The present invention relates to the field of glenoid surface replacement.
The invention provides a glenoid shoulder implant, a humeral implant, and devices for preparing the glenoid and humeral head for joint replacement.
Shoulder replacement surgery is currently used to treat patients suffering from disabling pain due to worn or damaged shoulder joints, which can be caused by, e.g., arthritis or injury. The humeral implants currently in use are typically made from metal, and the implants are affixed to the bone using bone cement (e.g., polymethylmethacrylate) or by press fitting the implant into the bone using a roughened outer surface coating on the metal for bony integration. Most glenoid (shoulder socket) implants are made completely from polyethylene and affixed to the cortical bone using bone cement. Some glenoid implants have a rigid base plate made of metal, ceramic or rigid polymer with a polyethylene insert. The polyethylene material is suitable as a low friction articulating surface for engaging the humeral component. Current glenoid implants are intended to sit on a prepared surface of a glenoid bone. The surface is typically prepared by removing any remaining cartilage, reaming a smooth bony surface and by drilling receiving pockets for anchoring features or devices within the natural glenoid area. Current implant designs use either a keel or multiple elongated pegs on the back (medial surface) of the prosthetic glenoid implant as anchoring features to secure the glenoid implant inside the glenoid vault.
Glenoid implants with keeled or elongated peg anchors suffer from several disadvantages, which limit their lifespan once implanted and reduce the number of indications for which they can be used. For example, these glenoid implants can loosen due to poor fixation to the bone, and are prone to wear and fatigue failure of the polyethylene due to adhesion, abrasion, and shear stress. Because of these deficiencies, surgeons hesitate to perform glenoid replacement surgery on young or middle aged patients with glenoid articular cartilage injuries or damage due to early arthritis for fear that the implant may not last more than 10-15 years in the body, thus subjecting the patient to the possibility of two or more surgeries during the lifetime of the patient to preserve the function and pain-free state of the joint. Finally, current glenoid implants with a long keel or an elongated anchor peg are sometimes contraindicated in patients with significant glenoid bone loss. As arthritis progresses, the humeral head can wear medially and destroy the foundation of glenoid bone. In these cases, the glenoid vault can be significantly reduced in volume and depth. Thus, a typical keel or peg design can penetrate through the glenoid vault and injure the suprascapular nerve along the suprascapular notch or spinoglenoid notch with resultant denervation injury to the rotator cuff muscles. Penetrating through the bone of the glenoid vault can also fracture the body of the scapula and cause early implant loosening.
There are also several disadvantages associated with current glenoid replacement surgical techniques. Current techniques require extensive shoulder exposure with capsular releases in order to fully expose the glenoid surface circumferentially. Since the axillary nerve is located within 1 cm of the inferior capsule, there is potential risk of axillary nerve injury with resultant denervation injury to the deltoid muscle when these releases are performed. Use of the current glenoid implants with keels or elongated anchor pegs requires this extensive glenoid exposure for proper fitting and placement of the prostheses. Current glenoid replacement surgery also requires a long skin incision, typically 150 mm to 200 mm in length, and extensive soft tissue stripping in order to fully expose the glenoid circumferentially, which increases the risk of tissue damage and produces a cosmetically unappealing scar. Finally, current glenoid replacement surgical techniques require advanced surgical training and expertise within the specialty of shoulder surgery, yet the majority of shoulder implants performed in the U.S. every year are performed by orthopedic surgeons who do not have advanced training in the subspecialty of shoulder surgery. Therefore, many surgeons have difficulty preparing the glenoid site for a total shoulder replacement using the current techniques.
As a consequence of the limitations of the currently available designs and surgical techniques some patients forego surgery and incur a risk of continued pain and disability. Patients who elect a surgical solution incur the risk of neurovascular injuries, glenoid and scapula fractures, and failed shoulder prostheses requiring revision surgery. Thus, there remains a need for an improved glenoid implant and improved methods for performing replacement shoulder surgery.
