This invention relates generally to the treatment of spinal conditions, and more particularly, to the treatment of spinal stenosis using devices for implantation between adjacent spinous processes.
The clinical syndrome of neurogenic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis is a frequent source of pain in the lower back and extremities, leading to impaired walking, and causing other forms of disability in the elderly. Although the incidence and prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis have not been established, this condition is the most frequent indication of spinal surgery in patients older than 65 years of age.
Lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition of the spine characterized by a narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. With spinal stenosis, the spinal canal narrows and pinches the spinal cord and nerves, causing pain in the back and legs. It is estimated that approximately 5 in 10,000 people develop lumbar spinal stenosis each year. For patients who seek the aid of a physician for back pain, approximately 12%-15% are diagnosed as having lumbar spinal stenosis.
Common treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis include physical therapy (including changes in posture), medication, and occasionally surgery. Changes in posture and physical therapy may be effective in flexing the spine to decompress and enlarge the space available to the spinal cord and nerves—thus relieving pressure on pinched nerves. Medications such as NSAIDS and other anti-inflammatory medications are often used to alleviate pain, although they are not typically effective at addressing spinal compression, which is the cause of the pain.
Surgical treatments are more aggressive than medication or physical therapy, and in appropriate cases surgery may be the best way to achieve lessening of the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. The principal goal of surgery is to decompress the central spinal canal and the neural foramina, creating more space and eliminating pressure on the spinal nerve roots. The most common surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis is direct decompression via a laminectomy and partial facetectomy. In this procedure, the patient is given a general anesthesia as an incision is made in the patient to access the spine. The lamina of one or more vertebrae is removed to create more space for the nerves. The intervertebral disc may also be removed, and the adjacent vertebrae may be fused to strengthen the unstable segments. The success rate of decompressive laminectomy has been reported to be in excess of 65%. A significant reduction of the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis is also achieved in many of these cases.
Alternatively, the vertebrae can be distracted and an interspinous process device implanted between adjacent spinous processes of the vertebrae to maintain the desired separation between the vertebral segments. Such interspinous process devices typically work for their intended purposes, but some could be improved. For example, many currently available interspinous process devices are challenging to properly place between adjacent spinous processes because of the space limitations in that area, which is filled with various muscles, ligaments, bone and other tissue. Some devices require a posterior to anterior approach. These types of devices are undesirable because they require that both the interspinous ligament and the supraspinous ligament be cut, or otherwise manipulated to allow the physician to gain access to the space between adjacent interspinous processes. In any surgical procedure, it is desirable to minimize trauma to surrounding tissue as much as possible in order to minimize recovery time for the patient and to provide the patient with the greatest chance for a successful outcome.
In view of the challenges with interspinous process devices that require a posterior to anterior approach, some devices have been designed that allow for a lateral approach. Some of these devices are significant improvements over those devices that require a direct posterior to anterior approach. However, even some devices that allow for a lateral approach to the space between adjacent spinous processes have challenges. As noted above, the space between adjacent spinous processes is confined. Thus it is difficult for the surgeon to manipulate the device to ensure that it is properly located in the space and to ensure that the device remains properly positioned therein. Where additional manipulation of the device is necessary to ensure that the device remains properly positioned in the desired space, the spatial limitations would be a factor militating against ease of insertion.
Thus, a need exists for improvements in interspinous process devices.
The interspinous process device of this invention includes (i) a main body portion having a shaft that is adapted to be disposed between adjacent spinous processes and a distal retention member adapted to be disposed along a lateral side of a superior spinous process, and an inferior spinous process, and (ii) a proximal retention member adapted to be disposed along an opposite lateral side of the superior spinous process and the inferior spinous process. A damper ring may also be located around the shaft of the main body portion between the proximal and distal retention members for engagement with the superior and inferior spinous processes. The proximal retention member has a central portion that defines a central lumen into which a proximal portion of the shaft of the main body portion may be located. The proximal portion of the shaft and the central lumen are configured so that the proximal retention member is rotatable with respect to the main body portion. Preferably, the length of the major axis of the distal retention member is greater than the distance between adjacent spinous processes when they are distracted to the desired spacing. Preferably, the length of the minor axis of the distal retention member is about equal to the distance between the adjacent spinous processes when they are distracted to the desired spacing.
When the interspinous process device of this invention is in an implantation configuration, the proximal retention member is oriented such that its major axis extends in a direction that is substantially normal to the orientation of the major axis of the distal retention member. When the interspinous process device is in its locked and final configuration, the major axis of the proximal retention member extends in a direction that is substantially aligned with and parallel to the major axis of the distal retention member. The proximal portion of the shaft includes a portion of a locking mechanism that cooperates with a complementary portion formed within the central lumen of the proximal retention member. This locking mechanism ensures that when the major axes of the proximal retention member and the distal retention member extend in a direction that is aligned and parallel to each other, the proximal retention member is locked with respect to the main body portion. Thus, the device can remain fixed in place between adjacent spinous processes such that the shaft and damper ring are disposed between the adjacent spinous processes and are substantially perpendicular to, and cross through, the sagittal plane. In this position, the distal retention member is located along the distal side of the superior and inferior spinous processes and the proximal retention member is located along the proximal side of the superior and inferior spinous processes such that the major axes of the distal and proximal retention members extend in a direction that is generally parallel to the sagittal and coronal planes and generally normal to the axial plane.
