Patent Grant
9433511
The present invention relates generally to interbody spinal implants and methods of using such implants and, more particularly, to an implant having one or more openings of predetermined sizes and shapes to achieve design trade offs depending upon a particular application.
In the simplest terms, the spine is a column made of vertebrae and discs. The vertebrae provide the support and structure of the spine while the spinal discs, located between the vertebrae, act as cushions or “shock absorbers.” These discs also contribute to the flexibility and motion of the spinal column. Over time, the discs may become diseased or infected, may develop deformities such as tears or cracks, or may simply lose structural integrity (e.g., the discs may bulge or flatten). Impaired discs can affect the anatomical functions of the vertebrae, due to the resultant lack of proper biomechanical support, and are often associated with chronic back pain.
Several surgical techniques have been developed to address spinal defects, such as disc degeneration and deformity. Spinal fusion has become a recognized surgical procedure for mitigating back pain by restoring biomechanical and anatomical integrity to the spine. Spinal fusion techniques involve the removal, or partial removal, of at least one intervertebral disc and preparation of the disc space for receiving an implant by shaping the exposed vertebral endplates. An implant is then inserted between the opposing endplates.
Spinal fusion procedures can be achieved using a posterior or an anterior approach. Anterior interbody fusion procedures generally have the advantages of reduced operative times and reduced blood loss. Further, anterior procedures do not interfere with the posterior anatomic structure of the lumbar spine. Anterior procedures also minimize scarring within the spinal canal while still achieving improved fusion rates, which is advantageous from a structural and biomechanical perspective. These generally preferred anterior procedures are particularly advantageous in providing improved access to the disc space, and thus correspondingly better endplate preparation.
Several interbody implant systems have been introduced to facilitate interbody fusion. Traditional threaded implants involve at least two cylindrical bodies, each typically packed with bone graft material, surgically placed on opposite sides of the mid-sagittal plane through pre-tapped holes within the intervertebral disc space. This location is not the preferable seating position for an implant system, however, because only a relatively small portion of the vertebral endplate is contacted by these cylindrical implants. Accordingly, these implant bodies will likely contact the softer cancellous bone rather than the stronger cortical bone, or apophyseal rim, of the vertebral endplate. The seating of these threaded cylindrical implants may also compromise biomechanical integrity by reducing the area in which to distribute mechanical forces, thus increasing the apparent stress experienced by both the implant and vertebrae. Still further, a substantial risk of implant subsidence (defined as sinking or settling) into the softer cancellous bone of the vertebral body may arise from such improper seating.
In contrast, open ring-shaped cage implant systems are generally shaped to mimic the anatomical contour of the vertebral body. Traditional ring-shaped cages are generally comprised of allograft bone material, however, harvested from the human femur. Such allograft bone material restricts the usable size and shape of the resultant implant. For example, many of these femoral ring-shaped cages generally have a medial-lateral width of less than 25 mm. Therefore, these cages may not be of a sufficient size to contact the strong cortical bone, or apophyseal rim, of the vertebral endplate. These size-limited implant systems may also poorly accommodate related instrumentation such as drivers, reamers, distractors, and the like. For example, these implant systems may lack sufficient structural integrity to withstand repeated impact and may fracture during implantation. Still further, other traditional non-allograft ring-shaped cage systems may be size-limited due to varied and complex supplemental implant instrumentation which may obstruct the disc space while requiring greater exposure of the operating space. These supplemental implant instrumentation systems also generally increase the instrument load upon the surgeon.
The surgical procedure corresponding to an implant system should preserve as much vertebral endplate bone surface as possible by minimizing the amount of bone removed. This vertebral endplate bone surface, or subchondral bone, is generally much stronger than the underlying cancellous bone. Preservation of the endplate bone stock ensures biomechanical integrity of the endplates and minimizes the risk of implant subsidence. Thus, proper interbody implant design should provide for optimal seating of the implant while utilizing the maximum amount of available supporting vertebral bone stock.
Traditional interbody spinal implants generally do not seat properly on the preferred structural bone located near the apophyseal rim of the vertebral body, which is primarily composed of preferred dense subchondral bone. Accordingly, there is a need in the art for interbody spinal implants which better utilize the structurally supportive bone of the apophyseal rim.
In summary, at least ten, separate challenges can be identified as inherent in traditional anterior spinal fusion devices. Such challenges include: (1) end-plate preparation; (2) implant difficulty; (3) materials of construction; (4) implant expulsion; (5) implant subsidence; (6) insufficient room for bone graft; (7) stress shielding; (8) lack of implant incorporation with vertebral bone; (9) limitations on radiographic visualization; and (10) cost of manufacture and inventory. Each of these challenges is addressed in turn.
1. End-Plate Preparation
There are three traditional end-plate preparation methods. The first is aggressive end-plate removal with box-chisel types of tools to create a nice match of end-plate geometry with implant geometry. In the process of aggressive end-plate removal, however, the end-plates are typically destroyed. Such destruction means that the load-bearing implant is pressed against soft cancellous bone and the implant tends to subside.
The second traditional end-plate preparation method preserves the end-plates by just removing cartilage with curettes. The end-plates are concave; hence, if a flat implant is used, the implant is not very stable. Even if a convex implant is used, it is very difficult to match the implant geometry with the end-plate geometry, as the end-plate geometry varies from patient-to-patient and on the extent of disease.
The third traditional end-plate preparation method uses threaded fusion cages. The cages are implanted by reaming out corresponding threads in the end-plates. This method also violates the structure.
2. Implant Difficulty
Traditional anterior spinal fusion devices can also be difficult to implant. Some traditional implants with teeth have sharp edges. These edges can bind to the surrounding soft tissue during implantation, creating surgical challenges.
Typically, secondary instrumentation is used to keep the disc space distracted during implantation. The use of such instrumentation means that the exposure needs to be large enough to accommodate the instrumentation. If there is a restriction on the exposure size, then the maximum size of the implant available for use is correspondingly limited. The need for secondary instrumentation for distraction during implantation also adds an additional step or two in surgery. Still further, secondary instrumentation may sometimes over-distract the annulus, reducing the ability of the annulus to compress a relatively undersized implant. The compression provided by the annulus on the implant is important to maintain the initial stability of the implant.
For anterior spinal surgery, there are traditionally three trajectories of implants: anterior, antero-lateral, and lateral. Each approach has its advantages and drawbacks. Sometimes the choice of the approach is dictated by surgeon preference, and sometimes it is dictated by patient anatomy and biomechanics. A typical traditional implant has design features to accommodate only one or two of these approaches in a single implant, restricting intra-operative flexibility.
3. Materials of Construction
Other challenges raised by traditional devices find their source in the conventional materials of construction. Typical devices are made of PEEK or cadaver bone. Materials such as PEEK or cadaver bone do not have the structural strength to withstand impact loads required during implantation and may fracture during implantation.
PEEK is an abbreviation for polyetherether-ketone, a high-performance engineering thermoplastic with excellent chemical and fatigue resistance plus thermal stability. With a maximum continuous working temperature of 480° F., PEEK offers superior mechanical properties. Superior chemical resistance has allowed PEEK to work effectively as a metal replacement in harsh environments. PEEK grades offer chemical and water resistance similar to PPS (polyphenylene sulfide), but can operate at higher temperatures. PEEK materials are inert to all common solvents and resist a wide range of organic and inorganic liquids. Thus, for hostile environments, PEEK is a high-strength alternative to fluoropolymers.
