The number of spinal surgeries to correct the causes of low back pain has steadily increased over the last several years. Most often, low back pain originates from damage or defects in the spinal disc between adjacent vertebrae. The disc can be herniated or can be suffering from a variety of degenerative conditions, so that in either case the anatomical function of the spinal disc is disrupted. The most prevalent surgical treatment for these types of conditions has been to fuse the two vertebrae surrounding the affected disc. In most cases, the entire disc will be removed, except for the annulus, by way of a discectomy procedure. Since the damaged disc material has been removed, something must be positioned within the intra-discal space, otherwise the space may collapse resulting in damage to the nerves extending along the spinal column.
In order to prevent this disc space collapse, the intra-discal space is filled with bone or a bone substitute in order to fuse the two adjacent vertebrae together. In early techniques, bone material was simply disposed between the adjacent vertebrae, typically at the posterior aspect of the vertebrae, and the spinal column was stabilized by way of a plate or a rod spanning the affected vertebrae. With this technique once fusion occurred the hardware used to maintain the stability of the segment became superfluous. Moreover, the surgical procedures necessary to implant a rod or plate to stabilize the level during fusion were frequently lengthy and involved.
It was therefore determined that a more optimum solution to the stabilization of an excised disc space is to fuse the vertebrae between their respective end plates, most optimally without the need for anterior or posterior plating. There have been an extensive number of attempts to develop an acceptable intra-discal implant that could be used to replace a damaged disc and yet maintain the stability of the disc interspace between the adjacent vertebrae, at least until complete arthrodesis is achieved. These “interbody fusion devices” have taken many forms. For example, one of the more prevalent designs takes the form of a cylindrical implant. These types of implants are represented by the patents to Bagby, U.S. Pat. No. 4,501,269; Brantigan, U.S. Pat. No. 4,878,915; Ray, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,961,740 and 5,055,104; and Michelson, U.S. Pat. No. 5,015,247. In these cylindrical implants, the exterior portion of the cylinder can be threaded to facilitate insertion of the interbody fusion device, as represented by the Ray, Brantigan and Michelson patents. In the alternative, some of the fusion implants are designed to be pounded into the intra-discal space and the vertebral end plates. These types of devices are represented by the patents to Brantigan, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,743,256; 4,834,757 and 5,192,327.
In each of the above listed patents, the transverse cross section of the implant is constant throughout its length and is typically in the form of a right circular cylinder. Other implants have been developed for interbody fusion that do not have a constant cross section. For instance, the patent to McKenna, U.S. Pat. No. 4,714,469 shows a hemispherical implant with elongated protuberances that project into the vertebral end plate. The patent to Kuntz, U.S. Pat. No. 4,714,469, shows a bullet shaped prosthesis configured to optimize a friction fit between the prosthesis and the adjacent vertebral bodies. Finally, the implant of Bagby, U.S. Pat. No. 4,936,848 is in the form of a sphere which is preferably positioned between the centrums of the adjacent vertebrae.
Interbody fusion devices can be generally divided into two basic categories, namely solid implants and implants that are designed to permit bone ingrowth Solid implants are represented by U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,878,915; 4,743,256; 4,349,921 and 4,714,469. The remaining patents discussed above include some aspect that permits bone to grow across the implant. It has been found that devices that promote natural bone ingrowth achieve a more rapid and stable arthrodesis. The device depicted in the Michelson patent is representative of this type of hollow implant which is typically filled with autologous bone prior to insertion into the intra-discal space. This implant includes a plurality of circular apertures which communicate with the hollow interior of the implant, thereby providing a path for tissue growth between the vertebral end plates and the bone or bone substitute within the implant. In preparing the intra-discal space, the end plates are preferably reduced to bleeding bone to facilitate this tissue ingrowth. During fusion, the metal structure provided by the Michelson implant helps maintain the patency and stability of the motion segment to be fused. In addition, once arthrodesis occurs, the implant itself serves as a sort of anchor for the solid bony mass.
