1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to medical methods and apparatus. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and apparatus used to improve shear loading capacity of a spinal segment. The methods and apparatus disclosed herein may be used alone or in combination with other orthopedic procedures intended to treat patients with spinal disorders such as degenerative spondylolisthesis.
A source of chronic low back pain is degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Degenerative Spondylolisthesis is a common clinical condition that typically presents in the 5th to 8th decades. The listhesis, or anterior translation of the superior vertebra relative to the inferior vertebra, is associated with degenerative changes which make the facet joints less resistant to shear forces seen by the segment.
As the center of mass of the human body is almost always in front of the spine, there is typically a net shear force exerted transversely across segments of the lower lumbar spine during activities of daily living. Each motion segment of the spine includes a disc and two facet joints (a left and a right facet joint) which share shear loads. As the facet joints degenerate, their typical coronal orientation becomes more sagittal, particularly in the superior section of the facet joint, further away from the pedicle. The facet joints' resistance to shear decreases as they become more sagittally oriented, and thus a larger share of the shear load is borne by the disc. The typical finding on flexion/extension films in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis is that the amount of anterior translation increases when the segment is in flexion, and decreases when the segment is in extension. In the extended position, more of the facet joint is engaged, and thus the overall resistance to shear is increased.
Patients with DS typically present with symptoms of stenosis, and these symptoms can be addressed surgically with a decompression/laminectomy and fusion. Unfortunately, however, while decompression relieves pressure from nerves that cause pain, the removal of tissue involved in the decompression can also increase the flexion instability seen in DS, and, over time, the listhesis can increase and cause symptoms to recur. Because of the risk that a stand-alone decompression will increase post-operative instability, the standard of care in the United States is to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis patients with a decompression to address the presenting symptoms and a fusion to prevent progression of the instability and recurrence of symptoms. A surgeon performs decompression to relieve pressure on the nerve roots, typically at L4-L5, L3-L4, L5-S1, or elsewhere along the lumbar region of the spine. Bone is removed as required in order to provide pain relief, while still leaving some pieces of the bony structure intact. Less invasive techniques emphasize resection of only tissues causing neurological injury, and maintaining natural anatomy as much as possible. Often the superior portion of the superior spinous process in the affected spinal segment is left intact along with inferior portion of the inferior spinous process of the spinal segment. Additionally, a significant portion of the lamina will also be left intact.
Sometimes fusion and decompression are performed without instrumentation. Non-instrumented fusions typically require the post-operative use of a lumbar brace for 3-6 months to ensure that the fusion has the best chance to heal. Even with the brace, the non-union rate still can be as high as about 40-50%. Bracing is not particularly effective in limiting segmental motion, is expensive and irritating for patients and is associated with morbidities such as skin pressure sores.
Therefore, fusion often includes instrumentation of the affected spinal segment including the use of pedicle screws and stabilization rods that have high morbidity and complication rates. For example, because shear loading is transferred from the pedicle screws to the stabilization rod at their interface, sites of fatigue result, which can lead to instrumentation failure.
It would therefore be desirable to provide improved devices and methods that are simpler, less invasive and easier to use than existing treatment options that require fusion, rigid instrumentation and decompression procedures. Furthermore, it would be desirable for such improved devices and methods to reduce or eliminate anterior translation of the superior vertebra relative to the inferior vertebra. It would also be desirable for these devices and methods to increase the ability of the spinal segment to bear shear loads. It would also be desirable to have devices and methods able to withstand loading along the spinal segment with lower failure rates than traditional instrumentation. Such methods and devices also should be cost effective and manufacturable. Some or all of these objectives will be met by the devices and methods disclosed herein.