With the interspinous process device of this invention in the implantation configuration described above, the distal retention member is inserted through the interspinous ligament, which has been dissected to create an opening therethrough. This allows passage of the distal retention member therethrough, and through the space between adjacent spinous processes with a lateral approach. The distal retention member is oriented such that the major axis of the distal retention member is generally parallel to the axial plane but oriented at an angle to the sagittal and coronal planes. In this orientation, the minor axis is generally parallel to the sagittal plane and coronal plane and generally normal to the axial plane. This ensures that the dimension of the distal retention member along its minor axis does not hinder movement of the interspinous process device of this invention into the space between adjacent spinous processes. The distal retention member thus may be passed through the space between adjacent spinous processes with minimal disruption to the surrounding tissue. Importantly, the supraspinous ligament remains undisturbed during the procedure. It may be necessary for a leading edge of the distal retention member to be first passed through the space between the adjacent interspinous processes, in order to properly position the device. Of course, the orientation of the distal retention member may have to be adjusted in order to be properly placed in position. For example, the distal retention member may have to be rotated around the (i) longitudinal axis of the device, (ii) its major axis, and/or (iii) its minor axis during some part, or all, of the implantation procedure.
Once the distal retention member is adjacent to the distal side of the adjacent spinous processes, the distal retention member may be rotated with respect to the proximal retention member. This locks the distal retention member with respect to the proximal retention member such that the major axis of the proximal retention member and the major axis of the distal retention member extend in a direction that is generally parallel to each other and the sagittal and coronal planes and is generally normal to the axial plane. As noted above, the major axes of the distal retention member and the proximal retention member define a dimension that is greater than the distance between adjacent spinous processes. Preferably the dimension of the proximal retention member along its major axis is greater than the dimension of the distal retention member along its major axis. Of course, the distance between the proximal retention member and the distal retention member should be slightly greater than the distance between the distal side of the adjacent spinous process and the proximal side of the adjacent spinous processes. In this manner, the interspinous process device of this invention is held in place by the proximal and distal retention members and the shaft and/or the damper ring prevents the space between the adjacent spinous processes from collapsing during extension of the spine.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an” and “the” include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, the term “a member” is intended to mean a single member or a combination of members, and “a material” is intended to mean one or more materials, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, the words “proximal” and “distal” refer to directions closer to and away from, respectively, an operator (e.g., surgeon, physician, nurse, technician, etc.) who would insert the medical device into the patient, with the tip-end (i.e., distal end) of the device inserted inside a patient's body first. Thus, for example, the device end first inserted inside the patient's body would be the distal end of the device, while the device end last to enter the patient's body would be the proximal end of the device.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “body” when used in connection with the location where the device of this invention is to be placed to treat lumbar spinal stenosis, or to teach or practice implantation methods for the device, means a mammalian body. For example, a body can be a patient's body, or a cadaver, or a portion of a patient's body or a portion of a cadaver.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “parallel” describes a relationship, given normal manufacturing or measurement or similar tolerances, between two geometric constructions (e.g., two lines, two planes, a line and a plane, two curved surfaces, a line and a curved surface or the like) in which the two geometric constructions are substantially non-intersecting as they extend substantially to infinity. For example, as used herein, a line is said to be parallel to a curved surface when the line and the curved surface do not intersect as they extend to infinity. Similarly, when a planar surface (i.e., a two-dimensional surface) is said to be parallel to a line, every point along the line is spaced apart from the nearest portion of the surface by a substantially equal distance. Two geometric constructions are described herein as being “parallel” or “substantially parallel” to each other when they are nominally parallel to each other, such as for example, when they are parallel to each other within a tolerance. Such tolerances can include, for example, manufacturing tolerances, measurement tolerances or the like.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the terms “normal”, perpendicular” and “orthogonal” describe a relationship between two geometric constructions (e.g., two lines, two planes, a line and a plane, two curved surfaces, a line and a curved surface or the like) in which the two geometric constructions intersect at an angle of approximately 90 degrees within at least one plane. For example, as used herein, a line is said to be normal, perpendicular or orthoganal to a curved surface when the line and the curved surface intersect at an angle of approximately 90 degrees within a plane. Two geometric constructions are described herein as being “normal”, “perpendicular”, “orthogonal” or “substantially normal”, “substantially perpendicular”, “substantially orthogonal” to each other when they are nominally 90 degrees to each other, such as for example, when they are 90 degrees to each other within a tolerance. Such tolerances can include, for example, manufacturing tolerances, measurement tolerances or the like.
