220 is used with delivery device 200, the proximal end of container 110 has a self sealing feature that allows inner retractable sleeve 220 to be removed without compromising the fluid-tight integrity of container 110. For example, the proximal portion may have a proximal face that is formed from a plurality of flaps. As shown, for example, in
Guidewire 300 may be used to provide a track along which delivery device 200 can be advanced to simplify the delivery of interspinous process device 100 to the desired location. For example, guidewire 300 may be inserted into a patient and maneuvered by the surgeon through the interspinous ligament to the interspinous process space of interest and as far anterior in that space as possible. It may be necessary to disrupt and dislodge any soft tissue in the interspinous space to ensure proper placement of interspinous process device 100. An appropriate curette or other cutting device (not shown) may be disposed over guidewire 300 and maneuvered over guidewire 300, which acts as a track for the cutting device, to the desired location to remove the unwanted tissue. Alternatively, the cutting device does not have to be delivered to the interspinous space over guidewire 300. Delivery device 200, with interspinous process device 100 therein, is then maneuvered over guidewire 300 until interspinous process device 100 is in the desired location. Guidewire 300 can be removed at this point. Alternatively, a guidewire does not have to be used and instead outer catheter 210 may be steerable. If desired, both guidewire 300 and a steerable outer catheter 210 may be used together.
Once interspinous process device 100 is in the desired position, delivery device 200 can be withdrawn from the patient. With the removal of delivery device 200, outer catheter 210 no longer constrains support member 120. Where inner retractable sleeve 220 is not use, this allows support member 120 to be deployed and move container 110 to its unfolded larger profile configuration. Where inner retractable sleeve 220 is used to control deployment of support member 120, inner retractable sleeve 220 is removed from container 110 through flaps 115a, 115b, 115c and 115d. Thereafter, the filler material may be injected into container 110 until interspinous process device 100 has reached its desired stiffness/flexibility. The filler material may include barium sulfate to aid in visualization of interspinous process device 100 under fluoroscopy so the surgeon can confirm that interspinous process device 100 is in the proper location and is properly deployed. Barium sulfate may not be needed where support member 120 is formed from a material that is visible under fluoroscopy. Once the surgeon is satisfied that interspinous process device 100 has been appropriately deployed, conduit 130 may be removed.
While various embodiments of the flexible interspinous process device and delivery system have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to the practitioner skilled in the art. The foregoing description of the flexible interspinous process device and delivery device is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the scope of the invention. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the following claims and their equivalents.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 624969 | Peterson | May 1899 | A |
| 1153797 | Kegreisz | Sep 1915 | A |
| 1516347 | Pataky | Nov 1924 | A |
| 1870942 | Beatty | Aug 1932 | A |
| 2077804 | Morrison | Apr 1937 | A |
| 2299308 | Creighton | Oct 1942 | A |
| 2485531 | Dzus et al. | Oct 1949 | A |
| 2607370 | Anderson | Aug 1952 | A |
| 2677369 | Knowles | May 1954 | A |
| 2685877 | Dobelle | Aug 1954 | A |
| 3065659 | Eriksson et al. | Nov 1962 | A |
| 3108595 | Overment | Oct 1963 | A |
| 3426364 | Lumb | Feb 1969 | A |
| 3648691 | Lumb et al. | Mar 1972 | A |
| 3779239 | Fischer et al. | Dec 1973 | A |
| 3867728 | Stubstad et al. | Feb 1975 | A |
| 4011602 | Rybicki et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
| 4237875 | Termanini | Dec 1980 | A |
| 4257409 | Bacal et al. | Mar 1981 | A |
| 4274324 | Giannuzzi | Jun 1981 | A |
| 4289123 | Dunn | Sep 1981 | A |
| 4401112 | Rezaian | Aug 1983 | A |
| 4519100 | Wills et al. | May 1985 | A |
| 4553273 | Wu | Nov 1985 | A |
| 4554914 | Kapp et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
| 4573454 | Hoffman | Mar 1986 | A |
| 4592341 | Omagari et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
| 4599086 | Doty | Jul 1986 | A |
| 4604995 | Stephens et al. | Aug 1986 | A |
| 4611582 | Duff | Sep 1986 | A |
| 4632101 | Freedland | Dec 1986 | A |
| 4636217 | Ogilvie et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
| 4646998 | Pate | Mar 1987 | A |
| 4657550 | Daher | Apr 1987 | A |
| 4662808 | Camilleri | May 1987 | A |
| 4686970 | Dove et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
| 4704057 | McSherry | Nov 1987 | A |
| 4759769 | Hedman et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4787378 | Sodhi | Nov 1988 | A |
| 4822226 | Kennedy | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4827918 | Olerud | May 1989 | A |
| 4834600 | Lemke | May 1989 | A |
| 4863476 | Shepperd | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4886405 | Blomberg | Dec 1989 | A |
| 4892545 | Day et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4913144 | Del Medico | Apr 1990 | A |
| 4931055 | Bumpus et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4932975 | Main et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4969887 | Sodhi | Nov 1990 | A |