2. Description of the Background Art
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0216017A1 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,458,981 is described below. Other patents and published applications of interest include: U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,966,600; 5,011,494; 5,092,866; 5,116,340; 5,282,863; 5,395,374; 5,415,658; 5,415,661; 5,449,361; 5,456,722; 5,462,542; 5,496,318; 5,540,698; 5,609,634; 5,645,599; 5,725,582; 5,902,305; Re. 36,221; U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,928,232; 5,935,133; 5,964,769; 5,989,256; 6,053,921; 6,312,431; 6,364,883; 6,378,289; 6,391,030; 6,468,309; 6,436,099; 6,451,019; 6,582,433; 6,605,091; 6,626,944; 6,629,975; 6,652,527; 6,652,585; 6,656,185; 6,669,729; 6,682,533; 6,689,140; 6,712,819; 6,689,168; 6,695,852; 6,716,245; 6,761,720; 6,835,205; Published U.S. Patent Application Nos. 2002/0151978; 2004/0024458; 2004/0106995; 2004/0116927; 2004/0117017; 2004/0127989; 2004/0172132; 2005/0033435; 2005/0049708; 2006/0069447; Published PCT Application Nos. WO 01/28442 A1; WO 02/03882 A2; WO 02/051326 A1; WO 02/071960 A1; WO 03/045262 A1; WO 2004/052246 A1; WO 2004/073532 A1; and Published Foreign Application Nos. EP 0322334 A1; and FR 2 681 525 A1.
The present invention generally relates to medical methods and apparatus. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and apparatus used to improve shear loading capacity of a spinal segment. The methods and apparatus disclosed herein may be used alone or in combination with other orthopedic procedures intended to treat patients with spinal disorders such as degenerative spondylolisthesis.
In a first aspect of the present invention, a spinal segment has a superior vertebra, an inferior vertebra or sacrum, and a left and a right facet joint therebetween. A method for improving shear loading capacity of the spinal segment comprises providing a constraint device having an upper portion, a lower portion and a compliance member coupled therebetween. The constraint device is coupled with the spinal segment such that the upper portion is coupled with the superior vertebra and the lower portion is coupled with the inferior vertebra or a sacrum. The constraint device provides a force resistant to flexion of the spinal segment. The method also includes the step of adjusting length or tension in the constraint device in order to increase engagement between an upper portion of the facet joint and a lower portion of the facet joint which increases the capacity of the spinal segment to resist segmental shear loading.
The upper portion of the constraint device may comprise an upper tether structure and the lower portion of the constraint device may comprise a lower tether structure. The compliance member may comprise a coil spring.
The constraint device may be coupled with the spinal segment using minimally invasive procedures. The upper portion of the constraint device may be disposed at least partially around a superior surface of, or through a superior spinous process and the lower portion of the constraint device may be disposed at least partially around an inferior surface of, or through an inferior spinous process. In some embodiments, the lower portion of the constraint device may be coupled with the sacrum. The constraint device may provide a force that resists spreading apart of a superior spinous process relative to an inferior spinous process. The constraint device may be coupled with the spinal segment without substantially restricting extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation of the spinal segment.
Length or tension in the constraint device may be adjusted in order to increase engagement between the upper portion of the facet joint and the lower portion of the facet joint, including when the spinal segment is in flexion. The upper portion of the facet joint may comprise an inferior articular process of the superior vertebra and the lower portion of the facet joint may comprise a superior articular process of the inferior vertebra. Increasing engagement between the upper and lower portions of the facet joint may increase the shear-loading capacity of the spinal segment thereby increasing stability of the spinal segment and reducing translation or listhesis of the superior vertebra relative to the inferior vertebra when a shear load is applied to the spinal segment. Translation may be in the anterior direction. Tension may be adjusted while the spinal segment is in a neutral position or while the patient is in a peri-operative implantation position. Tension may be adjusted to about 10 to 50 Newtons. The length of the constraint device may be adjusted until the constraint device is taut when the spinal segment is in a neutral position. The length may also be adjusted so that the upper and lower portions of the facet joint maintain engagement with one another when the spinal segment is in flexion.
