This disclosure relates generally to surgical devices and procedures, and more particularly, to implantable, total knee replacement prostheses.
The most widely-used type of knee prosthesis for implantation into a patient during a total knee replacement (TKR) procedure includes three components: a metallic, femoral component that attaches to the distal femur; a metallic, tibial component (or tray) that attaches to the proximal tibia; and a polymeric (UHMWPE), insert (also called a bearing or an inlay) that fits between the femoral and tibial components. Various types of patella replacements are also available for use in combination with some of these knee prostheses. Two types of knee prostheses are a posterior-stabilized (PS) prosthesis, for when the posterior cruciate ligament is no longer viable, and a (posterior) cruciate-retaining (CR) knee prosthesis. Each of these two types of knee prostheses may be provided as a fixed bearing knee prosthesis, in which the insert does not move relative to the tibial component, or a mobile bearing knee prosthesis, in which the insert rotates upon a smooth platform of the tibial component. Whether to use a mobile insert or a fixed insert depends largely on the condition of the patient's knee ligaments and other soft tissues.
A knee prosthesis system may include numerous sizes of femoral, tibial and insert components to accommodate the variation of patient anatomies in the worldwide TKR patient population. The design of a knee prosthesis system requires trade-offs among many important factors related to kinematic performance, clinical outcomes, implant longevity, cost, and ease of use, to name just a few. An important consideration relative to both the kinematic performance and the life of the knee prosthesis is the degree of conformity between the femoral component bearing surfaces and the insert bearing surfaces.
Investigators typically characterize conformity in either the coronal plane or sagittal plane as the ratio of the convex radius of a femoral condyle of the femoral component to the concave radius of the interfacing insert surface. A conformity ratio of zero represents a flat insert surface, corresponding to very high contact stress at high loads. A conformity ratio of 0.99 represents high conformity, corresponding, in general, to high contact area, relatively low contact stress and, subsequently, reduced wear rate of the polyethylene surface of the insert.
Investigators have found that conformity in the coronal plane may affect prosthesis life more than conformity in the sagittal plane. For example, in an article by Kuster, et al, “The effects of conformity and load in total knee replacement” (Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Number 375, pp. 302-12, June 2000), the authors found that the compressive surface stress, the shear stress and the von Mises stress were affected by changes to the conformity ratio and to a lesser extent by load changes. In a more recent article by Berend, et al, “Effects of coronal plane conformity on tibial loading in TKA: a comparison of AGC flat versus conforming articulations” (Surgical Technology Int., Number 18, pp. 207-212, 2009), the authors studied the effect of conformity on loading of the proximal tibia of the patient. Improper loading of the proximal tibia may lead to aseptic loosening of the tibial component in the tibia and eventually prosthesis failure requiring revision surgery. The authors found that coronally dished components created a strain increase in the anterior medial tibia while creating a significant strain decrease in the posterior tibia. They also found that proximal tibial strains were decreased and centralized in conforming versus flat articulations.
It is known in the art, however, that very high conformity may also lead, for example, to undesirable loading conditions on the insert surface or to excessive constraint of the femoral component, thereby inhibiting joint motions important to joint performance and patient comfort. Therefore, designs with intermediate values of contact area may be optimal as long as the stresses are below the yield strength of the insert material, in order to provide the optimal combination of joint laxity and conformity.
Complicating the challenge faced by knee prosthesis designers is the variability of patient anatomies in the worldwide, TKR patient population. Smaller patients with smaller femurs require, obviously, smaller knee prostheses. Each of the medial and lateral condyles of a femoral component of a small femoral component has a smaller coronal radius than a large femoral component for a large patient. To maintain the appropriate comformity ratio, as well as other geometrical relationships including condylar spacing, the small femoral component must be matched to a properly sized insert. In addition to the wide range of patient sizes, however, the dimensional proportionality between the femur and tibia bones also varies widely. For example, some patients, have a larger distal femur than other patients for a given size of the proximal tibia. In such cases when using currently available knee prosthesis systems, the surgeon may need to choose to implant a femoral component that is slightly mismatched with the femur and matched with the insert, or a femoral component that is matched with the femur and slightly mismatched with the insert.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, there is a need for a knee prosthesis system that allows the surgeon to select a femoral component that is sized to fit the femur of a particular patient, a tibial component that is sized to fit the tibia, and an insert that optimally matches the femoral component and is compatible with the tibial component. Such a knee prosthesis system should include both fixed and mobile types of prostheses and provide for both CR and PS procedures. Furthermore, the system should accommodate the wide variety of patient anatomies in the worldwide population.
In addition to providing optimally matched knee prosthesis components, there is an ongoing need to maintain or lower the costs and complexity of knee prosthesis systems. A knee prosthesis system may include femoral, tibial and insert components in a number of sizes, for each of the right and left knees, to accommodate variations in patient anatomies and conditions. In addition, each of inserts may be provided in a number of thicknesses so that the surgeon may select the one that results in the appropriate joint tension. Consequently, knee prosthesis manufacturers must provide a very large inventory of components representing a large number of different size combinations to accommodate the worldwide patient population. What is needed, therefore, is an improved, knee prosthesis system that allows component interchangeability to provide the necessary size combinations with a minimal number of components.