There is provided in accordance with one aspect of the present invention, a method of treating a patient. The method comprises the steps of identifying a patient having a glenoid surface, and reaming a cavity into the glenoid surface. A glenoid implant is inserted into the cavity, such that at least a portion of a peripheral edge of the implant resides below the adjacent glenoid surface, and the portion residing below the adjacent glenoid surface is circumferentially surrounded by the cortical bone of the glenoid.
The reaming a cavity step comprises reaming a circular cavity so as to create a mating surface for the prosthetic glenoid implant, said surface being below the native glenoid bone surface and being circumferentially surrounded by native glenoid bone. The inserting a glenoid implant step may comprise fitting a glenoid implant having a circular portion into the cavity, said circular portion having a diameter complimentary to that of the cavity reamed in the glenoid bone
The method may additionally comprise the step of securing the implant within the cavity using bone cement or mechanical engagement such as can be achieved using a press-fit interference or bone screws. The implant has a medial surface disposed to engage the prepared surface within the reamed cavity. Various configurations of this medial surface are presented, these surface geometries being configured to receive bone cement and improve adhesion of the implant to, and retention within, the reamed bone cavity.
The method may additionally comprise the step of stabilizing the implant within the cavity using a central peg extending from a medial surface of the implant, said peg being located within a prepared receiving hole in the glenoid bone Various geometric configurations of this peg are presented.
The method may additionally comprise the step of accessing the glenoid via a deltopectoral approach. Alternatively, the method may comprise the step of accessing the glenoid via an anterolateral approach.
In certain implementations of the invention, the reaming a cavity step comprises reaming a cavity completely within the boundary of the native glenoid cavity, without destroying the peripheral margin of the glenoid surface. This step may be accomplished while leaving the majority of the inferior capsule intact. The reaming a cavity step may comprise reaming a cavity while leaving the peripheral cortex intact. The method may include the step of accessing the glenoid surface via an incision having a length of no more than about 9 cm.
In the patients having more extensive deficiency of glenoid bone there is often a need to reconstruct the natural geometry of the shoulder so as to restore the natural orientation and engagement of the humerus to glenoid interface. This is often currently achieved by grafting bone tissue or otherwise reconstructing the bony geometry of the glenoid structure. In one aspect of the glenoid prosthesis invention disclosed herein there is a circular prosthesis configuration presented whereon the plane of the articulating surface is offset from the plane of the medial, bone engaging, surface of the implant. The combination of a circular implant and included angles between the medial and articulating surfaces of the implant device allows for in-situ positioning of the implant by rotating the circular implant around the central axis of the medial surface in order to restore the natural plane of the glenoid value.
In certain patients there is extreme bone deficiency or there exists an atypical bone wear pattern, in these case there may remain insufficient bone in which to create a reamed cavity which completely surrounds the perimeter of the glenoid implant. In one implementation the invented glenoid implant device has an annular ring disposed around the circumference of the medial surface. During the cavity reaming step of the surgical procedure a perimeter groove is cut into the glenoid bone structure around the circumference of the reamed cavity so as to create a receiving channel around the perimeter of the reamed cavity in the bone, this groove receives within it a corresponding annular ring of the glenoid implant device thereby creating full circumferential engagement of the implant within the bone in order to increase the retention and stability of said implant.
There is further presented a geometry for the articulating surface of the device which permits a semi-constrained relationship between the glenoid implant device and the humeral head.
In accordance with a further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a glenoid implant. The implant comprises a circular body, having a medial surface, an articulating surface, a peripheral edge and central axis. A post is provided on the medial surface, disposed concentrically on the central axis. At least one axially extending flange extends from the medial surface at the peripheral edge of the circular body.
Preferably, the at least one flange extends around at least about 75% of the peripheral edge of the circular body. The flange may extend at least about 85% or 95% of the way around the peripheral edge of the circular body, and may be discontinuous or continuous.
The circular body has a first thickness measured in the axial direction at a first point on the peripheral edge, and a second thickness measured in the axial direction at a second point on the peripheral edge which is spaced apart from the first point by 180°. In one implementation of the invention, the first thickness is substantially equal to the second thickness. Alternatively, the first thickness may be at least about 125% of the of the second thickness, at least about 150% of the second thickness, or at least about 200% of the second thickness to provide an angled, rotationally adjustable implant.