The use of cadaver bone has several drawbacks. The shapes and sizes of the implants are restricted by the bone from which the implant is machined. Cadaver bone carries with it the risk of disease transmission and raises shelf-life and storage issues. In addition, there is a limited supply of donor bone and, even when available, cadaver bone inherently offers inconsistent properties due to its variability. Finally, as mentioned above, cadaver bone has insufficient mechanical strength for clinical application.
4. Implant Expulsion
Traditional implants can migrate and expel out of the disc space, following the path through which the implant was inserted. Typical implants are either “threaded” into place, or have “teeth” which are designed to prevent expulsion. Both options can create localized stress risers in the end-plates, increasing the chances of subsidence. The challenge of preventing implant expulsion is especially acute for PEEK implants, because the material texture of PEEK is very smooth and “slippery.”
5. Implant Subsidence
Subsidence of the implant is a complex issue and has been attributed to many factors. Some of these factors include aggressive removal of the end-plate; an implant stiffness significantly greater than the vertebral bone; smaller sized implants which tend to seat in the center of the disc space, against the weakest region of the end-plates; and implants with sharp edges which can cause localized stress fractures in the end-plates at the point of contact. The most common solution to the problem of subsidence is to choose a less stiff implant material. This is why PEEK and cadaver bone have become the most common materials for spinal fusion implants. PEEK is softer than cortical bone, but harder than cancellous bone.
6. Insufficient Room for Bone Graft
Cadaver bone implants are restricted in their size by the bone from which they are machined. Their wall thickness also has to be great to create sufficient structural integrity for their desired clinical application. These design restrictions do not leave much room for filling the bone graft material into cortical bone implants. The exposure-driven limitations on implant size narrow the room left inside the implant geometry for bone grafting even for metal implants. Such room is further reduced in the case of PEEK implants because their wall thickness needs to be greater as compared to metal implants due to structural strength needs.
7. Stress Shielding
For fusion to occur, the bone graft packed inside the implant needs to be loaded mechanically. Typically, however, the stiffness of the implant material is much greater than the adjacent vertebral bone and takes up a majority of the mechanical loads, “shielding” the bone graft material from becoming mechanically loaded. The most common solution is to choose a less stiff implant material. Again, this is why PEEK and cadaver bone have become the most common materials for spinal fusion implants. As noted above, although harder than cancellous bone, PEEK is softer than cortical bone.
8. Lack of Implant Incorporation with Vertebral Bone
In most cases, the typical fusion implant is not able to incorporate with the vertebral bone, even years after implantation. Such inability persists despite the use of a variety of different materials to construct the implants. There is a perception that cadaver bone is resorbable and will be replaced by new bone once it resorbs. HEDROCEL® porous tantalum (Zimmer Trabecular Metal Technology, Inc., Allendale, N.J.) is a composite material composed of carbon and tantalum, an inert metal, that has been used as a material for spinal fusion implants. HEDROCEL® porous tantalum (Zimmer Trabecular Metal Technology, Inc., Allendale, N.J.) is designed to allow bone in-growth into the implant. In contrast, PEEK has been reported to become surrounded by fibrous tissue which precludes it from incorporating with surrounding bone. There have also been reports of the development of new bio-active materials which can incorporate into bone. The application of such bio-active materials has been limited, however, for several reasons, including biocompatibility, structural strength, and lack of regulatory approval.
9. Limitations on Radiographic Visualization
For implants made out of metal, the metal prevents adequate radiographic visualization of the bone graft. Hence it is difficult to assess fusion, if it is to take place. PEEK is radiolucent. Traditional implants made of PEEK need to have radiographic markers embedded into the implants so that implant position can be tracked on an X-ray. Cadaver bone has some radiopacity and does not interfere with radiographic assessment as much as metal implants.
10. Cost of Manufacture and Inventory
The requirements of spinal surgery dictate that manufacturers provide implants of various foot-prints, and several heights in each foot-print. This requirement means that the manufacturer needs to carry a significant amount of inventory of implants. Because there are so many different sizes of implants, there are setup costs involved in the manufacture of each different size. The result is increased implant costs, which the manufacturers pass along to the end users by charging high prices for spinal fusion implants.
The present invention is directed to interbody spinal implants and to methods of using such implants. The implants can be inserted, using methods of the present invention, from a variety of vantages, including anterior, antero-lateral, and lateral implantation. Certain embodiments of the present invention provide an anatomically shaped spinal implant for improved seating in the disc space, particularly in the medial-lateral aspect of the disc space, and improved utilization of the vertebral apophyseal rim. Certain embodiments of the present invention further have a highly radiused posterior portion and sides which allow for ease of implantation. Thus, the posterior portion may have a generally blunt nosed profile. Certain embodiments also allow for improved visualization of the disc space during surgical procedures while minimizing exposure of the operating space. Certain aspects of the invention reduce the need for additional instrumentation—such as chisels, reamers, or other tools—to prepare the vertebral endplate, thus minimizing the instrument load upon the surgeon.
Certain embodiments of the interbody implant are substantially hollow and have a generally oval-shaped transverse cross-sectional area. Substantially hollow, as used in this document, means at least about 33% of the interior volume of the interbody spinal implant is vacant. Further embodiments of the present invention include a body having a top surface, a bottom surface, opposing lateral sides, and opposing anterior and posterior portions. The implant includes at least one aperture that extends the entire height of the body. Thus, the aperture extends from the top surface to the bottom surface. The implant may further include at least one aperture that extends the entire transverse length of the implant body.
Still further, the substantially hollow portion may be filled with cancellous autograft bone, allograft bone, demineralized bone matrix (DBM), porous synthetic bone graft substitute, bone morphogenic protein (BMP), or combinations of those materials. The implant further includes a roughened surface topography on at least a portion of its top surface, its bottom surface, or both surfaces. The anterior portion, or trailing edge, of the implant is preferably generally greater in height than the opposing posterior portion, or leading edge. In other words, the trailing edge is taller than the leading edge. The posterior portion and lateral sides may also be generally smooth and highly radiused, thus allowing for easier implantation into the disc space. Thus, the posterior portion may have a blunt nosed profile. The anterior portion of the implant may preferably be configured to engage a delivery device, a driver, or other surgical tools. The anterior portion may also be substantially flat.
According to certain embodiments, the present invention provides an interbody spinal implant including a body having a top surface, a bottom surface, opposing lateral sides, opposing anterior and posterior portions, a substantially hollow center, and a single vertical aperture. The single vertical aperture extends from the top surface to the bottom surface, has a size and shape predetermined to maximize the surface area of the top surface and the bottom surface available proximate the anterior and posterior portions while maximizing both radiographic visualization and access to the substantially hollow center, and defines a transverse rim. The body may be non-metallic and may form one component of a composite implant; the other component is a metal plate disposed on at least one of the top and bottom surfaces of the body.
It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary, but are not restrictive, of the invention.
The invention is best understood from the following detailed description when read in connection with the accompanying drawing. It is emphasized that, according to common practice, the various features of the drawing are not to scale. On the contrary, the dimensions of the various features are arbitrarily expanded or reduced for clarity. Included in the drawing are the following figures:
Certain embodiments of the present invention may be especially suited for placement between adjacent human vertebral bodies. The implants of the present invention may be used in procedures such as Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF), Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF), Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF), and cervical fusion. Certain embodiments do not extend beyond the outer dimensions of the vertebral bodies.