| 4969888 | Scholten et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 5011484 | Breard | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5047055 | Bao et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5059193 | Kuslich | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5092866 | Breard et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5098433 | Freedland | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5171278 | Pisharodi | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5171280 | Baumgartner | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5201734 | Cozad et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5290312 | Kojimoto et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5306275 | Bryan | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5306310 | Siebels | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5312405 | Korotko et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5360430 | Lin | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5366455 | Dove | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5390683 | Pisharodi | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5395370 | Muller et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5401269 | Buttner-Janz et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5403316 | Ashman | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5415661 | Holmes | May 1995 | A |
| 5437672 | Alleyne | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5437674 | Worcel et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5439463 | Lin | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5454812 | Lin | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5458641 | Ramirez Jimenez | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5496318 | Howland et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5518498 | Lindenberg et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5549679 | Kuslich | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5554191 | Lahille et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5562662 | Brumfield et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5562735 | Margulies | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5562736 | Ray et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5571192 | Schonhoffer | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5609634 | Voydeville | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5609635 | Michelson | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5628756 | Barker, Jr. et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5630816 | Kambin | May 1997 | A |
| 5645597 | Krapiva | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5645599 | Samani | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5653762 | Pisharodi | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5653763 | Errico et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5658335 | Allen | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5665122 | Kambin | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5674295 | Ray et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5676702 | Ratron | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5685826 | Bonutti | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5690649 | Li | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5693100 | Pisharodi | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5702395 | Hopf | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5702452 | Argenson et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5702454 | Baumgartner | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5702455 | Saggar | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5707390 | Bonutti | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5716416 | Lin | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5723013 | Jeanson et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5725341 | Hofmeister | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5746762 | Bass | May 1998 | A |
| 5755797 | Baumgartner | May 1998 | A |
| 5800547 | Schafer et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5800549 | Bao et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5810815 | Morales | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5836948 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5849004 | Bramlet | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5860977 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5888196 | Bonutti | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5964730 | Williams et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5976186 | Bao et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5980523 | Jackson | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6022376 | Assell et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6048342 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6066154 | Reiley et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6068630 | Zucherman et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6126689 | Brett | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6126691 | Kasra et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6127597 | Beyar et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6132464 | Martin | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6190413 | Sutcliffe | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6190414 | Young | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6214050 | Huene | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6293949 | Justis et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6336930 | Stalcup et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6348053 | Cachia | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6352537 | Strnad | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6364883 | Santilli | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6371987 | Weiland et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6375682 | Fleischmann et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6402750 | Atkinson et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6402751 | Hoeck et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6419704 | Ferree | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6440169 | Elberg et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6447513 | Griggs | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6451019 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6500178 | Zucherman et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
| 6514256 | Zucherman et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
| 6520991 | Huene | Feb 2003 | B2 |
| 6554833 | Levy et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