Another consideration during the design of knee prosthesis systems is bone preparation for implantation of the PS femoral component. Both the PS and the CR femoral components have a pair of spaced-apart condyles that are somewhat similar to the natural condyles of the distal femur. For the PS femoral component, a box (or intracondylar notch) positioned between the condyles includes features for interaction with a spine on the PS insert. Implantation of the PS femoral component requires cutting a recess into the distal femur to receive the box. In some current, knee prosthesis systems, the size of the box is the same for all of the PS femoral component sizes, thereby requiring cutting the same size recess into the distal femur, even for smaller femurs. It is desirable, however, to conserve natural bone, if possible, during preparation of the femur for attachment of the femoral component. There is a further need, therefore, for a knee prosthesis system in which each of the PS femoral components has a box that is sized proportionately to the femur size, while also addressing the previously described needs.
Yet another consideration during the design of knee prosthesis systems is bone preparation for implantation of the tibial component. Currently available, mobile and fixed TKR prosthesis systems include tibial components for a range of anatomical sizes. For some of these systems, the tibial component for a mobile TKR prosthesis of a particular size has a different configuration than that of a fixed TKR prosthesis of the same size. Specifically, the platform that supports the fixed bearing insert may have a different shape than the platform that supports the mobile bearing insert. This may result in a small, but possibly significant, difference in coverage of the resected, tibial plateau surface. Although less than ideal, one way surgeons may obtain the desired, tibial bone coverage is to select a larger size tibial component. What is more desirable is a TKR system that has mobile and fixed tibial components with a common platform profile shape that is optimized for interaction with surrounding tissues, kinematic performance, etc.
Also, currently available TKR systems have tibial components with stems of variable lengths to accommodate different tibial bone conditions. Furthermore, the stems for mobile tibial components may have a different configuration than the stems for fixed tibial components. Subsequently, such systems require that a number of different reaming instruments be available for each surgical procedure. A preferable TKR system would have mobile and fixed tibial components with stems of different lengths, but not requiring several different reaming instruments for preparing the tibia. This would also provide the surgeon with the intraoperative flexibility to select the appropriate type of tibial component, while reducing the number of instruments that would need to be available during the surgical procedure.
While this specification concludes with claims that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, the following description and the accompanying figures further illustrate some non-limiting examples of the claimed invention. Unless otherwise indicated, like reference numerals identify the same elements.
In this disclosure, the terms “anterior, posterior, lateral, medial” generally refer to the front, back, outside and midline of the surgical patient, respectively, although we also use these terms in reference to the devices.
The following are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety:
Hazebrouck discloses a fixed bearing, knee prosthesis system in which each of differently sized inserts are compatible with each size of tibial component, so that it is possible for a surgeon to select a tibial component that is properly sized for a patient's tibia, and an insert that is matched with the femoral component.
Hazebrouck also discloses that the femoral components have medial condyle surfaces and lateral condyle surfaces and that the bearing inserts have upper surfaces including medial and lateral bearing surfaces. Each medial bearing surface is configured to articulate with the medial condyle surface of a femoral component, and each lateral bearing surface is configured to articulate with the lateral condyle surface of a femoral component. Lower surfaces of the fixed bearing inserts have recesses defined therein to receive posterior and anterior buttresses of the fixed tibial components. Each of the plurality of bearings also includes a pair of posterior tabs arranged to be respectively received in the undercuts defined in the pair of arms of the posterior buttress.
Hazebrouck also discloses that the fixed bearing inserts may be made of a polymeric material such as ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and that the bearing inserts may be of different sizes, particularly different widths. However, each of such differently-sized bearing inserts may include mating features that are commonly-sized and commonly-located with the commonly-sized and commonly-located features of the fixed tibial components. In particular, each of the fixed bearing inserts across a range of different sizes may include posterior and anterior recesses that are positioned and sized to tightly fit against the edges of the buttresses of components differently-sized tibial components.
Wyss discloses a knee prosthesis system having a plurality of distinctly-sized PS inserts (fixed or mobile) having a spine extending superiorly from an inferior surface. The spine has a posterior side that has a concave cam surface and a convex cam surface. Each of the PS femoral components has a pair of spaced-apart condyles defining an intracondylar notch that has a posterior cam. The posterior cam includes a concave cam surface and a convex cam surface. The concave cam surface of the posterior cam contacts the convex cam surface of the spine during a first range of flexion and the convex cam surface of the posterior cam contacts the concave cam surface of the spine during a second range of flexion.