A number of difficulties still remain with the many interbody fusion devices currently available. While it is recognized that hollow implants that permit bone ingrowth into bone or bone substitute within the implant is an optimum technique for achieving fusion, most of the prior art devices have difficulty in achieving this fusion, at least without the aid of some additional stabilizing device, such as a rod or plate. Moreover, some of these devices are not structurally strong enough to support the heavy loads and bending moments applied at the most frequently fused vertebral levels, namely those in the lower lumbar spine.
There has been a need for providing an interbody fusion device that optimizes the bone ingrowth capabilities but is still strong enough to support the spine segment until arthrodesis occurs. It has been found by the present inventors that openings into a hollow implant for bone ingrowth play an important role in avoiding stress shielding of the autologous bone impacted within the implant. In other words, if the ingrowth openings are improperly sized or configured, the autologous bone will not endure the loading that is typically found to be necessary to ensure rapid and complete fusion. In this instance, the bone impacted within the implant may resorb or evolve into simply fibrous tissue, rather than a bony fusion mass, which leads to a generally unstable construction. On the other hand, the bone ingrowth openings must not be so extensive that the cage provides insufficient support to avoid subsidence into the adjacent vertebrae.
Another problem that is not addressed by the above prior devices concerns maintaining or restoring the normal anatomy of the fused spinal segment. Naturally, once the disc is removed, the normal lordotic or kyphotic curvature of the spine is eliminated. With the prior devices, the need to restore this curvature is neglected. For example, in one type of commercial device, the BAK device of SpineTech, as represented by the patent to Bagby, U.S. Pat. No. 4,501,269, the adjacent vertebral bodies are reamed with a cylindrical reamer that fits the particular implant. In some cases, the normal curvature is established prior to reaming and then the implant inserted. This type of construct is illustrated in
In view of these limitations of the prior devices, there remains a need for an interbody fusion device that can optimize bone ingrowth while still maintaining its strength and stability. There is further a need for such an implant that is capable of maintaining or restoring the normal spinal anatomy at the instrumented segment. This implant must be strong enough to support and withstand the heavy loads generated on the spine at the instrumented level, while remaining stable throughout the duration.
In response to the needs still left unresolved by the prior devices, the present invention contemplates a hollow threaded interbody fusion device configured to restore the normal angular relation between adjacent vertebrae. In particular, the device includes an elongated body, tapered along substantially its entire length, defining a hollow interior and having an outer diameter greater than the size of the space between the adjacent vertebrae. The body includes an outer surface with opposite tapered cylindrical portions and a pair of opposite flat tapered side surfaces between the cylindrical portions. Thus, at an end view, the fusion device gives the appearance of a cylindrical body in which the sides of the body have been truncated along a chord of the body's outer diameter. The cylindrical portions are threaded for controlled insertion and engagement into the end plates of the adjacent vertebrae.
In another aspect of the invention, the outer surface is tapered along its length at an angle corresponding, in one embodiment, to the normal lordotic angle of lower lumbar vertebrae. The outer surface is also provided with a number of vascularization openings defined in the flat side surfaces, and a pair of elongated opposite bone ingrowth slots defined in the cylindrical portions. The bone ingrowth slots have a transverse width that is preferably about half of the effective width of the cylindrical portions within which the slots are defined.
In another embodiment, the interbody fusion device retains the same tapered configuration of the above embodiment, along with the truncated sidew walls and interrupted external threads. However, in this embodiment, the implant is not hollow but is instead solid. Bone ingrowth is achieved by forming the solid tapered implant of a porous high strength material tht permits bone ingrowth into interconnected pores while retaining sufficient material for structural stability in situ. In one preferred embodiment, the material is porous tantalum.
A driving tool is provided for inserting the fusion device within the intra-discal space. In one feature, the driving tool includes a shaft having a pair of opposite tapered tongs situated at one end. The tongs are connected to the shaft by way of a hinge slot that biases the tongs apart to receive a fusion device therebetween. The driving tool is further provided with a sleeve concentrically disposed about the shaft and configured to slide along the shaft and compress the hinge to push the tongs together to grip the fusion device. Alternatively, an internal expanding collet may be used to internally hold the fusion device securely during insertion.