The ability to achieve spinal fusion is directly related to the available vascular contact area over which fusion is desired, the quality and quantity of the fusion mass, and the stability of the interbody spinal implant. Interbody spinal implants, as now taught, allow for improved seating over the apophyseal rim of the vertebral body. Still further, interbody spinal implants, as now taught, better utilize this vital surface area over which fusion may occur and may better bear the considerable biomechanical loads presented through the spinal column with minimal interference with other anatomical or neurological spinal structures. Even further, interbody spinal implants, according to certain aspects of the present invention, allow for improved visualization of implant seating and fusion assessment. Interbody spinal implants, as now taught, may also facilitate osteointegration with the surrounding living bone.
Anterior interbody spinal implants in accordance with certain aspects of the present invention can be preferably made of a durable material such as stainless steel, stainless steel alloy, titanium, or titanium alloy, but can also be made of other durable materials such as, but not limited to, polymeric, ceramic, and composite materials. For example, certain embodiments of the present invention may be comprised of a biocompatible, polymeric matrix reinforced with bioactive fillers, fibers, or both. Certain embodiments of the present invention may be comprised of urethane dimethacrylate (DUDMA)/tri-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEDGMA) blended resin and a plurality of fillers and fibers including bioactive fillers and E-glass fibers. Durable materials may also consist of any number of pure metals, metal alloys, or both. Titanium and its alloys are generally preferred for certain embodiments of the present invention due to their acceptable, and desirable, strength and biocompatibility. In this manner, certain embodiments of the present interbody spinal implant may have improved structural integrity and may better resist fracture during implantation by impact. Interbody spinal implants, as now taught, may therefore be used as a distractor during implantation.
Referring now to the drawing, in which like reference numbers refer to like elements throughout the various figures that comprise the drawing,
Certain embodiments of the interbody spinal implant 1 are substantially hollow and have a generally oval-shaped transverse cross-sectional area with smooth, rounded, or both smooth and rounded lateral sides and posterior-lateral corners. As used in this document, “substantially hollow” means at least about 33% of the interior volume of the interbody spinal implant 1 is vacant. The implant 1 includes at least one vertical aperture 60 that extends the entire height of the implant body. As illustrated in the top view of
In at least one embodiment, the opposing lateral sides 30 and the anterior portion 40 have a rim thickness of about 5 mm, while the posterior portion 50 has a rim thickness of about 7 mm. Thus, the rim posterior portion thickness 55 may allow for better stress sharing between the implant 1 and the adjacent vertebral endplates and helps to compensate for the weaker posterior endplate bone. In certain embodiments, the transverse rim 100 has a generally large surface area and contacts the vertebral endplate. The transverse rim 100 may act to better distribute contact stresses upon the implant 1, and hence minimize the risk of subsidence while maximizing contact with the apophyseal supportive bone. It is also possible for the transverse rim 100 to have a substantially constant thickness (i.e., for the anterior portion thickness 45 to be substantially the same as the posterior portion thickness 55) or, in fact, for the posterior portion 50 to have a rim thickness less than that of the opposing lateral sides 30 and the anterior portion 40. Some studies have challenged the characterization of the posterior endplate bone as weaker.
It is generally believed that the surface of an implant determines its ultimate ability to integrate into the surrounding living bone. Without being limited by theory, it is hypothesized that the cumulative effects of at least implant composition, implant surface energy, and implant surface roughness play a major role in the biological response to, and osteointegration of, an implant device. Thus, implant fixation may depend, at least in part, on the attachment and proliferation of osteoblasts and like-functioning cells upon the implant surface. Still further, it appears that these cells attach more readily to relatively rough surfaces rather than smooth surfaces. In this manner, a surface may be bioactive due to its ability to facilitate cellular attachment and osteointegration. The surface roughened topography 80 may better promote the osteointegration of certain embodiments of the present invention. The surface roughened topography 80 may also better grip the vertebral endplate surfaces and inhibit implant migration upon placement and seating.
Accordingly, the implant 1 further includes the roughened topography 80 on at least a portion of its top and bottom surfaces 10, 20 for gripping adjacent bone and inhibiting migration of the implant 1. The roughened topography 80 may be obtained through a variety of techniques including, without limitation, chemical etching, shot peening, plasma etching, laser etching, or abrasive blasting (such as sand or grit blasting). In at least one embodiment, the interbody spinal implant 1 may be comprised of titanium, or a titanium alloy, having the surface roughened topography 80. The surfaces of the implant 1 are preferably bioactive.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the roughened topography 80 is obtained via the repetitive masking and chemical or electrochemical milling processes described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,258,098; U.S. Pat. No. 5,507,815; U.S. Pat. No. 5,922,029; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,193,762. Each of these patents is incorporated in this document by reference. Where the invention employs chemical etching, the surface is prepared through an etching process which utilizes the random application of a maskant and subsequent etching of the metallic substrate in areas unprotected by the maskant. This etching process is repeated a number of times as necessitated by the amount and nature of the irregularities required for any particular application. Control of the strength of the etchant material, the temperature at which the etching process takes place, and the time allotted for the etching process allow fine control over the resulting surface produced by the process. The number of repetitions of the etching process can also be used to control the surface features.
By way of example, an etchant mixture of nitric acid (HNO3) and hydrofluoric (HF) acid may be repeatedly applied to a titanium surface to produce an average etch depth of about 0.53 mm. Interbody spinal implants, in accordance with preferred embodiments of the present invention, may be comprised of titanium, or a titanium alloy, having an average surface roughness of about 100 μm. Surface roughness may be measured using a laser profilometer or other standard instrumentation.
In another example, chemical modification of the titanium implant surfaces can be achieved using HF and a combination of hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid (HCl/H2SO4). In a dual acid etching process, the first exposure is to HF and the second is to HCl/H2SO4. Chemical acid etching alone of the titanium implant surface has the potential to greatly enhance osteointegration without adding particulate matter (e.g., hydroxyapatite) or embedding surface contaminants (e.g., grit particles).
Certain embodiments of the implant 1 are generally shaped to reduce the risk of subsidence, and improve stability, by maximizing contact with the apophyseal rim of the vertebral endplates. Embodiments may be provided in a variety of anatomical footprints having a medial-lateral width ranging from about 32 mm to about 44 mm. Interbody spinal implants, as now taught, generally do not require extensive supplemental or obstructive implant instrumentation to maintain the prepared disc space during implantation. Thus, the interbody spinal implant 1 and associated implantation methods, according to presently preferred aspects of the present invention, allow for larger sized implants as compared with the size-limited interbody spinal implants known in the art. This advantage allows for greater medial-lateral width and correspondingly greater contact with the apophyseal rim.
The opening 90 has a number of functions. One function is to facilitate manipulation of the implant 1 by the caretaker. Thus, the caretaker may insert a surgical tool into the opening 90 and, through the engagement between the surgical tool and the opening 90, manipulate the implant 1. The opening 90 may be threaded to enhance the engagement.
The implant 1 may further include at least one transverse aperture 70 that extends the entire transverse length of the implant body. As shown in
The anterior portion 40, or trailing edge, of the implant 1 is preferably generally greater in height than the opposing posterior portion 50. Accordingly, the implant 1 may have a lordotic angle to facilitate sagittal alignment. The implant 1 may better compensate, therefore, for the generally less supportive bone found in the posterior regions of the vertebral endplate. The posterior portion 50 of the interbody implant 1, preferably including the posterior-lateral corners, may also be highly radiused, thus allowing for ease of implantation into the disc space. Thus, the posterior portion 50 may have a generally blunt nosed profile. The anterior portion 40 of the implant 1 may also preferably be configured to engage a delivery device, driver, or other surgical tool (and, therefore, may have an opening 90).