One characteristic of the distinctly-sized femoral and tibial components of knee prosthesis system 100 is proportionality of each component to the particular size of bone to which the component is to be attached. In general, the dimensional scale of the component varies, but not the shape. For example, the femoral component may have a proportionally-sized, intercondylar distance, such that a large femoral component has a proportionally longer intercondylar distance than that of a small femoral component. Similarly, a large tibial component may have a proportionally wider and deeper, posterior notch than that of a small tibial component.
In addition, each size of each of inserts 30, 40, 50 and 60 may be provided in a plurality of thicknesses.
As noted earlier, the anatomies of patients vary not only in size, but also in femur/tibia, size proportionality. Using historical data for TKR procedures, it is possible to determine the size combinations that would be needed for the majority of patients in the worldwide population. For example, each of practically all patients may be accommodated with a knee prosthesis distinctly-sized to fit both the femur and the tibia by pairing a femoral component that is sized either up two sizes or down two sizes from a tibial component. A “size 3” CR femoral component may be used with any one of a “size 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5” tibial components (fixed or mobile), whereas a “size 1” CR femoral component may be used with any one of a “size 1, 2 or 3” tibial components (fixed or mobile). Similarly, a “size 5” fixed tibial component may be used with any one of a “size 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7” fixed insert (CR or PS). Using knee prosthesis system 100, each of these pairings allows optimally matching the femoral component to the insert to maintain desirable geometrical relationships.
Tables 1 lists the components of an exemplary embodiment of knee prosthesis system 100. Table 2 lists the femoral component sizes provided for each femoral component listed in Table 1. Table 2 also shows for each femoral component size the compatible insert size for each insert listed in Table 1 and the compatible tibial component sizes for each tibial component listed in Table 1.
3N
4N
5N
6N
The embodiment of knee prosthesis system 100 shown in Table 1 and Table 2 provides 2176 unique combinations of prosthesis components. In each of these combinations, the femoral component is distinctly-sized to fit the patient's femur while optimally matched to the insert, and the tibial component is distinctly-sized to fit the patient's tibia while compatible with the insert. As a result, knee prosthesis system 100 may allow surgeons to avoid compromising kinematic performance and life of the implanted joint for each patient of the worldwide patient population.
As previously noted, patella components may also be provided for implantation in combination with the knee prosthesis. The patella components may be provided in a plurality of sizes. Examples of patella implants that may be adapted for use in knee prosthesis system 100 are the “P.F.C. Sigma Patellar Implants” available from DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Warsaw, Ind. Another embodiment of knee prosthesis system 100 may also include two unique types of patella components, each type having five sizes, thereby allowing the surgeon to select from 21,760 unique combinations of components. In each of these combinations, the femoral component is distinctly-sized to match the patient's femur while optimally matched to the insert, and the tibial component is distinctly-sized to fit the patient's tibia while compatible with the insert.
Knee prosthesis system 100 allows the surgeon to select a combination of knee prosthesis components for implantation into the patient, wherein the components are distinctly-sized to fit the femur and tibia of the patient, while also optimally matched to avoid compromising performance of the reconstructed joint. Knee prosthesis system 100 further provides PS femoral components that are proportionally sized to the femur since the PS insert (fixed or mobile) is matched to each PS femoral component. Knee prosthesis system 100 also may lower the cost and complexity of the necessary inventory of implant components to accommodate the worldwide patient population, due primarily to the interchangeability of the components.
As previously explained, there is a need for a knee prosthesis system that has mobile and fixed tibial components with stems of different lengths, but that does not require several different reaming instruments for preparing the tibia. As shown in
As shown in
Distal portions 156, 166, 176 and 186 of the stems 154, 164, 174, 184 may also have the same general shape. Proximal portions 158, 168, 178 and 188 may have approximately the same shape and vary primarily in length. The distal portions 156, 166, 176, 186 may have a generally conical or frustoconical shape. Keels 151, 153, 161, 163, 171, 173, 181, 183 may have approximately similar configurations and orientations. As would be apparent to those skilled in the art, a surgeon may use the same reaming instrument to form a cavity to the desired depth in the proximal tibia to receive any one of the various sizes of stems 154, 164, 174 and 184. Because the external sizes and configurations of each of the plurality of distinctly-sized fixed tibial components may be approximately similar or identical to the corresponding one of the plurality of distinctly-sized mobile tibial components, the surgical preparation of the proximal tibia may be the same for a given size of either the fixed or mobile tibial components, and the required instrumentation may be the same for all sizes of both the fixed and mobile tibial components.
As previously explained, it is also desirable that the total knee replacement system have mobile and fixed tibial components with a common, platform profile or “footprint” that is optimized for coverage of the tibial plateau, interaction with surrounding tissues, kinematic performance and other factors.
For each size of tibial component, the platform profile (as viewed from the top, in the direction of the stem axis) is the same for both mobile and fixed tibial components for a particular anatomical size. There is no need to change tibial component size to get the same, tibial plateau coverage when choosing between a mobile and a fixed prosthesis. Another benefit of the common platform shape is that the same casting tool or a portion of the tool may be used in the manufacture of both tibial components, enabling reduced component cost.