The method may further comprise evaluating the spinal segment. Evaluation may include evaluation of facet joint engagement, curvature of the spinal segment, and intervertebral angle of the superior vertebra relative to the inferior vertebra. Evaluation may also include performing anatomical measurements of the spinal segment or adjacent regions or evaluating stability of the spinal segment. The evaluation may be accomplished by fluoroscopically imaging the spinal segment, direct visualization, manual palpation or manipulation of the spinal segment or measuring the spinal segment with a measuring instrument such as calipers or a ruler which may be radiopaque. One or more radiographic images of the spinal segment may be provided while the spinal segment is in a plurality of spinal postures.
The method may also include reducing or eliminating further progression of degenerative spondylolisthesis in the spinal segment. Intervertebral translation of the superior vertebra relative to the inferior vertebra may be reduced or eliminated and sagittal alignment of the spinal segment may be maintained or improved. Also, narrowing of the spinal canal or lateral foramina in the spinal segment due to translation of the superior vertebra relative to the inferior vertebra may be reduced or eliminated. The method may include decompression of the spinal segment in order to relieve pressure on nerves passing through the spinal segment. The decompression step may comprise decompressing the spinal segment while preserving at least half of each of the spinous processes in the spinal segment, and without disrupting mechanical integrity of the facet joints. The method may prevent or minimize disengagement of the upper portion of the facet joint from the lower portion of the facet joint when the spinal segment is in flexion. Additionally, the method may reduce peak loading on the superior and inferior vertebrae during flexion of the spinal segment relative to peak loading experienced when the spinal segment is instrumented with pedicle screws or cerclage wiring. Peak loading may also be reduced at the interface between the constraint device and the vertebrae during flexion of the spinal segment, again particularly compared to more rigid systems or systems with rigid interconnections. Sometimes a constraint device may be used and a fusion procedure may be performed concomitantly on the spinal segment.
In another aspect of the present invention, a spinal segment has a superior vertebra, an inferior vertebra and a facet joint therebetween. A constraint device for improving shear loading capacity of the spinal segment comprises an upper tether structure adapted to be coupled with a superior spinous process on the superior vertebra. The constraint device also comprises a lower tether structure adapted to be coupled with an inferior spinous process on the inferior vertebra or a sacrum. A compliance member is disposed between the upper and the lower tether structures. Length or tension in the constraint device is adjustable such that the constraint device provides a force resistant to flexion of the spinal segment. Also, the constraint device is further adapted to increase engagement between the upper and lower portions of the facet joint, thereby increasing capacity of the facet joint to resist shear loading. The increased engagement may occur when the spinal segment is in flexion. The upper and lower tether structures may be substantially non-distensible and they may comprise elongate bands. The constraint device may also include a second compliance member that may be disposed between the upper and the lower tether structures. The upper and the lower tether structures may be flexible such that neither tether structure transmits complex loading to the compliance members. The compliance members may comprise coil springs and both compliance members may be arranged to lie on either side of the spinal segment midline. The constraint device may be adapted to couple with the spinal segment without substantially restricting extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation of the spinal segment.
These and other embodiments are described in further detail in the following description related to the appended drawing figures.
As used herein, “neutral position” refers to the position in which the patient's spine rests in a relaxed standing position. The “neutral position” will vary from patient to patient. Usually, such a neutral position will be characterized by a slight curvature or lordosis of the lumbar spine where the spine has a slight anterior convexity and slight posterior concavity. In some cases, the presence of the constraint of the present invention may modify the neutral position, e.g. the device may apply an initial force which defines a “new” neutral position having some increased extension compared to the untreated spine. As such, the use of the term “neutral position” is to be taken in context of the presence or absence of the device. As used herein, “neutral position of the spinal segment” refers to the position of a spinal segment when the spine is in the neutral position.