| 6582433 | Yun | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6582467 | Teitelbaum et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6592585 | Lee et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6626944 | Taylor | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6645207 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6685742 | Jackson | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6695842 | Zucherman et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6709435 | Lin | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| 6723126 | Berry | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6730126 | Boehm, Jr. et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6733533 | Lozier | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6733534 | Sherman | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6736818 | Perren et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6743257 | Castro | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6758863 | Estes et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
| 6761720 | Senegas | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6770096 | Bolger et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6783530 | Levy | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6835205 | Atkinson et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6905512 | Paes et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6946000 | Senegas et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6958077 | Suddaby | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6969404 | Ferree | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6981975 | Michelson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7011685 | Arnin et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7041136 | Goble et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7048736 | Robinson et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7081120 | Li et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7087083 | Pasquet et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7097648 | Globerman et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7101375 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7163558 | Senegas et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7201751 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7217293 | Branch, Jr. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7238204 | Le Couedic et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7306628 | Zucherman et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7335203 | Winslow et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7377942 | Berry | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7442208 | Mathieu et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7445637 | Taylor | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7458981 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7582106 | Teitelbaum et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7604652 | Arnin et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7611316 | Panasik et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 20010016743 | Zucherman et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20020143331 | Zucherman et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030040746 | Mitchell et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030045940 | Eberlein et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030065330 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030153915 | Nekozuka et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20040083002 | Belef et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040087947 | Lim et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040097931 | Mitchell | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133204 | Davies | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133280 | Trieu | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167625 | Beyar et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199255 | Mathieu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260397 | Lambrecht et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050010293 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050049708 | Atkinson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050085814 | Sherman et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165398 | Reiley | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203512 | Hawkins et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203519 | Harms et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203624 | Serhan et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228391 | Levy et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050245937 | Winslow | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050261768 | Trieu | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050273166 | Sweeney | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050288672 | Ferree | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004447 | Mastrorio et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060004455 | Leonard et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060015181 | Elberg | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064165 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060084983 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060084985 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060084987 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060084988 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085069 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085070 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085074 | Raiszadeh | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060089654 | Lins et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060089719 | Trieu | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060095136 | McLuen | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106381 | Ferree et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106397 | Lins | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060111728 | Abdou | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060116690 | Pagano | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060122620 | Kim | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060129239 | Kwak | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060136060 | Taylor | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060184247 | Edidin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060184248 | Edidin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060195102 | Malandain | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060217726 | Maxy et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224159 | Anderson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224241 | Butler et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235387 | Peterman | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235532 | Meunier et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060241601 | Trautwein et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060241613 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060241757 | Anderson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060247623 | Anderson et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060247640 | Blackwell et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060264938 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271044 | Petrini et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271049 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282079 | Labrom et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293662 | Boyer, II et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293663 | Walkenhorst et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005064 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070032790 | Aschmann et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070043362 | Malandain et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100340 | Lange et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070123861 | Dewey et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070142915 | Altarac et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070151116 | Malandain | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162000 | Perkins | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162136 | O'Neil et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070167945 | Lange et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070173822 | Bruneau et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070173823 | Dewey et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070191833 | Bruneau et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070191834 | Bruneau et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070191837 | Trieu | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070191838 | Bruneau et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198091 | Boyer et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070225807 | Phan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233068 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233074 | Anderson et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233076 | Trieu | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233081 | Pasquet et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233089 | DiPoto et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250060 | Anderson et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270823 | Trieu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270824 | Lim et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270825 | Carls et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270826 | Trieu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270827 | Lim et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270828 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270829 | Carls et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270834 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270874 | Anderson | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070272259 | Allard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276368 | Trieu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276369 | Allard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276493 | Malandain et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276496 | Lange et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070276497 | Anderson | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070282443 | Globerman et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080021457 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080021460 | Bruneau et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080033251 | Araghi | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080058934 | Malandain et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080114357 | Allard et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080114358 | Anderson et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080114456 | Dewey et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080147190 | Dewey et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080161818 | Kloss et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080167685 | Allard et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080183211 | Lamborne et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080183218 | Mueller et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080215094 | Taylor | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080221685 | Altarac et al. | Sep 2008 | A9 |
| 20080262617 | Froehlich et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080281360 | Vittur et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080281361 | Vittur et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090062915 | Kohm et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090105773 | Lange et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090118833 | Hudgins et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090216274 | Morancy-Meister et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090234389 | Chuang et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090270918 | Attia et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090312806 | Sherman et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100121379 | Edmond | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262240 | Chavatte et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2821678 | Nov 1979 | DE |
| 3922044 | Feb 1991 | DE |
| 4012622 | Jul 1991 | DE |
| 0322334 | Feb 1992 | EP |