The interspinous process device 10 of this invention includes (i) a main body portion 100 having a shaft 120 that is adapted to be disposed between adjacent spinous processes and a distal retention member 110 adapted to be disposed along a lateral side of a superior spinous process and an inferior spinous process, and (ii) a proximal retention member 200 adapted to be disposed along an opposite lateral side of the superior spinous process and the inferior spinous process. A damper ring 20 may also be located around shaft 120 of main body portion 100 between distal retention member 110 and proximal retention member 200. Preferably the proximal portion of shaft 120 has a larger diameter than the remainder of shaft 120 to define a recessed area between distal retention member 110 and the proximal portion of shaft 120 into which damper ring 20 may fit. See e.g.
Distal retention member 110 includes a distal upper wing 111 and a distal lower wing 112. Distal upper wing 111 is adapted to engage a distal side of a superior spinous process when device 10 is appropriately located in the space between adjacent spinous processes such that the longitudinal axis of damper ring 20 is generally perpendicular to the sagittal plane. See for example
The proximal portion of shaft 120 includes a slot 130 that cooperates with a complementary key 230 disposed within central lumen 225 of proximal retention member 200. Preferably two slots 130 are located along the proximal portion of shaft 120 about 180 degrees apart. Even more preferably, slots 130 are aligned 180 degrees apart so that they are aligned along a line extending in a direction substantially parallel to the minor axis A2 of distal retention member 110. A plurality of lugs is also spaced around the periphery of shaft 120 adjacent to its proximal end. Preferably, these lugs are divided into two sets of lugs, which are spaced about 180 degrees apart such that each set is located between the pair of slots 130. As shown, upper lugs 151a and 151b are generally aligned with distal upper wing 111, while lower lugs 152a and 152b are generally aligned with distal lower wing 112. In addition, generally planar surfaces 135 are located along the proximal portion of shaft 120 about 180 degrees apart, with each of planar surfaces 135 located adjacent to one set of lugs between each of slots 130. Stated another way, planar surfaces 135 are substantially aligned along a line extending in a direction substantially parallel to major axis A1.
Proximal retention member 200 includes a proximal upper wing 210 and a proximal lower wing 215, as well as a central portion 220 and central lumen 225. As shown herein, proximal retention member 200 has a generally elliptical configuration with a major axis A3 and a minor axis A4. Proximal retention member 200 is formed as a circumferential bar. However, proximal retention member 200 may have a solid configuration similar to distal retention member 110. In addition, distal retention member 110 may be formed as a circumferential bar similar to proximal retention member 200. Although an elliptical configuration is preferred for the configuration of proximal retention member 200, any other geometrical shape may be used as long as proximal retention member 200 presents a smaller dimension in a first direction than in a direction normal to the first direction. The dimension of proximal retention member 200 along the major axis A3 is greater than the distance between adjacent spinous processes when they are distracted to the desired spacing. The length of proximal retention member 200 along major axis A3 is preferably greater than the length of distal retention member 110 along major axis A1. This greater dimension provides a visual cue for the surgeon so s/he can quickly determine which end is the proximal portion and which end is the distal portion. In addition, it is preferable that distal retention member 110 be relatively small to facilitate implantation of the device. Typically, there is less room on the distal side of the spinous processes for the surgeon to manipulate the device.
A key 230 is formed in central lumen 225 in complementary receiving fashion with respect to slot 130. Preferably two such keys 230 are formed in central lumen 225 and are located about 180 degrees apart along the minor axis A4. This allows keys 230 to be aligned with planar surfaces 135 when the major axis A1 of distal retention member 110 extends in a direction that is normal to the major axis A3 of proximal retention member 200.
An annular groove 250 is formed along an internal surface of central lumen 225 along a proximal portion thereof. Annular groove 250 is formed to act as a guide for lugs 151a, 151b, 152a, and 152b. As such, lugs 151a, 151b, 152a, and 152b fit within annular groove 250 and can move along groove 250 as proximal retention member 200 rotates with respect to main body portion 100 about the longitudinal axis of main body portion 100. Preferably, lugs 151a, 151b, 152a and 152b have tapered proximal ends to facilitate the movement of lugs 151a, 151b, 152a and 152b into annular groove 250 as main body portion 100 is moved in a direction along the longitudinal axis of shaft 120 into engagement with proximal retention member 200 during assembly of device 10. Preferably lugs 151a, 151b, 152a and 152b have a distal end that is substantially perpendicular to planar surface 135. This ensures that lugs 151a, 151b, 152a and 152b are difficult to remove from annular groove 250 and minimizes the possibility that main body portion 100 can be removed from proximal retention member 200 once device 10 is assembled. In addition, lugs 151a and 151b are separated a distance that is at least slightly greater than the width of key 230. Similarly, lugs 152a and 152b are separated a distance that is at least slightly greater than the width of key 230. This allows keys 230 to move past lugs 151a, 151b, 152a and 152b during assembly such that keys 230 are adjacent planar surfaces 135. Planar surfaces 135 provide sufficient space between the wall of central lumen 225 to allow keys 230 and the proximal portion of shaft 120 to fit within central lumen 225.