Furthermore, as used herein, “flexion” refers to the motion between adjacent vertebrae of a spinal segment as the patient bends forward. Referring to
Additionally, as used herein, “extension” refers to the motion of the individual vertebrae L as the patient bends backward and the spine extends from the neutral position illustrated in
Sometimes the affected spinal segment is instrumented with pedicle screws and stabilization rod systems in order to stabilize or correct the misalignment of adjacent vertebral bodies due to spondylolisthesis. This may also be accompanied by fusion and/or decompression.
In cases where the intervertebral translation results in neural compression, interspinous spacers are occasionally used as a treatment. The interspinous spacer distracts the posterior portions of adjacent spinous processes which may open the neural foramina and relieve neurological symptoms of stenosis commonly associated with spondylolisthesis.
A system that restricts segmental flexion would maintain the spine in a posture where the facets are engaged to adequately resist shear loading. Implantation of a system consisting of straps coupled to a compliance member and looped around adjacent spinous processes will resist the spreading of the spinous processes apart from one another, thus restricting flexion of the motion segment. The compliance member allows for some motion and reduced peak loads on the spinous processes and posterior elements. The compliance member also helps reduce loads at the device interfaces, thereby reducing the risk of device failure. The ideal system will only restrict motion to a point where the facets maintain sufficient engagement, while allowing physiological motion below this range.
Use of the constraint device 910 may be alone or in combination with other procedures such as decompression (e.g. bone removal) to relieve pressure on the adjacent nerves. The constraint device includes an upper tether structure 914, a lower tether structure 916 and a compliance member 918. The upper tether structure 914 is disposed around or through a superior spinous process and the lower tether structure 916 is disposed around or through an inferior spinous process or coupled with the sacrum. Length or tension in the constraint device may be adjusted so that the constraint device provides the desired force resistant to flexion of the spinal segment. This may be accomplished by adjusting the length of the upper and/or lower tether structures 914, 916. Additionally, the compliance member 918 may be selected in order to adjust the elastic resistance of the constraint device 910. Preferably, two compliance members 918 are included in the constraint device 910, one on either side of the spinal segment midline (only one is visible in the side view of
Tension in the constraint device may be adjusted to any desired value, but often may be in the range from about 5 N to about 100 N, but more preferably may be in the range from about 10 N to about 30 N. Typically, the length of the constraint device or tension is adjusted while the patient is positioned perioperatively, such as the in prone position. According to surgeon preference, operative technique or concurrent procedures being performed, the patient may be positioned with the affected spinal segment in a neutral, flexion, or extension posture prior to device application. Device length may then be adjusted so that the constraint device is taut when the spinal segment is in the surgeon-adjusted position. The surgeon may also adjust length or tension in the constraint device such that the upper and lower portions of the facet joint maintain engagement with one another when the spinal segment is in flexion.
Once the constraint device has been applied to the spinal segment and adjusted, a surgeon often will evaluate the spinal segment to determine if the device has been properly implanted and adjusted. Often, the surgeon will evaluate engagement of the facet joint surfaces, examine spinal curvature, and review the sagittal angle formed by the endplates of the superior vertebra relative to the inferior vertebra. Other anatomical measurements of the spinal segment or adjacent areas may also be conducted as part of the evaluation process. For example, spinal stability may be examined. Often, the spinal segment will be evaluated using fluoroscopic images of the segment, or by direct visualization of the spine. Radiographic images of the spine in multiple postures, such as standing, seated, flexion and extension, may be particularly useful as part of the evaluation process. The spine may also be manually palpated, manipulated or a measuring instrument such as calipers or a radiopaque ruler may be used to measure the spine.