As illustrated in
Certain embodiments of the present invention are particularly suited for use during interbody spinal implant procedures (or vertebral body replacement procedures) and may act as a final distractor during implantation, thus minimizing the instrument load upon the surgeon. For example, in such a surgical procedure, the spine may first be exposed via an anterior approach and the center of the disc space identified. The disc space is then initially prepared for implant insertion by removing vertebral cartilage. Soft tissue and residual cartilage may then also be removed from the vertebral endplates.
Vertebral distraction may be performed using trials of various-sized embodiments of the interbody spinal implant 1. The determinatively sized interbody implant 1 may then be inserted in the prepared disc space for final placement. The distraction procedure and final insertion may also be performed under fluoroscopic guidance. The substantially hollow area within the implant body may optionally be filled, at least partially, with bone fusion-enabling materials such as, without limitation, cancellous autograft bone, allograft bone, DBM, porous synthetic bone graft substitute, BMP, or combinations of those materials. Such bone fusion-enabling material may be delivered to the interior of the interbody spinal implant 1 using a delivery device mated with the opening 90 in the anterior portion 40 of the implant 1. Interbody spinal implants 1, as now taught, are generally larger than those currently known in the art, and therefore have a correspondingly larger hollow area which may deliver larger volumes of fusion-enabling bone graft material. The bone graft material may be delivered such that it fills the full volume, or less than the full volume, of the implant interior and surrounding disc space appropriately.
As noted above,
Certain embodiments of the interbody spinal implant 101 are substantially hollow and have a generally rectangular shape with smooth, rounded, or both smooth and rounded lateral sides and anterior-lateral corners. As best shown in
As illustrated in
The implant 101 includes at least one vertical aperture 160 that extends the entire height of the implant body. As illustrated in the top view of
In the particular example shown in
The vertical aperture 160 tapers from its center to its ends along a longitudinal distance of about 7.75 mm (thus, the total length of the vertical aperture 160 is about 15.5 mm). This shape leaves intact much of the rim thickness 200 in the areas around the ends of the vertical aperture 160. These areas may allow for better stress sharing between the implant 101 and the adjacent vertebral endplates. Thus, the transverse rim 200 has a generally large surface area and contacts the vertebral endplate.
As illustrated in
The implant 101 may also have an Implant Holding Feature (IHF) 194 instead of or in addition to the opening 190. As illustrated in
The implant 101 may further include at least one transverse aperture 170. Like the vertical aperture 160, the size and shape of the transverse aperture 170 are carefully chosen (and predetermined) to achieve a preferable design trade off for the particular application envisioned for the implant 101. Specifically, the transverse aperture 170 should have minimal dimensions to maximize the strength and structural integrity of the implant 101. On the other hand, the transverse aperture 70 should have maximum dimensions to (a) improve the visibility of the implant 101 during surgical procedures to ensure proper implant placement and seating, and to improve post-operative assessment of implant fusion, and (b) to facilitate engagement between bone graft material and adjacent bone. The substantially hollow area defined by the implant 101 may be filled with bone graft materials to facilitate the formation of a solid fusion column within the spine of a patient.
As shown in
As illustrated in
The embodiment of the present invention illustrated in
By removing the entire facet joint, visualization into the disc space is improved and more disc material can be removed. Such removal should also provide for less nerve retraction. Because one entire facet is removed, the TLIF procedure is only done on one side: removing the facet joints on both sides of the spine would result in too much instability. With increased visualization and room for dissection, one or both of a larger implant and more bone graft can be used in the TLIF procedure. Theoretically, these advantages can allow the spine surgeon to distract the disc space more and realign the spine better (re-establish the normal lumbar lordosis).
Although the TLIF procedure offers some improvements over a PLIF procedure, the anterior approach in most cases still provides the best visualization, most surface area for healing, and the best reduction of any of the approaches to the disc space. These advantages must be weighed, however, against the increased morbidity (e.g., unwanted aftereffects and postoperative discomfort) of a second incision. Probably the biggest determinate in how the disc space is approached is the comfort level that the spine surgeon has with an anterior approach for the spine fusion surgery. Not all spine surgeons are comfortable with operating around the great vessels (aorta and vena cava) or have access to a skilled vascular surgeon to help them with the approach. Therefore, choosing one of the posterior approaches for the spine fusion surgery is often a more practical solution.
The embodiment of the present invention illustrated in
There are several differences, however, between the two embodiments. For example, unlike the substantially rectangular shape of the implant 101, the implant 101a has a curved shape. Further, the chamfers 106 and sharp edges 108 of the implant 101 are replaced by curves or rounded edges for the implant 101a. Still further, the TLIF procedure often permits use of a larger implant 101a which, in turn, may affect the size and shape of the predetermined vertical aperture 160a.
The effect of the larger (relative to the implant 101) implant 101a is shown in
The implant 101a may also have a lordotic angle to facilitate alignment. As illustrated in
As shown in
The intermediate wall 172a may be made of the same material as the remainder of the implant 101a (e.g., metal), or it may be made of another material (e.g., PEEK) to form a composite implant 101a. It is also possible to extend the intermediate wall 172a, whether made of metal, PEEK, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), or another material, to eliminate entirely the transverse aperture 170a. Given the reinforcement function of the intermediate wall 172a, the length of the vertical aperture 160a can be extended (as shown in
Also important is that the top surface 110a of the implant 101a shown in
Another embodiment of a composite implant 101a is illustrated in
Thus, the composite implant 101a combines the benefits of two, separate components: a body 152 and a plate 162. The composite structure of implant 101a advantageously permits the engineering designer of the implant 101a to balance the mechanical characteristics of the overall implant 101a. This allows the implant 101a to achieve the best balance, for example, of strength, resistance to subsidence, and stress transfer to bone graft. Moreover, although it is a relatively wide device designed to engage the ends of the vertebrae, the implant 101a can be inserted with minimal surgical modification. This combination of size and minimal surgical modification is advantageous.
The two components that form the composite implant 101a must be connected. As illustrated in
Any suitable connection mechanism, as would be known to an artisan, will suffice to install the plate 162 on the recessed upper surface 154 of the body 152. One connection mechanism is illustrated in
As shown in
The embodiments of the present invention described above are best suited for one or more of the ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF surgical procedures. Another embodiment of the present invention is better suited for cervical fusion procedures. This embodiment is illustrated in
Because there is not a lot of disc material between the vertebral bodies in the cervical spine, the discs are usually not very large. The space available for the nerves is also not that great, however, which means that even a small cervical disc herniation may impinge on the nerve and cause significant pain. There is also less mechanical load on the discs in the cervical spine as opposed to the load that exists lower in the spine. Among others, these differences have ramifications for the design of the implant 201.
The implant 201 is generally smaller in size than the other implant embodiments. In addition, the lower mechanical load requirements imposed by the cervical application typically render a composite implant unnecessary. Therefore, the implant 201 is generally made entirely of metal (e.g., titanium) and devoid of other materials (e.g., PEEK).