In one aspect of the driving tool, the tapered tongs have an outer surface that takes on the form of the tapered cylindrical portions of the fusion device. The tongs also have a flat inward facing surface to correspond to the flat side surfaces of the fusion device. Thus, when the tongs are compressed against the fusion device, the inward facing surfaces of the tongs contact the flat sides of the fusion device and the outer surface of the tongs complete the conical form of the fusion device to facilitate screw-in insertion. The inward facing surface of the tongs may also be provided with projections to engage openings in the fusion device to permit driving and rotation of the device within the intra-discal space.
In another aspect of the invention, methods are provided for implanting the fusion device between adjacent vertebrae. In one method, the approach is anterior and includes the steps of dilating the disc space and drilling the end plates of the adjacent vertebrae to the minor diameter of the fusion device threads. A sleeve is inserted to provide a working channel for the drilling step and the subsequent step of implanting the fusion device. The implant is engaged with the driving tool, inserted through the sleeve and threaded into the prepared bore. The depth of insertion of the tapered fusion device determines the amount of angular separation achieved for the adjacent vertebrae.
In another inventive method, the insertion site is prepared posteriorly, namely the disc space is dilated and a minor diameter hole is drilled into the vertebral end plates. A sleeve is also arranged to provide a working channel for the drilling and insertion steps. The fusion device is inserted into the drilled hole with the flat side walls facing the adjacent vertebra. The device is then rotated so that the external threads on the cylindrical portion cut into and engage the adjacent vertebrae. In addition, since the fusion device is tapered, the tapered outer surface of the device will angularly separate the adjacent vertebrae to restore the normal anatomic lordosis.
a)-13(d) show four steps of a method in accordance with one aspect of the invention for implanting the interbody fusion device, such as the device shown in
a)-14(d) depict steps of an alternative method for implanting the interbody fusion device, such as the device shown in
For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope of the invention is thereby intended, such alterations and further modifications in the illustrated device, and such further applications of the principles of the invention as illustrated therein being contemplated as would normally occur to one skilled in the art to which the invention relates.
An interbody fusion device 10 in accordance with one aspect of the present invention is shown in
In accordance with the invention, the interbody fusion device 10 is a threaded device configured to be screw threaded into the end plates of the adjacent vertebrae. In one embodiment of the invention, the conical body 11 defines a series of interrupted external threads 18 and a complete thread 19 at the leading end of the implant. The complete thread 19 serves as a “starter” thread for screwing the implant into the vertebral endplates at the intra-discal space. The threads 18 and 19 can take several forms known in the art for engagement into vertebral bone. For instance, the threads can have a triangular cross-section or a truncated triangular cross-section. Preferably, the threads have a height of 1.0 mm (0.039 in) in order to provide adequate purchase in the vertebral bone so that the fusion device 10 is not driven out of the intra-discal space by the high loads experienced by the spine. The thread pitch in certain specific embodiments can be 2.3 mm (0.091 in) or 3.0 mm (0.118 in), depending upon the vertebral level at which the device 10 is to be implanted and the amount of thread engagement necessary to hold the implant in position.
In one aspect of the invention, the conical body 11, and particularly the body wall 16, includes parallel truncated side walls 22, shown most clearly in
The conical body 11 of the device 10 includes a pair of vascularization openings 24 and 25 defined through each of the truncated side walls 22. These openings 24 and 25 are adapted to be oriented in a lateral direction or facing the sagittal plane when the fusion device is implanted within the intra-discal space. The openings are intended to provide a passageway for vascularization to occur between the bone implant material within the hollow interior 15 and the surrounding tissue. In addition, some bone ingrowth may also occur through these openings. The openings 24 and 25 have been sized to provide optimum passage for vascularization to occur, while still retaining a significant amount of structure in the conical body 11 to support the high axial loads passing across the intra-discal space between adjacent vertebrae.
The conical body 11 also defines opposite bone ingrowth slots 27, each of which are oriented at 90° to the truncated side walls 22. Preferably, these slots 27 are directly adjacent the vertebral end plates when the device 10 is implanted. More particularly, as the threads 18 and 19 of the device are screwed into the vertebral endplates, the vertebral bone will extend partially into the slots 27 to contact bone implant material contained within the hollow interior 15 of the device 10. As shown more clearly in
In a further feature, the anterior end 12 of the body wall 16 can define a pair of diametrically opposed notches 29, which are configured to engage an implant driver tool as described herein. Moreover, the end wall 17 at the posterior end 13 of the implant can be provided with a tool engagement feature (not shown). For example, a hex recess can be provided to accommodate a hex driver tool, as described further herein.