We have shown and described various embodiments and examples. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art may modify the methods and devices described herein without departing from the overall concept. For instance, the specific materials, dimensions and the scale of drawings should be understood to be non-limiting examples. Accordingly, we do not intend the scope of the following claims to be understood as limited to the details of structure, materials or acts shown and described in the specification and drawings.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3852045 | Wheeler | Dec 1974 | A |
3855638 | Pilliar | Dec 1974 | A |
3953899 | Charnley | May 1976 | A |
4156943 | Collier | Jun 1979 | A |
4206516 | Pilliar | Jun 1980 | A |
4224696 | Murray | Sep 1980 | A |
4224697 | Murray | Sep 1980 | A |
4257129 | Volz | Mar 1981 | A |
4612160 | Donlevy | Sep 1986 | A |
4673407 | Martin | Jun 1987 | A |
4714474 | Brooks, Jr. | Dec 1987 | A |
4795468 | Hodorek | Jan 1989 | A |
4808185 | Penenberg | Feb 1989 | A |
4822362 | Walker | Apr 1989 | A |
4838891 | Branemark | Jun 1989 | A |
4938769 | Shaw | Jul 1990 | A |
4944757 | Martinez | Jul 1990 | A |
4944760 | Kenna | Jul 1990 | A |
4950298 | Gustilo | Aug 1990 | A |
4963152 | Hofmann | Oct 1990 | A |
4990163 | Ducheyne | Feb 1991 | A |
5019103 | Van Zile | May 1991 | A |
5037423 | Kenna | Aug 1991 | A |
5080675 | Lawes | Jan 1992 | A |
5104410 | Chowdhary | Apr 1992 | A |
5108442 | Smith | Apr 1992 | A |
5171283 | Pappas | Dec 1992 | A |
5194066 | Van Zile | Mar 1993 | A |
5198308 | Shetty | Mar 1993 | A |
5201766 | Georgette | Apr 1993 | A |
5251468 | Lin | Oct 1993 | A |
5258044 | Lee | Nov 1993 | A |
5263987 | Shah | Nov 1993 | A |
5271737 | Baldwin | Dec 1993 | A |
5282861 | Kaplan | Feb 1994 | A |
5308556 | Bagley | May 1994 | A |
5309639 | Lee | May 1994 | A |
5326361 | Hollister | Jul 1994 | A |
5326365 | Alvine | Jul 1994 | A |
5330534 | Herrington | Jul 1994 | A |
5344460 | Turanyi | Sep 1994 | A |
5344461 | Phlipot | Sep 1994 | A |
5344494 | Davidson | Sep 1994 | A |
5358531 | Goodfellow et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5368881 | Kelman | Nov 1994 | A |
5370699 | Hood | Dec 1994 | A |
5387240 | Pottenger | Feb 1995 | A |
5405396 | Heldreth | Apr 1995 | A |
5413604 | Hodge | May 1995 | A |
5414049 | Sun | May 1995 | A |
5443510 | Shetty et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5449745 | Sun | Sep 1995 | A |
5458637 | Hayes | Oct 1995 | A |
5480446 | Goodfellow | Jan 1996 | A |
5543471 | Sun | Aug 1996 | A |
5571187 | Devanathan | Nov 1996 | A |
5609639 | Walker | Mar 1997 | A |
5609641 | Johnson et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5632745 | Schwartz | May 1997 | A |
5650485 | Sun | Jul 1997 | A |
5658333 | Kelman | Aug 1997 | A |
5658342 | Draganich | Aug 1997 | A |
5658344 | Hurlburt | Aug 1997 | A |
5683472 | O'Neil | Nov 1997 | A |
5690636 | Wildgoose | Nov 1997 | A |
5702447 | Walch | Dec 1997 | A |
5702458 | Burstein | Dec 1997 | A |
5702463 | Pothier | Dec 1997 | A |
5702464 | Lackey | Dec 1997 | A |
5728748 | Sun | Mar 1998 | A |
5732469 | Hamamoto | Mar 1998 | A |
5749874 | Schwartz | May 1998 | A |
5755800 | O'Neil | May 1998 | A |
5755801 | Walker | May 1998 | A |
5755803 | Haines | May 1998 | A |
5755808 | DeCarlo | May 1998 | A |
5759190 | Vibe Hansen | Jun 1998 | A |
5765095 | Flak | Jun 1998 | A |
5766257 | Goodman | Jun 1998 | A |
5769899 | Schwartz | Jun 1998 | A |
5800546 | Marik | Sep 1998 | A |
5824100 | Kester | Oct 1998 | A |
5824103 | Williams | Oct 1998 | A |
5871545 | Goodfellow | Feb 1999 | A |
5871546 | Colleran | Feb 1999 | A |
5879387 | Jones | Mar 1999 | A |
5879394 | Ashby | Mar 1999 | A |
5879400 | Merrill | Mar 1999 | A |
5906577 | Beane | May 1999 | A |
5906596 | Tallarida | May 1999 | A |
5906644 | Powell | May 1999 | A |
5951603 | O'Neil | Sep 1999 | A |
5954564 | Ganz | Sep 1999 | A |
5957979 | Beckman | Sep 1999 | A |
5964808 | Blaha | Oct 1999 | A |
5976147 | LaSalle | Nov 1999 | A |
5984969 | Matthews | Nov 1999 | A |
5989027 | Wagner | Nov 1999 | A |
5997577 | Herrington | Dec 1999 | A |
6004351 | Tomita | Dec 1999 | A |
6005018 | Cicierega | Dec 1999 | A |
6010534 | O'Neil | Jan 2000 | A |
6017975 | Saum | Jan 2000 | A |
6039764 | Pottenger | Mar 2000 | A |
6042780 | Huang | Mar 2000 | A |
6053945 | O'Neil | Apr 2000 | A |
6059949 | Gal Or | May 2000 | A |
6068658 | Insall | May 2000 | A |
6090144 | Letot | Jul 2000 | A |
6123728 | Brosnahan | Sep 2000 | A |
6123896 | Meeks, III | Sep 2000 | A |
6126692 | Robie | Oct 2000 | A |
6132468 | Mansmann | Oct 2000 | A |
6135857 | Shaw | Oct 2000 | A |
6139581 | Engh | Oct 2000 | A |
6142936 | Beane | Nov 2000 | A |
6162254 | Timoteo | Dec 2000 | A |
6171340 | McDowell | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6174934 | Sun | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6179876 | Stamper | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6210444 | Webster | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6210445 | Zawadzki | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6217618 | Hileman | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6228900 | Shen | May 2001 | B1 |
6238434 | Pappas | May 2001 | B1 |
6242507 | Saum | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6245276 | McNulty | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6251143 | Schwartz | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6258127 | Schmotzer | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6280476 | Metzger | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6281264 | Salovey | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6299646 | Chambat | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6316158 | Saum | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6319283 | Insall | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6344059 | Krakovits | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6352558 | Spector | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6361564 | Marceaux | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6372814 | Sun | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6379388 | Ensign | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6428577 | Evans | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6440063 | Beane | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6443991 | Running | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6468314 | Schwartz | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6485519 | Meyers | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6494914 | Brown | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6503280 | Repicci | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6506215 | Letot | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6506216 | McCue | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6520964 | Tallarida | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6524522 | Vaidyanathan | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6527754 | Tallarida | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6569202 | Whiteside | May 2003 | B2 |