Key 230 and slot 130 are configured such that key 230 fits snugly within slot 130. Thus, when main body portion 100 is rotated with respect to proximal retention member 200 so that major axis A1 of distal retention member 110 extends in a direction that is aligned with and parallel to the major axis A3 of proximal retention member 200, key 230 drops into slot 130 to lock proximal retention member 200 with respect to main body portion 100. This ensures that when device 10 is in its locked configuration, device 10 can be located between adjacent spinous processes with shaft 120 and damper ring 20 located between adjacent spinous process such that they are substantially perpendicular to and cross the sagittal plane, distal upper wing 111 and distal lower wing 112 are located along the distal portion of the superior and inferior spinous processes respectively, and proximal upper retention member 210 and proximal lower retention member 215 are located along the proximal portion of the superior and inferior spinous processes respectively. This prevents device 10 from migrating from that location after implantation. Although a key and slot locking mechanism is preferred, other locking mechanisms may be used in connection with device 10 as long as the locking mechanism (i) allows relative rotation between main body portion 100 and proximal retention member 200, and (ii) locks main body portion 100 and proximal retention member 200 with respect to each other such that the major axis A1 of distal retention member 110 extends in the same direction as the major axis A3 of proximal retention member 200.
When device 10 is in the implantation configuration as shown for example in
The interspinous ligament is typically dissected with a cutting instrument, such as a simple scalpel, an electrosurgical device or the like, not shown, to create an appropriately sized opening in the interspinous ligament to allow passage of a distal portion of device 10 therethrough. See
With device 10 in the implantation configuration described above, distal retention member 110 is inserted through the opening formed in the interspinous ligament. See
Once distal retention member 110 is adjacent to the distal side of the adjacent spinous processes, see
Device 10 can be constructed with various biocompatible materials such as, for example, titanium, titanium alloy, surgical steel, biocompatible metal alloys, stainless steel, Nitinol, plastic, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), carbon fiber, ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene, and other biocompatible polymeric materials. The material of device 10 can have, for example, a compressive strength similar to or higher than that of bone. In one embodiment, damper ring 20, which is placed between the two adjacent spinous processes, is formed from a material having an elastic modulus higher than the elastic modulus of the bone of the spinous processes. In another embodiment, damper ring 20 is formed from a material having a higher elastic modulus than the materials used to form main body portion 100 and proximal retention member 200. For example, damper ring 20 may have an elastic modulus higher than bone, while main body portion 100 and proximal retention member 100 have a lower elastic modulus than bone. Preferably, damper ring 20 is formed of a compliant material, such as silicone, to dampen the shock when the spinal column is moved into extension.
While various embodiments of the invention have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. The foregoing description of the interspinous process device is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention of the device. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to the practitioner skilled in the art. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the following claims and their equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
624969 | Peterson | May 1899 | A |
1153797 | Kegreisz | Sep 1915 | A |
1516347 | Pataky | Nov 1924 | A |
2077804 | Morrison | Apr 1937 | A |
2299308 | Creighton | Oct 1942 | A |
2485531 | Dzus et al. | Oct 1949 | A |
2607370 | Anderson | Aug 1952 | A |
2677369 | Knowles | May 1954 | A |
2685877 | Dobelle | Aug 1954 | A |
3065659 | Eriksson et al. | Nov 1962 | A |
3426364 | Lumb | Feb 1969 | A |
3648691 | Lumb et al. | Mar 1972 | A |
3779239 | Fischer et al. | Dec 1973 | A |
4011602 | Rybicki et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
4237875 | Termanini | Dec 1980 | A |
4257409 | Bacal et al. | Mar 1981 | A |
4274324 | Giannuzzi | Jun 1981 | A |
4289123 | Dunn | Sep 1981 | A |
4401112 | Rezaian | Aug 1983 | A |
4519100 | Willis et al. | May 1985 | A |
4553273 | Wu | Nov 1985 | A |
4554914 | Kapp et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
4573454 | Hoffman | Mar 1986 | A |
4599086 | Doty | Jul 1986 | A |
4604995 | Stephens et al. | Aug 1986 | A |
4611582 | Duff | Sep 1986 | A |
4632101 | Freedland | Dec 1986 | A |
4636217 | Ogilvie et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4646998 | Pate | Mar 1987 | A |
4657550 | Daher | Apr 1987 | A |
4662808 | Camilleri | May 1987 | A |
4686970 | Dove et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4704057 | McSherry | Nov 1987 | A |
4759769 | Hedman et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4787378 | Sodhi | Nov 1988 | A |
4822226 | Kennedy | Apr 1989 | A |
4827918 | Olerud | May 1989 | A |
4834600 | Lemke | May 1989 | A |
4863476 | Shepperd | Sep 1989 | A |
4886405 | Blomberg | Dec 1989 | A |
4892545 | Day et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
4913144 | Del Medico | Apr 1990 | A |
4931055 | Bumpus et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4932975 | Main et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4969887 | Sodhi | Nov 1990 | A |
5011484 | Breard | Apr 1991 | A |
5047055 | Bao et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5059193 | Kuslich | Oct 1991 | A |
5092866 | Breard et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5098433 | Freedland | Mar 1992 | A |
5171278 | Pisharodi | Dec 1992 | A |