In one important feature of the interbody fusion device of the present invention, the body 11 includes a tapered or conical form. In other words, the outer diameter of the device at its anterior end 12 is larger than the outer diameter at the posterior end 13. As depicted in
The taper angle A of the implant, coupled with the outer diameter at the anterior and posterior ends of the fusion device 10, define the amount of angular spreading that will occur between the adjacent vertebrae as the implant is placed or screwed into position. This feature is depicted more clearly in
In specific embodiments of the implant 10, the outer diameter or thread crest diameter at the anterior end 12 can be 16, 18 or 20 mm, and the overall length of the device 26 mm. The sizing of the device is driven by the vertebral level into which the device is implanted and the amount of angle that must be developed.
In another aspect of the invention, device 10 is sized so that two such cylindrical bodies 11 can be implanted into a single disc space, as shown in
In one specific embodiment of the interbody fusion device 10, the vascularization opening 24 is generally rectangular in shape having dimensions of 6.0 mm (0.236 in) by 7.0 mm (0.276 in). Similarly, the vascularization opening 25 is rectangular with dimensions of 4.0 mm (0.157 in) by 5.0 mm (0.197 in). Naturally, this opening is smaller because it is disposed at the smaller posterior end 13 of the device 10. The bone ingrowth slots 27 are also rectangular in shape with a long dimension of 20.0 mm (0.787 in) and a width of 6.0 mm (0.236 in). It has been found that these dimensions of the vascularization openings 24, 25 and slots 27 provide optimum bone ingrowth and vascularization. In addition, these openings are not so large that they compromise the structural integrity of the device or that they permit the bone graft material contained within the hollow interior 15 to be easily expelled during implantation.
As can be seen in
In an alternative embodiment of the invention, shown in
In a further embodiment using a porous material, the interbody fusion device 110 of
The benefits of the embodiment of the fusion device shown in
HEDROCEL® is preferred because it provides the advantages of both metal and ceramic implants without the corresponding disadvantages. HEDROCEL is well suited for the interbody fusion device of the present invention because it mimics the structure of bone and has a modulus of elasticity that approximates that of human bone. The interconnected porosity encourages bone ingrowth and eliminates dead ends which limit vascular support for the bone. The infiltrated metal film provides strength and stiffness without significant weight increase. A HEDROCEL® implant is sufficiently strong to maintain the intervertebral space and normal curvature of the spine at the instrumented motion segment. At the same time, stress shielding is avoided. This composite material is also advantageous because it eliminates the need for allografts or autografts.
One additional advantage of this material is that it does not undergo resorption. This prevents early degradation which can inhibit bone regeneration. A non-resorbable implant is also beneficial where complete bone ingrowth cannot be achieved. Disadvantages of permanent, non-resorbable implants, however, are avoided because of the biocompatibility and osteoconductivity of the composite.
While HEDROCEL® is preferred, it is contemplated that any suitable high strength porous material may be used. Other open-celled substrates and metals are contemplated. For example, the substrate may be other carbonaceous materials, such as graphite, or ceramics, such as tricalcium phosphate or calcium aluminate. Any suitable metal is contemplated, but Group VB elements, such as tantalum and niobium, and their alloys, are preferred. Tantalum is particularly preferred for its good mechanical properties and biocompatibility.
The interbody fusion device 10 can be implanted using an implant driver 50, shown in
Each of the tongs is provided with interlocking fingers 58 and a driving projection 59 extending from the inner surface 56. The function of these components is shown more clearly with reference to
The shaft 51 and sleeve 52 are provided with a threaded interface 65 which permits the sleeve 52 to be threaded up and down the length the shaft. Specifically, the threaded interface 65 includes external threads on the shaft 51 and internal threads on the sleeve 52 having the same pitch so that the sleeve can be readily moved up and down the implant driver 50. The shaft 51 is also provided with a pair of stops 69 which restrict the backward movement of the sleeve 52 to only the extent necessary to allow the tongs 54 to separate a sufficient distance to accept the interbody fusion device 10.