This procedure has a number of advantages over traditional methods for treating degenerative spondylolisthesis including a smaller incision and a less invasive dissection and surgical access. Also this procedure has less blood loss, requires less time and less anesthesia than decompression with fusion or facet joint replacement surgery. Additionally, in many cases no fusion is performed with this constraint device procedure, precluding autograft harvest and associated morbidity. But even in cases where fusion is performed, the constraint device may help the spinal segment to heal and fuse by constraining flexion and resisting shear. Also, pedicle screws are typically not required and therefore the patient has greater post-operative mobility and typically no risk of the complications and revisions associated with pedicle screws. Also, using a constraint device can obviate the need for a postoperative brace by more effectively controlling segmental motion in these patients without significantly adding to the required soft tissue dissection or the length of the surgery. The constraint device's elastic construction limits the strains exerted on the spinous processes, minimizing the risk of spinous process fracture, especially in elderly patients with poor bone quality. The device furthermore avoids the potential mid- to long-term morbidity associated with the typical violation of the adjacent facet joints associated with pedicle screw use, and may as such minimize the risk of subsequent adjacent level syndromes. Therefore, a constraint device having tether structures applied to an upper and a lower spinous process as previously described may provide a suitable internal construct that stabilizes the treated spinal segment. Thus an external brace may not be required, eliminating the challenges of using such a brace, including patient discomfort, patient compliance as well as cost. Additional details on the constraint device are disclosed below, as well as in U.S. Pat. No. 7,458,981 and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0319487. Additional features on locking mechanisms that may be used to help adjust length or tension in the constraint device are disclosed in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0023060 and International PCT Publication No. WO2009/149407. Additional methods and tools that may be used to couple the constraint device with the spinal segment are disclosed in U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2008/0108993; 2008/0262549; and 2010/0004701. Furthermore, as discussed above, in some embodiments the constraint device may be coupled with the sacrum. Additional details on sacral attachment are disclosed in International PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/022767 and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0009866. Each of the above listed references are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
While the exemplary embodiments have been described in some detail for clarity of understanding and by way of example, a number of modifications, changes, and adaptations may be implemented and/or will be obvious to those as skilled in the art. Hence, the scope of the present invention is limited solely by the independent claims.
The present application is a non-provisional of, and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/164,768, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3648691 | Lumb et al. | Mar 1972 | A |
4246660 | Wevers | Jan 1981 | A |
4643178 | Nastari et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
4708132 | Silvestrini | Nov 1987 | A |
4743260 | Burton | May 1988 | A |
4772286 | Goble et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
4776851 | Bruchman et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4794916 | Porterfield et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4870957 | Goble et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4955910 | Bolesky | Sep 1990 | A |
4966600 | Songer et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5002574 | May et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5011484 | Breard | Apr 1991 | A |
5092866 | Breard et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5108433 | May et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5116340 | Songer et al. | May 1992 | A |
5171280 | Baumgartner | Dec 1992 | A |
5180393 | Commarmond | Jan 1993 | A |
5282863 | Burton | Feb 1994 | A |
5354917 | Sanderson et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5395374 | Miller et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5415658 | Killpela et al. | May 1995 | A |
5415661 | Holmes | May 1995 | A |
5449361 | Preissman | Sep 1995 | A |
5456722 | McLeod et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5458601 | Young, Jr. et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5462542 | Alesi, Jr. | Oct 1995 | A |
5496318 | Howland et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5540698 | Preissman | Jul 1996 | A |
5562737 | Graf | Oct 1996 | A |
5609634 | Voydeville | Mar 1997 | A |
5628756 | Barker, Jr. et al. | May 1997 | A |
5645084 | McKay | Jul 1997 | A |
5645599 | Samani | Jul 1997 | A |
5669917 | Sauer et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5672175 | Martin | Sep 1997 | A |
5707379 | Fleenor et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5725582 | Bevan et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5902305 | Beger et al. | May 1999 | A |
RE36221 | Breard et al. | Jun 1999 | E |
5928232 | Howland et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933452 | Eun | Aug 1999 | A |
5935133 | Wagner et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5964769 | Wagner et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5989256 | Kuslich et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6053921 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6193721 | Michelson | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6224630 | Bao et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6248106 | Ferree | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6283996 | Chervitz et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6296643 | Hopf et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6312431 | Asfora | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6322279 | Yamamoto et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6364883 | Santilli | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6378289 | Trudeau et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6391030 | Wagner et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6395018 | Castaneda | May 2002 | B1 |