6582470 | Lee | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6589283 | Metzger et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6592787 | Pickrell | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6620198 | Burstein | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6623526 | Lloyd | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6626950 | Brown | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6645251 | Salehi | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6652592 | Grooms | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6660039 | Evans et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6660224 | Lefebvre | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6664308 | Sun | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6679917 | Ek | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6699291 | Augoyard et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6702821 | Bonutti | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6716249 | Hyde | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6719800 | Meyers | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6726724 | Repicci | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6755864 | Brack et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6773461 | Meyers | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6783548 | Hyde, Jr. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6818020 | Sun | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6846327 | Khandkar | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6849230 | Feichtinger | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6852272 | Artz | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6869448 | Tuke | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6875235 | Ferree | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6923832 | Sharkey | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6942670 | Heldreth | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6945448 | Medlin | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6953479 | Carson | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6972039 | Metzger | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6984248 | Hyde, Jr. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6986791 | Metzger | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6994730 | Posner | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7025788 | Metzger | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7048741 | Swanson | May 2006 | B2 |
7070622 | Brown | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7077867 | Pope | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7087082 | Paul | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7094259 | Tarabichi | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7101401 | Brack | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7108720 | Hanes | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7147819 | Bram | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7175665 | German | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7208013 | Bonutti | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7255715 | Metzger | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7278997 | Mueller | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7294149 | Hozack | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7297164 | Johnson | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7338529 | Higgins | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7341602 | Fell et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7344460 | Gait | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7357817 | D'Alessio, II | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7445639 | Metzger | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7494507 | Dixon | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7497874 | Metzger | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7527631 | Maroney et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7527650 | Johnson | May 2009 | B2 |
7563286 | Gerber | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7572295 | Steinberg | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7578850 | Kuczynski | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7608079 | Blackwell | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7611519 | Lefevre | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7618462 | Ek | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7628817 | Axelson, Jr. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7628818 | Hazebrouck | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7635390 | Bonutti | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7695519 | Collazo | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7740662 | Barnett | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7748984 | McAllister | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7749229 | Bonutti | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7753960 | Cipolletti | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7758653 | Steinberg | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7766911 | Navarro | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7771484 | Campbell | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7776044 | Pendleton | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7780666 | Navarro | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7780674 | Medley et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7785327 | Navarro | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7790779 | Muratoglu | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7803193 | Steinberg | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7833245 | Kaes | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7951204 | Chambat et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7978151 | Taira | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7978152 | Huang | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7981159 | Williams et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8066770 | Rivard | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8128703 | Hazebrouck et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8187335 | Wyss | May 2012 | B2 |