With specific reference to
The implant 201 includes at least one vertical aperture 260 that extends the entire height of the implant body. The vertical aperture 260 further defines a transverse rim 300. The size and shape of the vertical aperture 260 are carefully chosen to achieve a preferable design trade off for the particular application envisioned for the implant 201. Specifically, the vertical aperture 260 seeks to maximize the surface area of the top surface 210 and the bottom surface 220, to allow for better stress sharing between the implant 201 and the adjacent vertebral endplates, while maximizing access to the bone graft material provided within the implant 201. Thus, the size and shape of the vertical aperture 260 are predetermined by the application.
As illustrated in
The implant 201 may further include at least one transverse aperture 270. Like the vertical aperture 260, the size and shape of the transverse aperture 270 are carefully chosen (and predetermined) to achieve a preferable design trade off for the particular application envisioned for the implant 201. For example, as shown in
As illustrated in
Alternative shapes for the implant 201 are possible. As illustrated in
The implant 201 may also have a lordotic angle to facilitate alignment. As illustrated in
Certain embodiments of the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 are generally shaped (i.e., made wide) to maximize contact with the apophyseal rim of the vertebral endplates. They are designed to be impacted between the endplates, with fixation to the endplates created by an interference fit and annular tension. Thus, the implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201 are shaped and sized to spare the vertebral endplates and leave intact the hoop stress of the endplates. A wide range of sizes are possible to capture the apophyseal rim, along with a broad width of the peripheral rim, especially in the posterior region. It is expected that such designs will lead to reduced subsidence. As much as seven degrees of lordosis (or more) may be built into the implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201 to help restore cervical balance.
When endplate-sparing spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 seats in the disc space against the apophyseal rim, it should still allow for deflection of the endplates like a diaphragm. This means that, regardless of the stiffness of the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201, the bone graft material inside the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 receives load, leading to healthy fusion. The vertical load in the human spine is transferred though the peripheral cortex of the vertebral bodies. By implanting an apophyseal-supporting inter-body implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201, the natural biomechanics may be better preserved than for conventional devices. If this is true, the adjacent vertebral bodies should be better preserved by the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201, hence reducing the risk of adjacent segment issues.
In addition, the dual-acid etched roughened topography 80, 180, 180a, and 280 of the top surface 30, 130, 130a, and 230 and the bottom surface 40, 140, 140a, and 240 along with the broad surface area of contact with the end-plates, is expected to yield a high pull-out force in comparison to conventional designs. As enhanced by the sharp edges 8 and 108, a pull-out strength of up to 3,000 nt may be expected. The roughened topography 80, 180, 180a, and 280 creates a biological bond with the end-plates over time, which should enhance the quality of fusion to the bone. Also, the in-growth starts to happen much earlier than the bony fusion. The center of the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 remains open to receive bone graft material and enhance fusion. Therefore, it is possible that patients might be able to achieve a full activity level sooner than for conventional designs.
The spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 according to the present invention offers several advantages relative to conventional devices. Such conventional devices include, among others, ring-shaped cages made of allograft bone material, threaded titanium cages, and ring-shaped cages made of PEEK or carbon fiber. Several of the advantages are summarized with respect to each conventional device, in turn, as follows.
1. Advantages Over Allograft Bone Material Cages
The spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is easier to use than ring-shaped cages made of allograft bone material. For example, it is easier to prepare the graft bed, relative to the allograft cage, for the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201. And ring allograft cages typically are not sufficiently wide to be implanted on the apophasis. The spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 offers a large internal area for bone graft material and does not require graft preparation, cutting, or trimming. The central aperture 60, 160, 160a, and 260 of the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 can be filled with cancellous allograft, porous synthetic bone graft substitute (such as the material offered by Orthovita, Inc., Malvern, Pa., under the Vitoss trademark), or BMP. The process of healing the bone can proceed by intra-membranous ossification rather than the much slower process of enchondral ossification.
The spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is generally stronger than allograft cages. In addition, the risk of osteolysis (or, more generally, disease transmission) is minimal with the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 because titanium is osteocompatible. The titanium of the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is unaffected by BMP; there have been reports that BMP causes resorption of allograft bone.
2. Advantages Over Threaded Titanium Cages
In contrast to conventional treaded titanium cages, which offer little bone-to-bone contact (about 9%), the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 has a much higher bone-to-bone contact area and commensurately little metal-to-bone interface. Unlike threaded titanium cages which have too large a diameter, the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 can be relatively easily used in “tall” disc spaces. The spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 can also be used in either a “stand alone” manner in collapsed discs or as an adjunct to a 360-degree fusion providing cervical column support.
The spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 offers safety advantages over conventional threaded titanium cages. The spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is also easier to implant, avoiding the tubes necessary to insert some conventional cages, and easier to center. Without having to put a tube into the disc space, the vein can be visualized by both the spine surgeon and the vascular surgeon while working with the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201. Anterior-posterior (AP) fluoroscopy can easily be achieved with trial before implanting the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201, ensuring proper placement. The smooth and rounded edges of the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 facilitate insertion and enhance safety. No reaming of the endplate, which weakens the interface between the endplate and the cage, is necessary for the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201. Therefore, no reamers or taps are generally needed to insert and position the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201.
3. Advantages Over PEEK/Carbon Fiber Cages
Cages made of PEEK or carbon fiber cannot withstand the high impact forces needed for implantation, especially in a collapsed disc or spondylolisthesis situation, without secondary instruments. In contrast, the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 avoids the need for secondary instruments. Moreover, relative to PEEK or carbon fiber cages, the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 provides better distraction through endplate sparing and being designed to be implanted on the apophysis (the bony protuberance of the human spine). The titanium of the top surface 10, 110, 110a, and 210 and the bottom plate 20, 120, 120a, and 220 of the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 binds to bone with a mechanical (knawling) and a chemical (a hydrophilic) bond. In contrast, bone repels PEEK and such incompatibility can lead to locked pesudoarthrosis.
The following examples of surgical methods are included to more clearly demonstrate the overall nature of the invention. These examples are exemplary, not restrictive, of the invention.
Certain embodiments of the present invention are particularly suited for use during interbody spinal implant procedures currently known in the art. For example, the disc space may be accessed using a standard mini open retroperitoneal laparotomy approach. The center of the disc space is located by AP fluoroscopy taking care to make sure the pedicles are equidistant from the spinous process. The disc space is then incised by making a window in the annulus for insertion of certain embodiments of the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 (a 32 or 36 mm window in the annulus is typically suitable for insertion). The process according to the present invention minimizes, if it does not eliminate, the cutting of bone. The endplates are cleaned of all cartilage with a curette, however, and a size-specific rasp (or broach) may then be used.
Use of a size-specific rasp 14, as shown in
During traditional fusion procedures, the vertebral endplate natural arch may be significantly removed due to excessive surface preparation for implant placement and seating. This is especially common where the implant is to be seated near the center of the vertebral endplate or the implant is of relatively small medial-lateral width. Breaching the vertebral endplate natural arch disrupts the biomechanical integrity of the vertebral endplate such that shear stress, rather than hoop stress, acts upon the endplate surface. This redistribution of stresses may result in subsidence of the implant into the vertebral body.