The use of the implant driver 50 is shown with reference to
An alternative embodiment of the implant driver is shown in
Unlike the implant driver 50, the driver 90 of the embodiment in
The implant driver 90 includes a puller shaft 99 slidably disposed within a bore 100 defined in the shaft 91. The puller shaft 99 has a locking chamber 101 at its end which engages a locking hub 102 formed at the end of the expander shaft 97. The puller shaft 99 projects beyond the end of shaft 91 for access by the surgeon. When the puller shaft 99 is pulled, it pulls the expander shaft 97 away from the annular flange 96 of the collet 94 so that the flared tip 98 becomes progressively engaged within the collet bore 95. As the tip 98 advances further into the bore 95, the annular flange 96 expands from its initial diameter to a larger second diameter sufficient for firm gripping contact with the interior of the fusion device 10. With the fusion device so engaged, the implant driver can be used to insert the device 10 into the surgical site, after which the expander shaft can be advanced beyond the collet bore to release the flared tip and, consequently, the fusion device.
In accordance with the present invention, two methods for implanting the interbody fusion device 10 are contemplated. First, with reference to
In the next step shown in FIG; 12(c), the fusion device 10 is engaged by the implant driver 50 and extended through the outer sleeve 76 until the starter thread 19 contacts the bone opening. The implant driver 50 can then be used to screw thread the fusion device into the tapped or untapped opening formed in the vertebral end plate E. It is understood that in this step, other suitable driving tools could be used, such as a screw driver type device to engage the driving tool slots 29 at the anterior end 12 of the device 10. As discussed previously, the degree of insertion of the fusion device 10 determines the amount of lordosis added or restored to the vertebral level. In the final step, the implant driver is removed leaving the fusion device 10 in position. It can be seen that once implanted, the closed end wall 17 is directed toward the posterior aspect of the vertebrae. The hollow interior 15 is open at its anterior end, but can be closed by a plastic or metal material, if necessary.
In a second inventive method, as depicted in
Once the fusion device 10 has been advanced into the intra-discal space to the appropriate depth relative to the pivot axis P of the vertebrae, the driving tool 80 is used to rotate the implant in the direction of the rotational arrow R in
With either technique, the position of the fusion device 10 with respect to the adjacent vertebrae can be verified by radiograph or other suitable techniques for establishing the angular relationship between the vertebrae. Alternatively, the preferred depth of insertion of the implant can be determined in advance and measured from outside the patient as the implant is positioned between the vertebrae.
It can be seen that the interbody fusion device 10, implant driver 50 and techniques of the present invention provide significant advantages over the prior devices and techniques. Specifically, the fusion device 10 provides a hollow threaded implant that maximizes the potential for bony fusion between adjacent vertebrae, while maintaining the integrity of the implant itself. It is understood that the spine endures significant loads along its axial length, which loads must be supported by the fusion device 10 at least until solid fusion is achieved. The device 10 also provides means for vascularization and tissue ingrowth to occur which speeds up the fusion rate and enhances the strength of the resulting fused bony mass. Another significant aspect is that the tapered shape of the implant allows the surgeon to restore and maintain the proper curvature or relative angle between vertebral bodies. This avoids the significant problems associated with prior devices in which product deformities arise and the spine goes out of balance. A further advantage achieved by the device and its implant driver is the capability for insertion either anteriorly or posteriorly using a laproscopic approach. Depending upon the vertebral level, either approach may be preferred, so it is important that the implant be adapted for insertion from either direction. Controlled insertion of the device is provided by the screw-in technique used for anterior insertion (vs. pounding in) and for the slide-in and cam method used for the posterior technique.