8192498 | Wagner | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8206451 | Wyss | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8236061 | Heldreth | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8366782 | Wright | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8470047 | Hazebrouck | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8545570 | Crabtree et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8591594 | Parisi et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8603101 | Claypool et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8617250 | Metzger | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8632600 | Zannis | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8658710 | McKellop | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8715359 | Deffenbaugh | May 2014 | B2 |
8715362 | Reiley | May 2014 | B2 |
8727203 | Wang | May 2014 | B2 |
20010010023 | Schwartz | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20020120274 | Overaker | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020173855 | Mansmann | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030004578 | Brown | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014122 | Whiteside | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030035747 | Anderson | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030036801 | Schwartz | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030044301 | Lefebvre | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030075013 | Grohowski | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030139817 | Tuke | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030153981 | Wang | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030171820 | Wilshaw | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030212161 | McKellop | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030220700 | Hammer | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225456 | Ek | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040015770 | Kimoto | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040019384 | Kirking | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040039450 | Griner | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040167633 | Wen | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186583 | Keller | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040215345 | Perrone | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050015153 | Goble | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021147 | Tarabichi | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050055102 | Tornier | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050059750 | Sun | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050064042 | Vunjak Novakovic | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050069629 | Becker | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050100578 | Schmid | May 2005 | A1 |
20050123672 | Justin | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125068 | Hozack | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050192672 | Wyss et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203631 | Daniels | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050209702 | Todd | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050249625 | Bram | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060002810 | Grohowski | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015185 | Chambat et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060030945 | Wright | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060036329 | Webster | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047283 | Evans | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060052875 | Bernero | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060100714 | Ensign | May 2006 | A1 |
20060111790 | Dietz | May 2006 | A1 |
20060195195 | Burstein | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060228247 | Grohowski | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060231402 | Clasen | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241781 | Brown | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060257358 | Wen | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271191 | Hermansson | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060289388 | Yang | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070061014 | Naegerl | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070073409 | Cooney | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078521 | Overholser | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100463 | Aram | May 2007 | A1 |
20070129809 | Meridew | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070162143 | Wasielewski | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070162144 | Wasielewski | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070173948 | Meridew | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070196230 | Hamman | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203582 | Campbell | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070219639 | Otto | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070293647 | McKellop | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080004708 | Wyss | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021567 | Meulink | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080051908 | Angibaud et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080058945 | Hajaj et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080091272 | Aram | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080097616 | Meyers | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080114462 | Guidera | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114464 | Barnett | May 2008 | A1 |
20080119940 | Otto | May 2008 | A1 |
20080133019 | Andrysek | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080161927 | Savage | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195108 | Bhatnagar | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080199720 | Liu | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080206297 | Roeder | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090048680 | Naegerl | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090082873 | Hazebrouck | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090084491 | Uthgenannt | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090088859 | Hazebrouck | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125114 | May | May 2009 | A1 |
20090125115 | Popoola | May 2009 | A1 |