Preferred embodiments of the present surgical method minimize endplate bone removal on the whole, while still allowing for some removal along the vertebral endplate far lateral edges where the subchondral bone is thickest. Still further, certain embodiments of the present interbody spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 include smooth, rounded, and highly radiused posterior portions and lateral sides which may minimize extraneous bone removal for endplate preparation and reduce localized stress concentrations. Thus, interbody surgical implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201 and methods of using them, as now taught, are particularly useful in preserving the natural arch of the vertebral endplate and minimizing the chance of implant subsidence.
Because the endplates are spared during the process of inserting the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201, hoop stress of the inferior and superior endplates is maintained. Spared endplates allow the transfer of axial stress to the apophasis. Endplate flexion allows the bone graft placed in the interior of the spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 to accept and share stress transmitted from the endplates. In addition, spared endplates minimize the concern that BMP might erode the cancellous bone.
Interbody spinal implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201 of the present invention are durable and can be impacted between the endplates with standard instrumentation. Therefore, certain embodiments of the present invention may be used as the final distractor during implantation. In this manner, the disc space may be under-distracted (e.g., distracted to some height less than the height of the interbody spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201) to facilitate press-fit implantation. Further, certain embodiments of the current invention having a smooth and rounded posterior portion (and lateral sides) may facilitate easier insertion into the disc space. Still further, those embodiments having a surface roughened topography 80, 180, 180a, and 280, as now taught, may lessen the risk of excessive bone removal during distraction as compared to implants having teeth, ridges, or threads currently known in the art even in view of a press-fit surgical distraction method. Nonetheless, once implanted, the interbody surgical implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201, as now taught, may provide secure seating and prove difficult to remove. Thus, certain embodiments of the present interbody spinal implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 may maintain a position between the vertebral endplates due, at least in part, to resultant annular tension attributable to press-fit surgical implantation and, post-operatively, improved osteointegration at the top surface 10, 110, 110a, and 210, the bottom surface 20, 120, 120a, and 220, or both top and bottom surfaces.
As previously mentioned, surgical implants and methods, as now taught, tension the vertebral annulus via distraction. These embodiments and methods may also restore spinal lordosis, thus improving sagittal and coronal alignment. Implant systems currently known in the art require additional instrumentation, such as distraction plugs, to tension the annulus. These distraction plugs require further tertiary instrumentation, however, to maintain the lordotic correction during actual spinal implant insertion. If tertiary instrumentation is not used, then some amount of lordotic correction may be lost upon distraction plug removal. Interbody spinal implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201, according to certain embodiments of the present invention, are particularly advantageous in improving spinal lordosis without the need for tertiary instrumentation, thus reducing the instrument load upon the surgeon. This reduced instrument load may further decrease the complexity, and required steps, of the implantation procedure.
Certain embodiments of the spinal implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201 may also reduce deformities (such as isthmic spondylolythesis) caused by distraction implant methods. Traditional implant systems require secondary or additional instrumentation to maintain the relative position of the vertebrae or distract collapsed disc spaces. In contrast, interbody spinal implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201, as now taught, may be used as the final distractor and thus maintain the relative position of the vertebrae without the need for secondary instrumentation.
Certain embodiments collectively comprise a family of implants, each having a common design philosophy. These implants and the associated surgical technique have been designed to address the ten, separate challenges associated with the current generation of traditional anterior spinal fusion devices listed above in the Background section of this document. Each of these challenges is addressed in turn and in the order listed above.
1. End-Plate Preparation
Embodiments of the present invention allow end-plate preparation with custom-designed rasps 14. These rasps 14 have a geometry matched with the geometry of the implant. The rasps 14 conveniently remove cartilage from the endplates and remove minimal bone, only in the postero-lateral regions of the vertebral end-plates. It has been reported in the literature that the end-plate is the strongest in postero-lateral regions.
2. Implant Difficulty
After desired annulotomy and discectomy, embodiments of the present invention first adequately distract the disc space by inserting (through impaction) and removing sequentially larger sizes of very smooth distractors, which have size matched with the size of the available implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201. Once adequate distraction is achieved, the surgeon prepares the end-plate with a size-specific rasp 14. There is no secondary instrumentation required to keep the disc space distracted while the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is inserted, as the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 has sufficient mechanical strength that it is impacted into the disc space. In fact, the height of the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is about 1 mm greater than the height of the rasp 14 used for end-plate preparation, to create some additional tension in the annulus by implantation, which creates a stable implant construct in the disc space.
The implant geometry has features which allow it to be implanted via any one of an anterior, antero-lateral, or lateral approach, providing tremendous intra-operative flexibility of options. The implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is designed such that all the impact loads are applied only to the titanium part of the construct. Thus, the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 has adequate strength to allow impact. The sides of the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 have smooth surfaces to allow for easy implantation and, specifically, to prevent “binding” of the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 to soft tissues during implantation.
3. Materials of Construction
The present invention encompasses a number of different implants 1, 101, 101a, and 201, including a one-piece, titanium-only implant and a composite implant formed of top and bottom plates 162 (components) made out of titanium. The surfaces exposed to the vertebral body are dual acid etched to allow for bony in-growth over time, and to provide resistance against expulsion. The top and bottom titanium plates 162 are assembled together with the implant body 152 that is injection molded with PEEK. The net result is a composite implant 101a that has engineered stiffness for its clinical application. The axial load is borne by the PEEK component of the construct.
It is believed that an intact vertebral end-plate deflects like a diaphragm under axial compressive loads generated due to physiologic activities. If a spinal fusion implant is inserted in the prepared disc space via a procedure which does not destroy the end-plates, and if the implant contacts the end-plates only peripherally, the central dome of the end-plates can still deflect under physiologic loads. This deflection of the dome can pressurize the bone graft material packed inside the spinal implant, hence allowing it to heal naturally. The implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 designed according to certain embodiments of the present invention allows the vertebral end-plate to deflect and allows healing of the bone graft into fusion.
4. Implant Expulsion
Certain faces of the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 according to certain embodiments of the present invention have sharp edges 8, 180. These edges 8, 180 tend to dig “into” the end-plates slightly and help to resist expulsion. The top and bottom surfaces of the implant are made out of titanium and are dual acid etched. The dual acid etching process creates a highly roughened texture on these surfaces, which generates tremendous resistance to expulsion. The width of these dual acid etched surfaces is very broad and creates a large area of contact with the vertebral end-plates, further increasing the resistance to expulsion.
5. Implant Subsidence
The implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 according to certain embodiments of the present invention has a large foot-print, and offers several sizes. Because there is no secondary instrument required to maintain distraction during implantation, all the medial-lateral (ML) exposure is available as implantable ML width of the implant. This feature allows the implant to contact the vertebral end-plates at the peripheral apophyseal rim, where the end-plates are the strongest and least likely to subside.
Further, there are no teeth on the top and bottom surfaces (teeth can create stress risers in the end-plate, encouraging subsidence). Except for certain faces, all the implant surfaces have heavily rounded edges, creating a low stress contact with the end-plates. The wide rim of the top and bottom surfaces, in contact with the end-plates, creates a low-stress contact due to the large surface area. Finally, the implant construct has an engineered stiffness to minimize the stiffness mismatch with the vertebral body which it contacts.
6. Insufficient Room for Bone Graft
As mentioned, the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 according to certain embodiments of the present invention has a large foot-print. In addition, titanium provides high strength for a small volume. In combination, the large foot-print along with the engineered use of titanium allows for a large volume of bone graft to be placed inside the implant.