While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description, the same is to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive in character, it being understood that only the preferred embodiment has been shown and described and that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit of the invention are desired to be protected. For example, while the device 10 has been disclosed for use in the spine, the structure and procedures of the present invention can also be used in other joint spaces, such as the ankle, wrist and subtalar joints. Moreover, while the device 10 of the preferred embodiment is shown tapered along its entire length, it is contemplated that a non-tapered or reverse tapered section can be added with the resulting device still falling within the scope of the invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/518,981, filed Mar. 3, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,645,206, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/489,317, filed Jan. 21, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,375,655, issued Apr. 23, 2002, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/209,602, filed Dec. 11, 1998, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/157,735, filed Sep. 21, 1998, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/111,197, filed Jul. 7, 1998, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/882,611, filed Jun. 25, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/835,306, filed Apr. 7, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/413,353, filed Mar. 30, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,669,909, issued Sep. 23, 1997, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/411,017, filed Mar. 27, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,782,919, issued Jul. 21, 1998.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3486505 | Morrison | Dec 1969 | A |
3848601 | Ma et al. | Nov 1974 | A |
3866510 | Eibes et al. | Feb 1975 | A |
3955280 | Sneer | May 1976 | A |
3979828 | Taylor | Sep 1976 | A |
4003287 | Ziaylek, Jr. | Jan 1977 | A |
4185383 | Heimke et al. | Jan 1980 | A |
4186486 | Gordon | Feb 1980 | A |
4259072 | Hirabayashi et al. | Mar 1981 | A |
4309777 | Patil | Jan 1982 | A |
4349921 | Kuntz | Sep 1982 | A |
4501269 | Bagby | Feb 1985 | A |
4526909 | Urist | Jul 1985 | A |
4545374 | Jacobson | Oct 1985 | A |
4573448 | Kambin | Mar 1986 | A |
4596574 | Urist | Jun 1986 | A |
4599086 | Doty | Jul 1986 | A |
4627853 | Campbell | Dec 1986 | A |
4678470 | Nashef et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
4713003 | Symington et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4713006 | Hakamatsuka et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4714469 | Kenna | Dec 1987 | A |
4736738 | Lipovsek et al. | Apr 1988 | A |
4743256 | Brantigan | May 1988 | A |
4743259 | Bolander et al. | May 1988 | A |
4759766 | Buettner-Janz et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4772287 | Ray et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
4820305 | Harms et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4834757 | Brantigan | May 1989 | A |
4863476 | Shepperd | Sep 1989 | A |
4877020 | Vich | Oct 1989 | A |
4878915 | Brantigan | Nov 1989 | A |
4892545 | Day et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
4904261 | Dove et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4917704 | Frey et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4932975 | Main et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4936848 | Bagby | Jun 1990 | A |
4961740 | Ray et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5002576 | Fuhrmann et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5015247 | Michelson | May 1991 | A |
5030474 | Saita et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5055104 | Ray | Oct 1991 | A |
5062850 | MacMillan et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5068122 | Kokubo et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5071437 | Steffee | Dec 1991 | A |
5128169 | Saita et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5133755 | Brekke | Jul 1992 | A |
RE34037 | Inoue et al. | Aug 1992 | E |
5147402 | Bohler et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5147404 | Downey | Sep 1992 | A |
5164187 | Constantz et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5188670 | Constantz | Feb 1993 | A |
5192327 | Brantigan | Mar 1993 | A |
5207710 | Chu | May 1993 | A |
5236456 | O'Leary et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5236460 | Barber | Aug 1993 | A |
5258029 | Chu et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5279831 | Constantz et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5282861 | Kaplan | Feb 1994 | A |
5282863 | Burton | Feb 1994 | A |
5290312 | Kojimoto et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5306307 | Senter et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5306309 | Wagner et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5306310 | Siebels | Apr 1994 | A |