| 0767636 | Jan 1999 | EP |
| 1004276 | May 2000 | EP |
| 1138268 | Oct 2001 | EP |
| 1302169 | Apr 2003 | EP |
| 1330987 | Jul 2003 | EP |
| 1854433 | Nov 2007 | EP |
| 1982664 | Oct 2008 | EP |
| 2623085 | May 1989 | FR |
| 2625097 | Jun 1989 | FR |
| 2681525 | Mar 1993 | FR |
| 2700941 | Aug 1994 | FR |
| 2703239 | Oct 1994 | FR |
| 2707864 | Jan 1995 | FR |
| 2717675 | Sep 1995 | FR |
| 2722087 | Jan 1996 | FR |
| 2722088 | Jan 1996 | FR |
| 2724554 | Mar 1996 | FR |
| 2725892 | Apr 1996 | FR |
| 2730156 | Aug 1996 | FR |
| 2731643 | Sep 1996 | FR |
| 2775183 | Aug 1999 | FR |
| 2799948 | Apr 2001 | FR |
| 2816197 | May 2002 | FR |
| 02-224660 | Sep 1990 | JP |
| 09-075381 | Mar 1997 | JP |
| 988281 | Jan 1983 | SU |
| 1484348 | Jun 1989 | SU |
| WO 9426192 | Nov 1994 | WO |
| WO 9426195 | Nov 1994 | WO |
| WO 9718769 | May 1997 | WO |
| WO 9820939 | May 1998 | WO |
| WO 9926562 | Jun 1999 | WO |
| WO 9959669 | Nov 1999 | WO |
| WO 0044319 | Aug 2000 | WO |
| WO 0154598 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO 03057055 | Jul 2003 | WO |
| WO 2004047689 | Jun 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004047691 | Jun 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004084768 | Oct 2004 | WO |
| WO 2005002474 | Jan 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005009300 | Feb 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005011507 | Feb 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005044118 | May 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005048856 | Jun 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005110258 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| WO 2006064356 | Jun 2006 | WO |
| WO 2007034516 | Mar 2007 | WO |
| WO 2007052975 | May 2007 | WO |
| WO 2009083276 | Jul 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009083583 | Jul 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009098536 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| “Dispositivo Intervertebrale Ammortizzante DIAM,” date unknown, p. 1. |
| “Tecnica Operatoria Per II Posizionamento Della Protesi DIAM,” date unknown, pp. 1-3. |
| “Wallis Operative Technique: Surgical Procedure for Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) of Lumbar Spine,” date unknown, pp. 1-24, Spine Next, an Abbott Laboratories company, Bordeaux, France. |
| Benzel et al., “Posterior Cervical Interspinous Compression Wiring and Fusion for Mid to Low Cervical Spinal Injuries,” J. Neurosurg., Jun. 1989, pp. 893-899, vol. 70. |
| Caserta et al., “Elastic Stabilization Alone or Combined with Rigid Fusion in Spinal Surgery: a Biomechanical Study and Clinical Experience Based on 82 Cases,” Eur. Spine J., Oct. 2002, pp. S192-S197, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
| Christie et al., “Dynamic Interspinous Process Technology,” SPINE, 2005, pp. S73-S78, vol. 30, No. 16S. |
| Cousin Biotech, “Analysis of Clinical Experience with a Posterior Shock-Absorbing Implant,” date unknown, pp. 2-9. |
| Cousin Biotech, Dispositif Intervertébral Amortissant, Jun. 1998, pp. 1-4. |
| Cousin Biotech, Technique Operatoire de la Prothese DIAM, date unknown, Annexe 1, pp. 1-8. |
| Dickman et al., “The Interspinous Method of Posterior Atlantoaxial Arthrodesis,” J. Neurosurg., Feb. 1991, pp. 190-198, vol. 74. |
| Dubois et al., “Dynamic Neutralization: A New Concept for Restabilization of the Spine,” Lumbar Segmental Insability, Szpalski et al., eds., 1999, pp. 233-240, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. |
| Duff, “Methyl Methacrylate in Spinal Stabilization,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 147-151, Ch. 14, Thieme, New York. |
| Ebara et al., “Inoperative Measurement of Lumbar Spinal Instability,” SPINE, 1992, pp. S44-S50, vol. 17, No. 3S. |
| Fassio et al., “Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Instability L4-L5 by Interspinous Ligamentoplasty,” Rachis, Dec. 1991, pp. 465-474, vol. 3, No. 6. |
| Fassio, “Mise au Point Sur la Ligamentoplastie Inter-Epineuse Lombaire Dans les Instabilites,” Maîtrise Orthopédique, Jul. 1993, pp. 18, No. 25. |
| Garner et al., “Development and Preclinical Testing of a New Tension-Band Device for the Spine: the Loop System,” Eur. Spine J., Aug. 7, 2002, pp. S186-S191, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
| Guang et al., “Interspinous Process Segmental Instrumentation with Bone-Button-Wire for Correction of Scoliosis,” Chinese Medical J., 1990, pp. 721-725, vol. 103. |
| Guizzardi et al., “The Use of Diam (Interspinous Stress-Breaker Device) in the Prevention of Chronic Low Back Pain in Young Patients Operated on for Large Dimension Lumbar Disc Herniation,” 12th Eur. Cong. Neurosurg., Sep. 7-12, 2003, pp. 835-839, Port. |
| Hambly et al., “Tension Band Wiring-Bone Grafting for Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis,” SPINE, 1989, pp. 455-460, vol. 14, No. 4. |
| Kiwerski, “Rehabilitation of Patients with Thoracic Spine Injury Treated by Spring Alloplasty,” Int. J. Rehab. Research, 1983, pp. 469-474, vol. 6, No. 4. |
| Kramer et al., “Intervetertebral Disk Diseases: Causes, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis,” pp. 244-249, Medical, 1990. |
| Laudet et al., “Comportement Bio-Mécanique D'Un Ressort Inter-Apophysaire Vertébral Postérieur Analyse Expérimentale Due Comportement Discal En Compression Et En Flexion/Extension,” Rachis, 1993, vol. 5, No. 2. |
| Mah et al., “Threaded K-Wire Spinous Process Fixation of the Axis for Modified Gallie Fusion in Children and Adolescents,” J. Pediatric Othopaedics, 1989, pp. 675-679, vol. 9. |
| Mariottini et al., “Preliminary Results of a Soft Novel Lumbar Intervertebral Prothesis (DIAM) in the Degenerative Spinal Pathology,” Acta Neurochir., Adv. Peripheral Nerve Surg. and Minimal Invas. Spinal Surg., 2005, pp. 129-131, vol. 92, Suppl. |
| McDonnell et al., “Posterior Atlantoaxial Fusion: Indications and Techniques,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 92-106, Ch. 9, Thieme, New York. |
| Minns et al., “Preliminary Design and Experimental Studies of a Novel Soft Implant for Correcting Sagittal Plane Instability in the Lumbar Spine,” SPINE, 1997, pp. 1819-1825, vol. 22, No. 16. |