7. Stress Shielding
As stated above, it is believed that an intact vertebral end-plate deflects like a diaphragm under axial compressive loads generated due to physiologic activities. If a spinal fusion implant is inserted in the prepared disc space via a procedure which does not destroy the end-plate, and if the implant contacts the end-plates only peripherally, the central dome of the end-plates can still deflect under physiologic loads. This deflection of the dome can pressurize the bone graft material packed inside the spinal implant, hence allowing it to heal naturally. The implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 according to certain embodiments of the present invention allows the vertebral end-plate to deflect and facilitates healing of the bone graft into fusion.
8. Lack of Implant Incorporation with Vertebral Bone
The top and bottom surfaces of the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 according to certain embodiments of the present invention are made of titanium and are dual acid etched. The dual acid etched surface treatment of titanium allows in-growth of bone to the surfaces. Hence, the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 is designed to incorporate with the vertebral bone over time. It may be that the in-growth happens sooner than fusion. If so, there may be an opportunity for the patients treated with the implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 of the present invention to return to normal activity levels sooner than currently recommended by standards of care.
9. Limitations on Radiographic Visualization
Even the titanium-only embodiment of the present invention has been designed with large windows to allow for radiographic evaluation of fusion, both through AP and lateral X-rays. The composite implant 101a minimizes the volume of titanium, and localizes it to the top and bottom surfaces. The rest of the implant 101a is made of PEEK which is radiolucent and allows for free radiographic visualization.
10. Cost of Manufacture and Inventory
The cost to manufacture a single implant 1, 101, 101a, and 201 according to the present invention is comparable to the cost to manufacture commercially available products. But a typical implant set for a conventional device can have three foot-prints and ten heights for each foot-print. Therefore, to produce one set, the manufacturer has to make thirty different setups if the implants are machined. In contrast, for the composite embodiment according to certain embodiments of the present invention, the manufacturer will have to machine only three sets of metal plates, which is six setups. The PEEK can be injection molded between the metal plates separated by the distance dictated by the height of the implant 101a. Once the injection molds are made, the subsequent cost of injection molding is considerably less as compared to machining. This feature of the present invention can lead to considerable cost savings.
In addition, a significant expense associated with a dual acid etched part is the rate of rejects due to acid leaching out to surfaces which do not need to be etched. In the case of the composite implant 101a according to certain embodiments of the present invention, the criteria for acceptance of such a part will be lower because the majority of the surfaces are covered with PEEK via injection molding after the dual acid etching process step. This feature can yield significant manufacturing-related cost savings.
Although illustrated and described above with reference to certain specific embodiments and examples, the present invention is nevertheless not intended to be limited to the details shown. Rather, various modifications may be made in the details within the scope and range of equivalents of the claims and without departing from the spirit of the invention. It is expressly intended, for example, that all ranges broadly recited in this document include within their scope all narrower ranges which fall within the broader ranges. In addition, features of one embodiment may be incorporated into another embodiment.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/929,927 which was filed on Jun. 28, 2013 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,834,571 on Sep. 16, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/572,077 which was filed on Aug. 10, 2012, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,496,710 on Jul. 30, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/151,198, which was filed on May 5, 2008, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,262,737 on Sep. 11, 2012, and is a of continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/123,359, which was filed on May 6, 2005 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,662,186 on Feb. 16, 2010, the contents of each are incorporated by reference into this document, in their entirety and for all purposes.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4314876 | Kremer et al. | Feb 1982 | A |
| 4834757 | Brantigan | May 1989 | A |
| 4904261 | Dove et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
| 5015247 | Michelson | May 1991 | A |
| 5071437 | Steffee | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5258098 | Wagner et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5306308 | Gross et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5306309 | Wagner et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5425772 | Brantigan | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5443514 | Steffee | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5456723 | Steinemann et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5507815 | Wagner et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5571188 | Ellingsen et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5603338 | Beaty | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5609635 | Michelson | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5702449 | McKay | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5755798 | Papavero et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5766252 | Henry | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5776199 | Michelson | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5860973 | Michelson | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5863201 | Lazzara et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5865845 | Thalgott | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5876453 | Beaty | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5885079 | Niznick | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5888224 | Beckers et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5922029 | Wagner et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5968098 | Winslow | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5984922 | McKay | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6033582 | Lee et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6039762 | McKay | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6059829 | Schlaepfer et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6080158 | Lin | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6086613 | Camino et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6096107 | Caracostas et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6123705 | Michelson | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6143032 | Schafer et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6176882 | Biedermann et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6183255 | Oshida | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6193757 | Foley et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6193762 | Wagner et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6241770 | Michelson | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6241771 | Gresser et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6245108 | Biscup | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6296664 | Middleton | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6302914 | Michelson | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6342074 | Simpson | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6344057 | Rabbe et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6350283 | Michelson | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6375681 | Truscott | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6387130 | Stone et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6395031 | Foley et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6423095 | Van Hoeck et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6425920 | Hamada | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6432140 | Lin | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6436102 | Ralph et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6447544 | Michelson | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6458159 | Thalgott | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6478823 | Michelson | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6482233 | Aebi et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6485517 | Michelson | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6491723 | Beaty | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6520993 | James et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
| 6558424 | Thalgott | May 2003 | B2 |
| 6569201 | Moumene et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
| 6579318 | Varga et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6592624 | Fraser et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6599322 | Amrich et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6610089 | Liu et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6620332 | Amrich | Sep 2003 | B2 |
| 6635086 | Lin | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6652765 | Beaty | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6676703 | Biscup | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6702855 | Steinemann et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6719794 | Gerber et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6726720 | Ross et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6730127 | Michelson | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6740118 | Eisermann et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6743231 | Gray et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6758849 | Michelson | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6833006 | Foley et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6890355 | Michelson | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6902581 | Walkenhorst et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6911249 | Wagner et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6923810 | Michelson | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6964687 | Bernard et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6974480 | Messerli et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6981975 | Michelson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7018412 | Ferreira et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7018418 | Amrich et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7041137 | Fulton et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7044972 | Mathys, Jr. et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7048870 | Ellingsen et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7060073 | Frey et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7066961 | Michelson | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7077864 | Byrd, III et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7087085 | Steinemann et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7112224 | Liu et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7128760 | Michelson | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7137997 | Paul | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7141068 | Ross et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7144428 | Anitua | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7166129 | Michelson | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7169183 | Liu et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| D539934 | Blain | Apr 2007 | S |
| 7201775 | Gorensek et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| D541940 | Blain | May 2007 | S |
| 7220280 | Kast et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7223289 | Trieu et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7226480 | Thalgott | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7238186 | Zdeblick et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7244275 | Michelson | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7250060 | Trieu | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7255698 | Michelson | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7288093 | Michelson | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7311734 | Van Hoeck et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| D564095 | Blain | Mar 2008 | S |
| 7347873 | Paul et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| D566276 | Blain | Apr 2008 | S |
| 7368065 | Yang et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7410501 | Michelson | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7501073 | Wen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7503933 | Michelson | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7517363 | Rogers et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| D599019 | Pimenta et al. | Aug 2009 | S |