5201734 | Cozad et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5290312 | Kojimoto et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5306275 | Bryan | Apr 1994 | A |
5306310 | Siebels | Apr 1994 | A |
5312405 | Korotko et al. | May 1994 | A |
5360430 | Lin | Nov 1994 | A |
5366455 | Dove | Nov 1994 | A |
5390683 | Pisharodi | Feb 1995 | A |
5395370 | Muller et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5401269 | Buttner-Janz et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5403316 | Ashman | Apr 1995 | A |
5415661 | Holmes | May 1995 | A |
5437672 | Alleyne | Aug 1995 | A |
5437674 | Worcel et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5439463 | Lin | Aug 1995 | A |
5454812 | Lin | Oct 1995 | A |
5458641 | Ramirez Jimenez | Oct 1995 | A |
5474561 | Yao | Dec 1995 | A |
5496318 | Howland et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5518498 | Lindenberg et al. | May 1996 | A |
5554191 | Lahille et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5562662 | Brumfield et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5562735 | Margulies | Oct 1996 | A |
5571192 | Schonhoffer | Nov 1996 | A |
5609634 | Voydeville | Mar 1997 | A |
5609635 | Michelson | Mar 1997 | A |
5628756 | Barker, Jr. et al. | May 1997 | A |
5630816 | Kambin | May 1997 | A |
5645599 | Samani | Jul 1997 | A |
5653762 | Pisharodi | Aug 1997 | A |
5653763 | Errico et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5658335 | Allen | Aug 1997 | A |
5665122 | Kambin | Sep 1997 | A |
5674295 | Ray et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5676702 | Ratron | Oct 1997 | A |
5685826 | Bonutti | Nov 1997 | A |
5690649 | Li | Nov 1997 | A |
5693100 | Pisharodi | Dec 1997 | A |
5702395 | Hopf | Dec 1997 | A |
5702452 | Argenson et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702455 | Saggar | Dec 1997 | A |
5707390 | Bonutti | Jan 1998 | A |
5716416 | Lin | Feb 1998 | A |
5723013 | Jeanson et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5725341 | Hofmeister | Mar 1998 | A |
5746762 | Bass | May 1998 | A |
5755797 | Baumgartner | May 1998 | A |
5800547 | Schafer et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5810815 | Morales | Sep 1998 | A |
5836948 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5849004 | Bramlet | Dec 1998 | A |
5860977 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5888196 | Bonutti | Mar 1999 | A |
5976186 | Bao et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5980523 | Jackson | Nov 1999 | A |
6022376 | Assell et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6048342 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6068630 | Zucherman et al. | May 2000 | A |
6126689 | Brett | Oct 2000 | A |
6126691 | Kasra et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6127597 | Beyar et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6132464 | Martin | Oct 2000 | A |
6190413 | Sutcliffe | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6190414 | Young | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6214050 | Huene | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6293949 | Justis et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6336930 | Stalcup et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6348053 | Cachia | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6352537 | Strnad | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6364883 | Santilli | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6371987 | Weiland et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6375682 | Fleischmann et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6402750 | Atkinson et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6402751 | Hoeck et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6419704 | Ferree | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6440169 | Elberg et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6447513 | Griggs | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6451019 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6520991 | Huene | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6554833 | Levy | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6582433 | Yun | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6582467 | Teitelbaum et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6592585 | Lee et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6626944 | Taylor | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6645207 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6685742 | Jackson | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6695842 | Zucherman et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6709435 | Lin | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6723126 | Berry | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6730126 | Boehm, Jr. et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6733534 | Sherman | May 2004 | B2 |
6736818 | Perren et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6743257 | Castro | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6758863 | Estes et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6761720 | Senegas | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6770096 | Bolger et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6783530 | Levy | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6835205 | Atkinson et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6905512 | Paes et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6946000 | Senegas et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6981975 | Michelson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7011685 | Arnin et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7041136 | Goble et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7048736 | Robinson et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7081120 | Li et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7087083 | Pasquet et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7097648 | Globerman et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7101375 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7163558 | Senegas et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7201751 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7217293 | Branch, Jr. | May 2007 | B2 |