6436099 | Drewry et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6451019 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6468309 | Lieberman | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6517578 | Hein | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6558389 | Clark et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6582433 | Yun | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6605091 | Iwanski | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6616669 | Ogilvie et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6626944 | Taylor | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6629975 | Kilpela et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6652527 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6652585 | Lange | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6656185 | Gleason et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6669729 | Chin | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6682533 | Dinsdale et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6689140 | Cohen | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6689168 | Lieberman | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6695852 | Gleason | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6712819 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6716245 | Pasquet et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6761720 | Senegas | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6828357 | Martin et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6835205 | Atkinson et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6835207 | Zacouto et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6899716 | Cragg et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6946000 | Senegas et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7029475 | Panjabi | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7087083 | Pasquet et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7101398 | Dooris et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7163558 | Senegas et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7201751 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7238204 | Le Couedic et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7413576 | Sybert et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7445637 | Taylor | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7452351 | Miller et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7458981 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7520887 | Maxy et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7524324 | Winslow | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7553320 | Molz, IV et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7559951 | Disilvestro et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7591837 | Goldsmith | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7608094 | Falahee | Oct 2009 | B2 |
20020029039 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20030088251 | Braun et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20040116927 | Graf | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040167520 | Zucherman et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040172132 | Ginn | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050033435 | Belliard et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050049708 | Atkinson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050123581 | Ringeisen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131405 | Molz et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154390 | Biedermann et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050192581 | Molz et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216017 | Fielding et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050267470 | McBride | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050267518 | Wright et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036324 | Sachs et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041259 | Paul et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060064166 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060084976 | Borgstrom et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060106381 | Ferree et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106397 | Lins | May 2006 | A1 |
20060136060 | Taylor | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060142760 | McDonnell | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149230 | Kwak et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060195102 | Malandain | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060217726 | Maxy et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060240533 | Sengupta et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241610 | Lim et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060271055 | Thramann | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070010822 | Zalenski et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070073293 | Martz et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070083200 | Gittings et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070213829 | Le Couedic et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070233096 | Garcia-Bengochea | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070270828 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070299445 | Shadduck et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080009866 | Alamin et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021466 | Shadduck et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080027435 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080033552 | Lee et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080045949 | Hunt et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080051784 | Gollogly | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080097431 | Vessa | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080108993 | Bennett et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114357 | Allard et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080125780 | Ferree | May 2008 | A1 |