5330826 | Taylor et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5338433 | Maybee et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5344654 | Rueger et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5348026 | Davidson | Sep 1994 | A |
5360430 | Lin | Nov 1994 | A |
5360448 | Thramann | Nov 1994 | A |
5366508 | Brekke | Nov 1994 | A |
5397364 | Kozak et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5405391 | Hednerson et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5417975 | Lussi et al. | May 1995 | A |
5423816 | Lin | Jun 1995 | A |
5423817 | Lin | Jun 1995 | A |
5425769 | Snyders, Jr. | Jun 1995 | A |
5425772 | Brantigan | Jun 1995 | A |
5435723 | O'Brien | Jul 1995 | A |
5439464 | Shapiro | Aug 1995 | A |
5439684 | Prewett et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5443514 | Steffee | Aug 1995 | A |
5443515 | Cohen et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5455231 | Constantz et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5458638 | Kuslich et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5464439 | Gendler | Nov 1995 | A |
5484437 | Michelson | Jan 1996 | A |
5489307 | Kuslich et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5489308 | Kuslich et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5505732 | Michelson | Apr 1996 | A |
5507813 | Dowd et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5510396 | Prewett et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5514180 | Heggeness et al. | May 1996 | A |
5534031 | Matsuzaki et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5562736 | Ray et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5571017 | Niznick | Nov 1996 | A |
D377095 | Michelson | Dec 1996 | S |
D377096 | Michelson | Dec 1996 | S |
5584831 | McKay | Dec 1996 | A |
5585116 | Boniface et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5591235 | Kuslich | Jan 1997 | A |
5593409 | Michelson | Jan 1997 | A |
5601556 | Pisharodi | Feb 1997 | A |
5609635 | Michelson | Mar 1997 | A |
5609636 | Kohrs et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5645591 | Kuberasampath | Jul 1997 | A |
5645596 | Kim et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5645598 | Brosnahan, III | Jul 1997 | A |
5646084 | Patton et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5653762 | Pisharodi | Aug 1997 | A |
5658285 | Marnay et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5658336 | Pisharodi | Aug 1997 | A |
5669909 | Zdeblick et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5683394 | Rinner | Nov 1997 | A |
5683463 | Godefroy et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5709683 | Bagby | Jan 1998 | A |
5713899 | Marnay et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5766251 | Koshino | Jun 1998 | A |
5766252 | Henry et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5766253 | Brosnahan, III | Jun 1998 | A |
5776196 | Matsuzaki et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5816812 | Kownacki et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5860973 | Michelson | Jan 1999 | A |
5865847 | Kohrs et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5876457 | Picha et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5885287 | Bagby | Mar 1999 | A |
5888224 | Beckers et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5897593 | Kohrs et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5906616 | Pavlov et al. | May 1999 | A |
5968098 | Winslow | Oct 1999 | A |
5984922 | McKay | Nov 1999 | A |
6010502 | Bagby | Jan 2000 | A |
6019760 | Metz-Stavenhagen | Feb 2000 | A |
6149650 | Michelson | Nov 2000 | A |
RE37005 | Michelson et al. | Dec 2000 | E |
6156040 | Yonemura et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6165219 | Kohrs et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6645206 | Zdeblick et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
20040133277 | Michelson | Jul 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2015507 | Apr 1990 | CA |
2910627 | Sep 1980 | DE |
3505567 | Jun 1986 | DE |
0077159 | Oct 1982 | EP |
0179695 | Sep 1985 | EP |
0635246 | Jan 1995 | EP |
0646366 | May 1995 | EP |
0637440 | Aug 1995 | EP |
2710519 | Sep 1993 | FR |
2 287 654 | Sep 1995 | GB |
WO 8707827 | Dec 1987 | WO |
WO 9000037 | Jan 1990 | WO |
WO 9106261 | May 1991 | WO |
WO 9214423 | Sep 1992 | WO |
WO 9411040 | May 1994 | WO |
WO 9426893 | Nov 1994 | WO |
WO 9508306 | Mar 1995 | WO |
WO 9515133 | Jun 1995 | WO |
WO 9622747 | Aug 1996 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20040097928 A1 | May 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09518981 | Mar 2000 | US |
Child | 10644252 | US | |
Parent | 09489317 | Jan 2000 | US |
Child | 09518981 | US | |
Parent | 09209602 | Dec 1998 | US |
Child | 09489317 | US | |
Parent | 09157735 | Sep 1998 | US |
Child | 09209602 | US | |
Parent | 09111197 | Jul 1998 | US |
Child | 09157735 | US | |
Parent | 08882611 | Jun 1997 | US |
Child | 09111197 | US | |
Parent | 08835306 | Apr 1997 | US |
Child | 08882611 | US | |
Parent | 08413353 | Mar 1995 | US |
Child | 08835306 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 08411017 | Mar 1995 | US |
Child | 08413353 | US |