7238204 | Le Couedic et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7306628 | Zucherman et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7335203 | Winslow et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7377942 | Berry | May 2008 | B2 |
7442208 | Mathieu et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7445637 | Taylor | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7458981 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7582106 | Teitelbaum et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7611316 | Panasik et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7988708 | Yeh | Aug 2011 | B2 |
20020143331 | Zucherman et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030040746 | Mitchell et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030065330 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030153915 | Nekozuka et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040097931 | Mitchell | May 2004 | A1 |
20040133204 | Davies | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040167625 | Beyar et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040260397 | Lambrecht et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010293 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050049708 | Atkinson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050165398 | Reiley | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050203512 | Hawkins et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203624 | Serhan et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050228391 | Levy et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050245937 | Winslow | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050261768 | Trieu | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050288672 | Ferree | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060004447 | Mastrorio et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060004455 | Leonard et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015181 | Elberg | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060064165 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060084983 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060084985 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060084987 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060084988 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085069 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085070 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085074 | Raiszadeh | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089654 | Lins et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089719 | Trieu | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095136 | McLuen | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106381 | Ferree et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106397 | Lins | May 2006 | A1 |
20060111728 | Abdou | May 2006 | A1 |
20060116690 | Pagano | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060122620 | Kim | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136060 | Taylor | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060184247 | Edidin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184248 | Edidin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195102 | Malandain | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060217726 | Maxy et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060235387 | Peterman | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235532 | Meunier et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241601 | Trautwein et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241613 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241757 | Anderson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060247623 | Anderson et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060247640 | Blackwell et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060264938 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271044 | Petrini et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271049 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060293662 | Boyer, II et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293663 | Walkenhorst et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070032790 | Aschmann et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043362 | Malandain et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070142915 | Altarac et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070151116 | Malandain | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070162000 | Perkins | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070191838 | Bruneau et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198091 | Boyer et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070225807 | Phan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070233068 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233081 | Pasquet et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233089 | DiPoto et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070265625 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270834 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276369 | Allard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276493 | Malandain et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070282443 | Globerman et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080021457 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080058934 | Malandain et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080161818 | Kloss et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183211 | Lamborne et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183218 | Mueller et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080221685 | Altarac et al. | Sep 2008 | A9 |