20080177264 | Alamin et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177298 | Zucherman et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183209 | Robinson et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080262549 | Bennett et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080281423 | Sheffer et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080312693 | Trautwein et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319487 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090030457 | Janowski et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090082820 | Fielding et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090118766 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090198282 | Fielding et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090264929 | Alamin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090264932 | Alamin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090270918 | Attia et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100004701 | Malandain et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100023060 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100036424 | Fielding et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100234890 | Alamin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100234894 | Alamin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 322 334 | Jun 1989 | EP |
0 743 045 | Nov 1996 | EP |
0743045 | Dec 1996 | EP |
1 994 901 | Nov 2008 | EP |
2 681 525 | Mar 1993 | FR |
2 714 591 | Jul 1995 | FR |
2 717 675 | Sep 1995 | FR |
2 828 398 | Feb 2003 | FR |
2 851 154 | Aug 2004 | FR |
2 874 167 | Feb 2006 | FR |
2 884 136 | Oct 2006 | FR |
WO 0128442 | Apr 2001 | WO |
WO 0203882 | Jan 2002 | WO |
WO 0203882 | May 2002 | WO |
WO 02051326 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO 02071960 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO 03045262 | Jun 2003 | WO |
WO 03045262 | Jan 2004 | WO |
WO 2004052246 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004073532 | Sep 2004 | WO |
WO 2004073533 | Sep 2004 | WO |
WO 2005110258 | Nov 2005 | WO |
WO 2008051423 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008051801 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008051802 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008051806 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008051802 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO 2008051806 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO 2008051801 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO 2009149407 | Dec 2009 | WO |
WO 2010028165 | Mar 2010 | WO |
WO 2010028165 | Oct 2010 | WO |
WO 2009149407 | Feb 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion of PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/029263, mailed May 25, 2010, 13 pages total. |
Abbott Spine, Wallis Surgical Technique [Product Brochure], 2006; 24 pages total. |
Al Baz et al., “Modified Technique of Tension Band Wiring in Flexion Injuries of the Middle and Lower Cervical Spine,” Spine, vol. 20, No. 11, 1995, p. 1241-1244. |
Chapter 11: Mechanical Aspects of Lumbar Spine in Musculoskeletal Biomechanics., Paul Brinckmann, Wolfgang Frobin, Gunnar Leivseth (Eds.), Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, 2002; p. 105-128. |
Dickman et al., “Comparative Mechanical Properties of Spinal Cable and Wire Fixation Systems,” Spine, vol. 22, No. 6, Mar. 15, 1997, pp. 596-604. |
Frymoyer et al., “An Overview of the Incidence and Costs of Low Back Pain” Orthrop. Clin. North Am., 1991;22: 263-271. |
Garner et al., “Development and Preclinical Testing of a New Tension-Band Device for the Spine: the Loop system,” European Spine Journal, vol. 11 (Suppl 2), 2002 , pp. S186-S191. |
Heller, “Stability of Different Wiring Techniques in Segmental Spinal Instrumentation. An Experimental Study,” Archives of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, vol. 117, No. 1-2, Nov. 1997, pp. 96-99. |
Leahy et al., “Design of Spinous Process Hooks for Flexible Fixation of the Lumbar Spine,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 214, No. 5, Sep. 27, 2000 , pp. 479-487. |
Leahy et al., “Mechanical Testing of a Flexible Fixation Device for the Lumbar Spine,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 214, No. 5, Sep. 27, 2000 , pp. 489-495. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., DIAM™ System Implant; 2006 [Product Brochure]; downloaded from the Internet: <http://spineinfo.ru/˜files/DIAMST.pdf>, 20 pages total. |
Minns et al., “Preliminary Design and Experimental Studies of a Novel Soft Implant for Correcting Sagittal Plane Instability in the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, vol. 22, No. 16, Aug. 15, 1997, pp. 1819-1825. |
Miyasaka et al., “Radiographic Analysis of Lumbar Motion in Relation to Lumbosacral Stability: Investigation of Moderate and Maximum Motion,” Spine, vol. 25, No. 6, Mar. 15, 2000, pp. 732-737. |
Papp et al., “An In Vitro Study of the Biomechanical Effects of Flexible Stabilization on the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, vol. 22, No. 2, Jan. 15, 1997, pp. 151-155. |
Shepherd et al., “Spinous Process Strength,” Spine, vol. 25, No. 3, Feb. 1, 2000, pp. 319-323. |
Shepherd, “Slippage of a Spinous Process Hook During Flexion in a Flexible Fixation System for the Lumbar Spine,” Medical Engineering and Physics, vol. 23, No. 2, Mar. 2001, pp. 135-141. |
Voydeville et al., “Ligamentoplastie Intervertebrale Avec Cale Souple dans Les Instabilities Lombaries” <<Intervertebral Ligamentoplasty with Flexible Wedge in Lumbar Instability,>>, Orthop Traumatol, vol. 2, 1992, pp. 259-264. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100249839 A1 | Sep 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61164768 | Mar 2009 | US |