20090149964 | May | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090182433 | Reiley et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090192610 | Case | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090264894 | Wasielewski | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090265012 | Engh | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090265013 | Mandell | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090292365 | Smith | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090295035 | Evans | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326663 | Dun | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326664 | Wagner | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326665 | Wyss | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326666 | Wyss | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326667 | Williams | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326674 | Liu | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100016979 | Wyss | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100036499 | Pinskerova | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100036500 | Heldreth | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100042224 | Otto | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100042225 | Shur | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100063594 | Hazebrouck | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070045 | Ek | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100076563 | Otto | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100076564 | Schilling | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100076569 | Langhorn | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100094429 | Otto | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100098574 | Liu | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100100189 | Metzger | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100100190 | May | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100100191 | May | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114322 | Clifford | May 2010 | A1 |
20100125337 | Grecco | May 2010 | A1 |
20100161067 | Saleh | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100191341 | Byrd | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100222890 | Barnett | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100262144 | Kelman | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100262253 | Cipolletti et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100286788 | Komistek | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100292804 | Samuelson | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100305710 | Metzger | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100312350 | Bonutti | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110029090 | Zannis | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110029092 | Deruntz | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110035017 | Deffenbaugh | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110035018 | Deffenbaugh | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110046735 | Metzger et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110106268 | Deffenbaugh | May 2011 | A1 |
20110178606 | Deffenbaugh et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110190897 | Guidera et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120067853 | Wang et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120296438 | Metzger et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120323333 | Metzger | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130079885 | Meier et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130173009 | Hershberger | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130184829 | Wyss et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130184830 | Hazebrouck et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
4308563 | Sep 1994 | DE |
495340 | Jul 1992 | EP |
634156 | Jan 1995 | EP |
636352 | Feb 1995 | EP |
634156 | Apr 1995 | EP |
732092 | Sep 1996 | EP |
732092 | Jan 1997 | EP |
765645 | Apr 1997 | EP |
765645 | Nov 1997 | EP |
634156 | May 1999 | EP |
636352 | Jan 2002 | EP |
732092 | Feb 2002 | EP |
1186277 | Mar 2002 | EP |
1226799 | Jul 2002 | EP |
765645 | Aug 2003 | EP |
1186277 | Oct 2003 | EP |
1421918 | May 2004 | EP |
1226799 | May 2005 | EP |
1186277 | Oct 2005 | EP |
1779812 | May 2007 | EP |
1923079 | May 2008 | EP |
2653992 | May 1991 | FR |
2780636 | Jan 2000 | FR |
2837093 | Sep 2003 | FR |
1065354 | Apr 1967 | GB |
2293109 | Mar 1996 | GB |
62205201 | Sep 1987 | JP |
10137271 | May 1998 | JP |
02272756 | Sep 2002 | JP |
02315757 | Oct 2002 | JP |
WO 9014806 | Dec 1990 | WO |
WO 9524874 | Sep 1995 | WO |
WO 9530388 | Nov 1995 | WO |
WO 9624302 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 9624304 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 9725942 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO 9966864 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO 03039609 | May 2003 | WO |
WO 03101647 | Dec 2003 | WO |
WO 2005009489 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO 2005009729 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO 2006014294 | Feb 2006 | WO |
WO 2006130350 | Dec 2006 | WO |
WO 2008048820 | Apr 2008 | WO |
WO 2008048820 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO 2008100784 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO 2009046212 | Apr 2009 | WO |
WO 2009128943 | Oct 2009 | WO |
WO 2010056962 | May 2010 | WO |
WO 2010056962 | Jul 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Restoration® Modular Revision Hip System Surgical Protocol, Restoration® Modular Cone Body/Conical Distal Stem Femoral Components Using the Restoration® Modular Instrument System, brochure, (2005) Stryker, pp. 1-21. |
Restoration® Modular Revision Hip System, Product. Reference Guide for Cone/Conical and Broached/Fluted & Plasma Implants and Instruments, brochure, 2004 St ker, a es 1-12. |
The Effects of Conformity and Load in Total Knee Replacement, Kuster, et al, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 375, Jun. 2000. |
Effects of Coronal Plane Conformity on Tibial Loading in TKA: A Comparison of AGC Flat Versus Conforming Articulations, Brent, et al, Orthopaedic Surgery, Surgical Technology International, XVIII. |
ASTM Standard D4518-91, “Standard Test Methods for Measuring Static Friction of Coating Surfaces,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1991 DOI: 10.1520-D4518-91, www.astm.org., 5 pages. |
ASTM Standard E9-89a(2000), “Standard Test Methods of Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at Room Temperature,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000 DOI: 10.1520-E0009-89AR00, www.astm.org, 9 pages. |