| 7569074 | Eisermann et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7608107 | Michelson | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7615078 | White et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7655042 | Foley et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7662186 | Bagga et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7662190 | Steinemann et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7744612 | Blain | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7846183 | Blain | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7901462 | Yang et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7998172 | Blain | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8062304 | Blain et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8100955 | Blain et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8142355 | Blain et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8172854 | Blain et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8262737 | Bagga et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 20010014826 | Biedermann et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010016777 | Biscup | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010039454 | Ricci et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010047208 | Michelson | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020049497 | Mason | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087212 | James et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020099443 | Messerli et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020128716 | Cohen et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138142 | Castro et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020156529 | Li et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020161443 | Michelson | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020173854 | Amrich | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020188294 | Couture et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030014116 | Ralph et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030083668 | Rogers et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030105527 | Bresina | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030109928 | Pasquet et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030125739 | Bagga et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030153975 | Byrd, III | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030176925 | Paponneau | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030181980 | Berry et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030181981 | Lemaire | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030187506 | Ross et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191531 | Berry et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040073314 | White et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098131 | Bryan et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040117019 | Trieu et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040117020 | Frey et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122518 | Rhoda | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040127993 | Kast et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153154 | Dinkelacker | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153160 | Carrasco | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162616 | Simonton et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167632 | Wen et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040210309 | Denzer et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040230306 | Hoeck et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040243237 | Unwin | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040265780 | Robb et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040267367 | O'Neil | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050021150 | Michelson | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027360 | Webb et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050038512 | Michelson | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050060034 | Berry et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050075734 | Fulton et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050085913 | Fraser et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050131416 | Jansen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050147942 | Hall | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050159814 | Karahalios | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050161120 | Inagaki et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165483 | Ray et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203630 | Pope et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251257 | Mitchell et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060041313 | Allard et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060093646 | Cima et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060100705 | Puno et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149372 | Paxson et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149376 | Shimp et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167549 | Mathys, Jr. et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190079 | Istephanous et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060219661 | Towse et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235534 | Gertzman et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060265065 | Bagga et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293748 | Alexander et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070010885 | Liu et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070093898 | Schwab et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118220 | Liu et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118223 | Allard et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233247 | Schwab | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233248 | Schwab et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070260320 | Peterman et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070269475 | Gil et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270951 | Davis et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270956 | Heinz | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070282441 | Stream et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070288028 | Gorensek et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070293949 | Salerni et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080014243 | Ellingsen et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080071380 | Sweeney | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080077171 | Blain et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080097610 | Guyer et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080154378 | Pelo | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080195209 | Garcia et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080221689 | Chaput et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080249622 | Gray | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080262623 | Bagga et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080269764 | Blain et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080269806 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080288076 | Soo et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090005784 | Blain et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090005871 | White et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090014243 | Whingham | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090024132 | Blain et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090082819 | Blain et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090088800 | Blain et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090088853 | Ogilvie et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090132048 | Denzer | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090182432 | Zdeblick et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090187247 | Metcalf, Jr. et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204152 | Blain | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090234362 | Blain et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090264928 | Blain | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090276049 | Weiland | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090312837 | Eisermann et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100076559 | Bagga et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100094426 | Grohowski, Jr. et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100121385 | Blain et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100173264 | Fredriksson et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100204798 | Gerbec et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100218854 | Garcia Saban et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100228288 | Blain | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100249937 | Blain et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274286 | Blain et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274358 | Mueller et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100303722 | Jin et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110009965 | Ankem | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110040301 | Blain et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110082503 | Blain | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110190902 | Tong et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110224796 | Weiland et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110230970 | Lynn et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110233169 | Mayfield et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110282454 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20120009341 | Noh et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120046695 | Blain | Feb 2012 | A9 |
| 20120123424 | Blain et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120123548 | Lynn et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120136443 | Wentzel | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120149991 | Blain et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120158056 | Blain | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120158144 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120172991 | Bertele et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120232664 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120239150 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120239151 | Ulrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120239152 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120239153 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120239154 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120245694 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120277876 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120303127 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120303128 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120303129 | Bagga et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120310354 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120312778 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120312779 | Patterson et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120316650 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120316651 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120316653 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130006363 | Ullrich, Jr. et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0599419 | Jun 1994 | EP |
| 0916323 | May 1999 | EP |
| 1449544 | Aug 2004 | EP |
| 2 386 274 | Nov 2011 | EP |
| 08010276 | Jan 1996 | JP |
| 19968010276 | Jan 1996 | JP |
| 2001170092 | Jun 2001 | JP |
| 9706753 | Feb 1997 | WO |
| 9801091 | Jan 1998 | WO |
| 0128469 | Apr 2001 | WO |
| 0170144 | Sep 2001 | WO |
| 0195838 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| 2004041131 | May 2004 | WO |
| 2006081843 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| 2006116306 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| 2006119088 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| 2006121795 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| 2007089905 | Aug 2007 | WO |
| 2008103843 | Aug 2008 | WO |
| 2009006225 | Jan 2009 | WO |
| 2009029458 | Mar 2009 | WO |
| 2009129262 | Oct 2009 | WO |
| 2009140544 | Nov 2009 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Astra Tech Dental, “Nanolevel topographic modifications on the OsseoSpeed surface”, http://shop.dentsplyimplants.us, Mar. 8, 2001. |
| Astra Tech Dental, “OsseoSpeed—more bone more rapidly”, http://shop.dentsplyimplants.us, May 2011. |
| Guo, et al., “The effect of hydrofluoric acid treatment of TiO2 grit blasted titanium implants on adherent osteoblast gene expression in vitro and in vivo”, Biomaterials 28 (Sep. 14, 2007) 5418-5425. |
| He, et al., “Mechanical and Histomorphometric Evaluations of Rough Titanium Implants Treated with Hydrofluoric Acid/Nitric Acid Solution in Rabbit Tibia”, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, Nov. 1, 2011; 26:115-122. |
| Isa, et al., “Effects of Fluoride-Modified Titanium Surfaces on Osteoblast Proliferation and Gene Expression”, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2006; 21:203-211. |
| Lamolle, et al., “The effect of hydrofluoric acid treatment of titanium surface on nanostructural and chemical changes and the growith of MC3T3-E1 cells”, Biomaterials 30 (Nov. 20, 2008) 736-742. |
| Meirelles, et al., “The Effect of Chemical and Nanotopographical Modifications on the Early Stages of Osseointegration”, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2008; 23:641-647. |
| Supplementary Partial European Search Report issued Sep. 27, 2011. |
| Supplementary Partial European Search Report issued Aug. 19, 2011. |
| Variola, et al., “Nanoscale surface modifications of medically relevant metals: state-of-the art and prespectives”, Nanoscale, 2011, 3, 335-353. |
| Wennerberg, et al., “Spontaneously formed nanostructures on titanium surfaces”, Clin. Oral Impl. Res., 2012, 1-7. |
| Wennerberg, A., et al., “Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review”, Clin. Oral Impl. Res., 20 (Suppl. 4), 2009, pp. 172-184. |
| Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/286,813 of Chad J. Patterson, et al., filed Nov. 1, 2011. |
| Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/826,304 of Peter F. Ullrich, Jr., et al., filed Mar. 14, 2013. |
| Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/713,417 of Chad J. Patterson, et al., filed Dec. 13, 2012. |
| Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/784,144 of Peter F. Ullrich, Jr., et al., filed Mar. 4, 2013. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20140350682 A1 | Nov 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13929927 | Jun 2013 | US |
| Child | 14456049 | US | |
| Parent | 13572077 | Aug 2012 | US |
| Child | 13929927 | US | |
| Parent | 12151198 | May 2008 | US |
| Child | 13572077 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11123359 | May 2005 | US |
| Child | 12151198 | US |