| Müller, “Restauration Dynamique de la Stabilité Rachidienne,” Tiré de la Sulzer Technical Review, Jan. 1999, Sulzer Management Ltd, Winterthur, Switzerland. |
| Pennal et al., “Stenosis of the Lumbar Spinal Canal,” Clinical Neurosurgery: Proceedings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, St. Louis, Missouri, 1970, Tindall et al., eds., 1971, Ch. 6, pp. 86-105, vol. 18. |
| Petrini et al., “Analisi Di Un'Esperienza Clinica Con Un Impianto Posteriore Ammortizzante,” S.O.T.I.M.I. Societá di Ortopedia e Traumatologia dell'Italia Meridionale e Insulare 90 ° Congresso, Jun. 21-23, 2001, Paestum. |
| Petrini et al., “Stabilizzazione Elastica,” Patologia Degenerativa del Rachide Lombare, Oct. 5-6, 2001, Rimini. |
| Porter, “Spinal Stenosis and Neurogenic Claudication,” SPINE, Sep. 1, 1996, pp. 2046-2052, vol. 21, No. 17. |
| Pupin et al., “Clinical Experience with a Posterior Shock-Absorbing Implant in Lumbar Spine,” World Spine 1: First Interdisciplinary World Congress on Spinal Surgery and Related Disciplines, Aug. 27-Sep. 1, 2000, Berlin, Germany. |
| Rengachary et al., “Cervical Spine Stabilization with Flexible, Multistrand Cable System,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 79-81, Ch. 7, Thieme, New York. |
| Richards et al., “The Treatment Mechanism of an Interspinous Process Implant for Lumbar Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication,” SPINE, 2005, pp. 744-749, vol. 30, No. 7. |
| Scarfò, “Instability/Stenosis: Holistic Approach for Less Invasive Surgery,” date unknown, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. |
| Schiavone et al., “The Use of Disc Assistance Prosthesis (DIAM) in Degenerative Lumbar Pathology: Indications, Technique, Results,” Italian J. Spinal Disorders, 2003, pp. 213-220, vol. 3, No. 2. |
| Schlegel et al., “The Role of Distraction in Improving the Space Available in the Lumbar Stenotic Canal and Foramen,” SPINE, 1994, pp. 2041-2047, vol. 19, No. 18. |
| Senegas et al., “Le Recalibrage du Canal Lombaire, Alternative à la Laminectomie dans le Traitement des Sténoses du Canal Lombaire,” Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique, 1988, pp. 15-22. |
| Senegas et al., “Stabilisation Lombaire Souple,” Instabilité Vertébrales Lombaires, Gastambide, ed., 1995, pp. 122-132, Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris, France. |
| Senegas, “La Ligamentoplastie Inter Vertébrate Lombaire, Alternative a L'Arthrodèse,” La Revue de Medécine Orthopédique, Jun. 1990, pp. 33-35, No. 20. |
| Senegas, “La Ligamentoplastie Intervertébrale, Alternative à L'arthrodèse dans le Traitement des Instabilités Dégénératives,” Acta Othopaedica Belgica, 1991, pp. 221-226, vol. 57, Suppl. I. |
| Senegas, “Mechanical Supplementation by Non-Rigid Fixation in Degenerative Intervertebral Lumbar Segments: the Wallis System,” Eur. Spine J., 2002, p. 5164-S169, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
| Senegas, “Rencontre,” Maîtrise Orthopédique, May 1995, pp. 1-3, No. 44. |
| Serhan, “Spinal Implants: Past, Present, and Future,” 19th International IEEE/EMBS Conference, Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 1997, pp. 2636-2639, Chicago, Illinois. |
| Spadea et al., “Interspinous Fusion for the Treatment of Herniated Intervertebral Discs: Utilizing a Lumbar Spinous Process as a Bone Graft,” Annals of Surgery, 1952, pp. 982-986, vol. 136, No. 6. |
| Sulzer Innotec, “DIAM—Modified CAD Geometry and Meshing,” date unknown. |
| Taylor et al., “Analyse d'une expérience clinique d'un implant postérieur amortissant,” Rachis Revue de Pathologie Vertébrale, Oct./Nov. 1999, vol. 11, No. 4-5, Gieda Inter Rachis. |
| Taylor et al., “Surgical Requirement for the Posterior Control of the Rotational Centers,” date unknown. |
| Taylor et al., “Technical and Anatomical Considerations for the Placement of a Posterior Interspinous Stabilizer,” 2004, pp. 1-10, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee. |
| Taylor, “Biomechanical Requirements for the Posterior Control of the Centers of Rotation,” Swiss Spine Institute International Symposium: Progress in Spinal Fixation, Jun. 21-22, 2002, pp. 1-2, Swiss Spine Institute, Bern, Switzerland. |
| Taylor, “Non-Fusion Technologies of the Posterior Column: A New Posterior Shock Absorber,” International Symposium on Intervertebral Disc Replacement and Non-Fusion-Technology, May 3-5, 2001, Spine Arthroplasty. |
| Taylor, “Posterior Dynamic Stabilization using the DIAM (Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion),” date unknown, pp. 1-5. |
| Taylor, “Présentation à un an d'un dispositif amortissant d'assistance discale,” 5èmes journées Avances & Controverses en pathologie rachidienne, Oct. 1-2, 1998, Faculté Libre de Médecine de Lille. |
| Tsuji et al., “Ceramic Interspinous Block (CISB) Assisted Anterior Interbody Fusion,” J. Spinal Disorders, 1990, pp. 77-86, vol. 3, No. 1. |
| Vangilder, “Interspinous, Laminar, and Facet Posterior Cervical Bone Fusions,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 135-146, Ch. 13, Thieme, New York. |
| Voydeville et al., “Experimental Lumbar Instability and Artificial Ligament,” Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol., Jul. 15, 2000, pp. 167-176, vol. 10. |
| Voydeville et al., “Lumbar Instability Treated by Intervertebral Ligamentoplasty with Smooth Wedges,” Orthopédie Traumatologie, 1992, pp. 259-264, vol. 2, No. 4. |
| Waldemar Link, “Spinal Surgery: Instrumentation and Implants for Spinal Surgery,” 1981, Link America Inc., New Jersey. |
| Wiltse et al., “The Treatment of Spinal Stenosis,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Urist, ed., Mar.-Apr. 1976, pp. 83-91, No. 115. |
| Wisneski et al., “Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Seminars in Spine Surgery, Wiesel, ed., Jun. 1994, pp. 116-123, vol. 6, No. 2. |
| Zdeblick et al., “Two-Point Fixation of the Lumbar Spine Differential Stability in Rotation,” SPINE, 1991, pp. S298-S301, vol. 16, No. 6, Supplement. |
| Zucherman et al., “Clinical Efficacy of Spinal Instrumentation in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Desease,” SPINE, Jul. 1992, pp. 834-837, vol. 17, No. 7. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20120022590 A1 | Jan 2012 | US |