20080262617 | Froehlich et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090234389 | Chuang et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090270918 | Attia et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100268277 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2821678 | Nov 1979 | DE |
3922044 | Feb 1991 | DE |
4012622 | Jul 1991 | DE |
0322334 | Feb 1992 | EP |
0767636 | Jan 1999 | EP |
1004276 | May 2000 | EP |
1138268 | Oct 2001 | EP |
1302169 | Apr 2003 | EP |
1330987 | Jul 2003 | EP |
1982664 | Oct 2008 | EP |
2623085 | May 1989 | FR |
2625097 | Jun 1989 | FR |
2681525 | Mar 1993 | FR |
2700941 | Aug 1994 | FR |
2703239 | Oct 1994 | FR |
2707864 | Jan 1995 | FR |
2717675 | Sep 1995 | FR |
2722087 | Jan 1996 | FR |
2722088 | Jan 1996 | FR |
2724554 | Mar 1996 | FR |
2725892 | Apr 1996 | FR |
2730156 | Aug 1996 | FR |
2731643 | Sep 1996 | FR |
2775183 | Aug 1999 | FR |
2799948 | Apr 2001 | FR |
2816197 | May 2002 | FR |
02-224660 | Sep 1990 | JP |
09-075381 | Mar 1997 | JP |
988281 | Jan 1983 | SU |
1484348 | Jun 1989 | SU |
WO 9426192 | Nov 1994 | WO |
WO 9426195 | Nov 1994 | WO |
WO 9718769 | May 1997 | WO |
WO 9820939 | May 1998 | WO |
WO 9926562 | Jun 1999 | WO |
WO 0044319 | Aug 2000 | WO |
WO 0154598 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 03057055 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO 2004047689 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004047691 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004084768 | Oct 2004 | WO |
WO 2005009300 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO 2005011507 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO 2005044118 | May 2005 | WO |
WO 2005048856 | Jun 2005 | WO |
WO 2005110258 | Nov 2005 | WO |
WO 2006064356 | Jun 2006 | WO |
WO 2007034516 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO 2007052975 | May 2007 | WO |
WO 2009083276 | Jul 2009 | WO |
WO 2009083583 | Jul 2009 | WO |
WO 2009098536 | Aug 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“Dispositivo Intervertebrale Ammortizzante DIAM,” date unknown, p. 1. |
“Tecnica Operatoria Per II Posizionamento Della Protesi DIAM,” date unknown, pp. 1-3. |
“Wallis Operative Technique: Surgical Procedure for Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) of Lumbar Spine,” date unknown, pp. 1-24, Spine Next, an Abbott Laboratories company, Bordeaux, France. |
Benzel et al., “Posterior Cervical Interspinous Compression Wiring and Fusion for Mid to Low Cervical Spinal Injuries,” J. Neurosurg., Jun. 1989, pp. 893-899, vol. 70. |
Caserta et al., “Elastic Stabilization Alone or Combined with Rigid Fusion in Spinal Surgery: a Biomechanical Study and Clinical Experience Based on 82 Cases,” Eur. Spine J., Oct. 2002, pp. S192-S197, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
Christie et al., “Dynamic Interspinous Process Technology,” SPINE, 2005, pp. S73-S78, vol. 30, No. 16S. |
Cousin Biotech, “Analysis of Clinical Experience with a Posterior Shock-Absorbing Implant,” date unknown, pp. 2-9. |
Cousin Biotech, Dispositif Intervertébral Amortissant, Jun. 1998, pp. 1-4. |
Cousin Biotech, Technique Operatoire de la Prothese DIAM, date unknown, Annexe 1, pp. 1-8. |
Dickman et al., “The Interspinous Method of Posterior Atlantoaxial Arthrodesis,” J. Neurosurg., Feb. 1991, pp. 190-198, vol. 74. |
Dubois et al., “Dynamic Neutralization: A New Concept for Restabilization of the Spine,” Lumbar Segmental Insability, Szpalski et al., eds., 1999, pp. 233-240, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. |
Ebara et al., “Inoperative Measurement of Lumbar Spinal Instability,” SPINE, 1992, pp. S44-S50, vol. 17, No. 3S. |
Fassio et al., “Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Instability L4-L5 by Interspinous Ligamentoplasty,” Rachis, Dec. 1991, pp. 465-474, vol. 3, No. 6. |
Fassio, “Mise au Point Sur la Ligamentoplastie Inter-Epineuse Lombaire Dans les Instabilites,” Maîtrise Orthopéclique, Jul. 1993, pp. 18, No. 25. |
Garner et al., “Development and Preclinical Testing of a New Tension-Band Device for the Spine: the Loop System,” Eur. Spine J., Aug. 7, 2002, pp. 5186-S191, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
Guang et al., “Interspinous Process Segmental Instrumentation with Bone-Button-Wire for Correction of Scoliosis,” Chinese Medical J., 1990, pp. 721-725, vol. 103. |
Guizzardi et al., “The Use of DIAM (Interspinous Stress-Breaker Device) in the Prevention of Chronic Low Back Pain in Young Patients Operated on for Large Dimension Lumbar Disc Herniation,” 12th Eur. Cong. Neurosurg., Sep. 7-12, 2003, pp. 835-839, Port. |
Hambly et al., “Tension Band Wiring-Bone Grafting for Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis,” SPINE, 1989, pp. 455-460, vol. 14, No. 4. |
Kiwerski, “Rehabilitation of Patients with Thoracic Spine Injury Treated by Spring Alloplasty,” Int. J. Rehab. Research, 1983, pp. 469-474, vol. 6, No. 4. |
Kramer et al., “Intervetertebral Disk Diseases: Causes, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis,” pp. 244-249, Medical, 1990. |
Laudet et al., “Comportement Bio-Mécanique D'Un Ressort Inter-Apophysaire Vertébral Postérieur Analyse Expérimentale Due Comportement Discal En Compression Et En Flexion/Extension,” Rachis, 1993, vol. 5, No. 2. |
Mah et al., “Threaded K-Wire Spinous Process Fixation of the Axis for Modified Gallie Fusion in Children and Adolescents,” J. Pediatric Othopaedics, 1989, pp. 675-679, vol. 9. |
Mariottini et al., “Preliminary Results of a Soft Novel Lumbar Intervertebral Prothesis (DIAM) in the Degenerative Spinal Pathology,” Acta Neurochir., Adv. Peripheral Nerve Surg. and Minimal Invas. Spinal Surg., 2005, pp. 129-131, vol. 92, Suppl. |
McDonnell et al., “Posterior Atlantoaxial Fusion: Indications and Techniques,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 92-106, Ch. 9, Thieme, New York. |
Minns et al., “Preliminary Design and Experimental Studies of a Novel Soft Implant for Correcting Sagittal Plane Instability in the Lumbar Spine,” SPINE, 1997, pp. 1819-1825, vol. 22, No. 16. |
Müller, “Restauration Dynamique de la Stabilité Rachidienne,” Tiré de la Sulzer Technical Review, Jan. 1999, Sulzer Management Ltd, Winterthur, Switzerland. |