ASTM Standard F1580-01, “Standard Specification for Titanium and Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium Alloy Powders for Coatings of Surgical Implants,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2001 DOI: 10.1520-F1580-01, www.astm.org, 4 pages. |
International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 3274:1996,” 1996, 20 pages. |
International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 4287:1997,” 1997, 36 pages. |
Alconox, Inc., “Liquinox Technical Bulletin,” 2006 , 2 pages. |
Biomet, Vanguard® Mono-Lock™ Tibial System, Patented Convertible Tibial Bearing Technology, 2009, 2 Pages. |
C.E. Wen et al., “Novel Titanium Foam for Bone Tissue Engineering,” Journal of Materials Research, vol. 17, No. 10, pp. 2633-2639, 7 pages. |
Carl Zeiss, Zeiss Surfcomm 5000—“Contour and Surface Measuring Machines,” 2005, 16 pages. |
DePuy Inc., “AMK Total Knee System Product Brochure”, 1996, 8 pages. |
DePuy Knees International, “Sigma CR Porocoat®,” 1 page. |
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., “AMK Total Knee System Legend II Surgical Technique”, 1998, 30 pages. |
Depuy PFC Sigma RP, “PFC Sigma Knee System with Rotating Platform Technical Monograph”, 1999, 0611-29-050 (Rev. 3), 70 Pages. |
General Plastics Manufacturing Company, “LAST-A-FOAM@ Products Guide to Tooling Applications, Bonding, Filling and Sealing,” FR-6700 Tooling Apps Product Sheet, 2010, 16 pages. |
General Plastics Manufacturing Company, “LAST-A-FOAM@,” FR-6700 Series Product Sheet, 2000, 6 pages. |
General Plastics Manufacturing Company, “Tooling Board Specifications,” FR-4500® Series Specification Sheet, 2002, 2 pages. |
General Plastics Manufacturing Company, “Tooling Boards,” FR-4500® Series Product Data Sheet, 2002, 4 pages. |
Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, “Primary Cruciate-Retaining & Cruciate-Substituting Procedure,” Reference Guide for Use with P.F.C. Sigma Knee Systems, 1998, 8 pages. |
Maca, et al., “Electrophorectic Deposition of Alumina and Zirconia I. Single-Component Systems”, Ceramics International, vol. 20, pp. 843-852. |
Media Cybernetics, Inc., “Image-Pro Plus: Powerful and Customizable Image Processing and Analysis Software for Industrial Applications,” 2009, 8 pages. |
Micro Powders, Inc., “Technical Data Sheet—Propyltex Waxes,” 1999, 1 page. |
Phelly Materials, Inc., “Hydride and dehydride CP Ti and Ti—6Al—4V Powders,” 2007, 1 page. |
Phelly Materials, Inc., “Pure Metal Powder,” 2007, 1 page. |
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., “Sigma Fixed Bearing Knees—Function with Wear Resistance”, 2010, 0612-65-508 (Rev. 1), 20 pages. |
Signus Medizintechnik, “PEEK-OPTIMA®, The Polymer for Implants, Technical Information for the Medical Professional”, 7 pages. |
Kinbrum, A., “Taking a Peek at Material Options for Orthopedics,” Advantage Business Media, 2008, 6 pages. |
Zimmer Nexgen Trabecular Metal Tibial Tray, The Best Thing Next to Bone, 97-5954-001-00, 2007, 4 Pages. |
Zimmer, Trabecular Metal Monoblock Tibial Components, An Optimal Combination of Material and Design, www.zimmer.com, 2009, 3 pages. |
Zimmer, Trabecular Metal™ Technology, www.zimmer.com, 2009, 4 pages. |
European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 08164944.4-2310-2042131, Mar. 16, 2009, 12 pgs. |
European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 08253140.1-2310, Dec. 23, 2008, 8 pgs. |
Specification As Filed in U.S. Appl. No. 12/691,280, filed Jan. 21, 2010, 35 Pages (Including Drawings). |
IDS for U.S. Appl. No. 12/691,280, Submitted on Jan. 21, 2010, 57 Pages. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/691,280, Dated Mar. 29, 2011, 10 Pages. |
Specificiation As Filed in U.S. Appl. No. 12/894,651, filed Sep. 30, 2010, 29 Pages (Including Drawings). |
European Search Report From Corresponding EPO Search Report, EPO Application No. 11150577.2-2310, Dated Apr. 16, 2011, 9 Pages. |
Coordinate Ultra Revision Knee System, Surgical Technique, Depuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company, 24 Pages, 1.5M1102, 0601-82-000 (Rev. 3), 1997. |
PFC Sigma RP-F Product Rationale, Depuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company, 12 Pages, 3M0106, 0612-27-503, 2006. |
LCS Complete, LCS RPS Flexion Product Rationale, Depuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company, 24 Pages, Cat. No. 9075-16-000, Ver. 1, 2008. |
What Design Factors Influence Wear Behavior in Total Knee Replacement? American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, pp. 156-169, Material & Design Considerations—Implant Wear in Total Joint Replacement, 2001. |
Galvin, A., et al, “The Influence of Tibial Tray Design on the Wear of Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Replacements”, Proc. IMECHE vol. 222, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, pp. 1289-1293, 2008. |
Jayabalan, Prakash et al., “Backside Wear in Modern Total Knee Designs”, HSSJ (2007) 3: 30-34, DOI 10.1007/S11420-006-9033-0, Published Online: Dec. 14, 2006—Hospital for Special Surgery 2006. |
APEX Knee System, Exhibit A 510(K) Summary, K060192, Submitter: Omni Life Science, Inc., 5 Pages, 2006. |
Akisue, Toshihiro, M.D., et al, “Backside” Polyethylene Deformation in Total Knee Arthroplasty, The Journal of Arthroplasty, vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 784-791, 2003. |
Parks, Nancy L., M.S., et al., The Coventry Award, “Modular Tibial Insert Micromotion, A Concern With Contemporary Knee Implants”, pp. 10-15, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 356, Nov. 1998. |
Azzam, Michael G., M.D., et al, Second-Generation Locking Mechanisms and Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Reduce Tibial Insert Backside Damage in Total Knee Arthroplasty, The Journal of Arthroplasty vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 523-530, 2011. |
Kuster, et al “The Effects of Conformity and Load in Total Knee Replacement”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 375, pp. 302-312 (2000) 11 Pgs. |
Berend, et al “Effects of Coronal Plane Conformity on Tibial Loading in TKA: A Comparison of AGC Flat Versus Conforming Articulations”, Orthopaedic Surgery, Surgical Technology International XVIII, pp. 207-212 (2009) 6 Pgs. |
European Search Report for Corresponding EPO Patent App. No. 11150577.2-2310, Dated Apr. 26, 2011 (9 pages). |
Japanese Notification of Reasons for Refusal for Patent Application No. 2011-009548 Dated Oct. 27, 2014 With a Mail Date of Nov. 4, 2014, 4 Pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110178605 A1 | Jul 2011 | US |