Pennal et al., “Stenosis of the Lumbar Spinal Canal,” Clinical Neurosurgery: Proceedings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, St. Louis, Missouri, 1970, Tindall et al., eds., 1971, Ch. 6, pp. 86-105, vol. 18. |
Petrini et al., “Analisi Di Un'Esperienza Clinica Con Un Impianto Posteriore Ammortizzante,” S.O.T.I.M.I. Società di Ortopedia e Traumatologia dell'Italia Meridionale e Insulare 90 ° Congresso, Jun. 21-23, 2001, Paestum. |
Petrini et al., “Stabilizzazione Elastica,” Patologia Degenerativa del Rachide Lombare, Oct. 5-6, 2001, Rimini. |
Porter, “Spinal Stenosis and Neurogenic Claudication,” SPINE, Sep. 1, 1996, pp. 2046-2052, vol. 21, No. 17. |
Pupin et al., “Clinical Experience with a Posterior Shock-Absorbing Implant in Lumbar Spine,” World Spine 1: First Interdisciplinary World Congress on Spinal Surgery and Related Disciplines, Aug. 27-Sep. 1, 2000, Berlin, Germany. |
Rengachary et al., “Cervical Spine Stabilization with Flexible, Multistrand Cable System,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 79-81, Ch. 7, Thieme, New York. |
Richards et al., “The Treatment Mechanism of an interspinous Process Implant for Lumbar Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication,” SPINE, 2005, pp. 744-749, vol. 30, No. 7. |
Scarfò, “Instability/Stenosis: Holistic Approach for Less Invasive Surgery,” date unknown, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. |
Schiavone et al. , “The Use of Disc Assistance Prosthesis (DIAM) in Degenerative Lumbar Pathology: indications, Technique, Results,” Italian J. Spinal Disorders, 2003, pp. 213-220, vol. 3, No. 2. |
Schlegel et al., “The Role of Distraction in improving the Space Available in the Lumbar Stenotic Canal and Foramen,” SPINE, 1994, pp. 2041-2047, vol. 19, No. 18. |
Senegas et al., “Le Recalibrage du Canal Lornbaire, Alternative à la Laminectomie dans le Traitement des Sténoses du Canal Lombaire,” Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique, 1988, pp. 15-22. |
Senegas et al., “Stabilisation Lombaire Souple,” Instabilité Vertébrales Lombaires, Gastambide, ed., 1995, pp. 122-132, Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris, France. |
Senegas, “La Ligamentoplastie Inter Vertébrale Lombaire, Alternative a L'Arthrodèse,” La Rnvuc de Medécine Orthopédique, Jun. 1990, pp. 33-35, No. 20. |
Senecas, “La Ligamentopiastie Intervertébrale, Alternative à L'arthrodèse dans le Traitement des Instabilités Dégénératives,” Acta Othopaedica Belgica, 1991, pp. 221-226, vol. 57, Suppl. I. |
Senegas, “Mechanical Supplementation by Non-Rigid Fixation in Degenerative Intervertebral Lumbar Segments: the Wallis System,” Eur. Spine J., 2002, p. S164-S169, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
Senegas, “Rencontre,” Maîtrise Orthopédique, May 1995, pp. 1-3, No. 44. |
Serhan, “Spinal Implants: Past, Present, and Future.” 19th International IEEE/EMBS Conference, Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 1997, pp. 2636-2639, Chicago, Illinois. |
Spadea et al., “Interspinous Fusion for the Treatment of Herniated Intervertebral Discs: Utilizing a Lumbar Spinous Process as a Bone Graft,” Annals of Surgery, 1952, pp. 982-986, vol. 136, No. 6. |
Sulzer Innotec, “DIAM—Modified CAD Geometry and Meshing,” date unknown. |
Taylor at al., “Analyse d'une expérience clinique: d'un implant postérieur amortissant,” Rachis Revue de Pathologie Vertébrale, Oct./Nov. 1999, vol. 11, No. 4-5, Gieda Inter Rachis. |
Taylor at al. “Surgical Requirement for the Posterior Control of the Rotational Centers,” date unknown. |
Taylor et al., “Technical and Anatomical Considerations for the Placement of a Posterior Interspinous Stabilizer,” 2004, pp. 1-10, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee. |
Taylor, “Biomechanical Requirements for the Posterior Control of the Centers of Rotation,” Swiss Spine Institute International Symposium: Progress in Spinal Fixation, Jun. 21-22, 2002, pp. 1-2, Swiss Spine Institute, Bern, Switzerland. |
Taylor, “Non-Fusion Technologies of the Posterior Column: A New Posterior Shock Absorber,” International Symposium on Intervertebral Disc Replacement and Non-Fusion-Technology, May 3-5, 2001, Spine Arthroplasty. |
Taylor, “Posterior Dynamic Stabilization using the DIAM (Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion),” date unknown, pp. 1-5. |
Taylor, “Présentation à un an d'un dispositif amortissant d'assistance discale,” 5èmes journées Avances & Controverses en pathologie rachidienne, Oct. 1-2, 1998, Faculté Libre de Médecine de Lille. |
Tsuji et al., “Ceramic Interspinous Block (CISB) Assisted Anterior Interbody Fusion,” J. Spinal Disorders, 1990, pp. 77-86, vol. 3, No. 1. |
Vangilder, “Interspinous, Laminar, and Facet Posterior Cervical Bone Fusions,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 135-146, Ch. 13, Thieme, New York. |
Voydeville et al., “Experimental Lumbar Instability and Artificial Ligament,” Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol., Jul. 15, 2000, pp. 167-176, vol. 10. |
Voydeville et al., “Lumbar Instability Treated by Intervertebral Ligamentoplasty with Smooth Wedges,” Orthopédie Traumatologie, 1992, pp. 259-264, vol. 2, No. 4. |
Waldemar Link, “Spinal Surgery: Instrumentation and Implants for Spinal Surgery,” 1981, Link America Inc., New Jersey. |
Wiltse et al., “The Treatment of Spinal Stenosis,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Urist, ed., Mar.-Apr. 1976, pp. 83-91, No. 115. |
Wisneski et al., “Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Seminars in Spine Surgery, Wiesel, ed., Jun. 1994, pp. 116-123, vol. 6, No. 2. |
Zdeblick et al., “Two-Point Fixation of the Lumbar Spine Differential Stability in Rotation,” SPINE, 1991, pp. S298-S301, vol. 16, No. 6, Supplement. |
Zucherman et al., “Clinical Efficacy of Spinal Instrumentation in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease,” SPINE, Jul. 1992, pp. 834-837, vol. 17, No. 7. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110098745 A1 | Apr 2011 | US |