In accordance with a further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a glenoid implant. The implant comprises a circular body, having a medial surface, an articulating surface, a peripheral edge and a central axis. A post is provided on the medial surface, disposed concentrically on the central axis. The body comprises a first thickness measured in the axial direction at a first point on the peripheral edge, and a second thickness measured in the axial direction at a second point on the peripheral edge, spaced apart from the first point by 180°. The first thickness is at least about 125% of the second thickness. The implant may additionally comprise at least one projection extending axially from the body at the peripheral edge. The projection may comprise an annular flange, which may be continuous or discontinuous. The implant may additionally comprise at least one bone cement flow channel on the medial surface.
In accordance with a further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of treating a patient. The method comprises the steps of exposing a glenoid surface, and reaming a circular depression in the glenoid surface. A glenoid implant is provided, having a circular peripheral edge and a non-spherical concavity with an articulating surface, the concavity having an axis of rotation which is angularly offset from an axis of the circular peripheral edge. The implant is positioned such that the circular peripheral edge at least partially resides within the circular depression. The implant is thereafter rotated, to direct the axis of rotation of the articulating surface to a desired position.
In accordance with a further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of treating a patient. The method comprises the steps of making a skin incision, and exposing a glenoid surface through the incision. A reamer is introduced through the incision, and a circular depression is reamed within the glenoid surface. The glenoid implant is introduced through the incision, and positioned at least partially within the depression. The incision is preferably no more than about 100 mm in length.
In accordance with a further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a cement construct, for retaining an implant within a cavity in a bone. The construct comprises a cement shell, having a concave side corresponding to the configuration of an implant and a convex side corresponding to the configuration of a prepared cavity in a bone. The concave side has an axis of rotational symmetry. A first tubular wall section is concentrically disposed about the axis, and a substantially planar section extends radially outwardly from an end of the first tubular wall section and transverse to the axis.
A second tubular wall section is concentrically disposed about the axis, and extends axially from a peripheral edge of the planar section. The second tubular wall section extends at least about 180°, preferably at least about 270°, and in certain implementations completely around the axis.
In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of preparing a glenoid surface for implantation of a glenoid implant. The method comprises the steps of reaming a circular depression in the glenoid surface, to produce a reduced glenoid surface having an axis of rotation. A bore is reamed coincident with the axis, and below the level of the reduced surface. An annular channel is reamed concentrically about the axis, and below the level of the reduced surface.
Further features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent to those of skill in the art in view of the detailed description of preferred embodiments which follows, when considered together with the attached drawings and claims.
The invention features an inset glenoid implant prosthesis, a humeral implant prosthesis, and methods and devices for preparing the surgical site for implantation of the implant prostheses.
In one aspect, the invention features an inset glenoid shoulder implant that is implanted within the glenoid vault, thereby allowing circumferential cortical support along the rim of the prosthesis, which improves fixation strength in comparison to current glenoid implants. Another advantage of the glenoid implant is that it requires only a minimal amount of bone removal for implantation.
The glenoid implant itself includes a (1) body portion having (i) a smooth concave lateral articulating surface facing away from the scapula, which is adapted to be engaged by a convex surface of a humeral component, and (ii) an opposing surface on the medial side intended to be positioned within a cavity reamed in the glenoid. In a preferred embodiment, the glenoid implant also includes (2) a short peg on the medial side extending centrally outward along an axis from a convex or flat backside (medial) surface of the glenoid implant. In a preferred embodiment, the short peg of the glenoid implant is less than about 10 mm long, more preferably about 8 mm or less in length, even more preferably about 5 mm or less in length. Alternatively, the glenoid implant has multiple pegs, each of which can be the same length or different lengths, e.g., less than about 8 mm or less in length, more preferably about 5 mm or less in length. In another embodiment, at least one of the pegs is between about 5 mm and about 8 mm in length and the remaining pegs are less than about 8 mm in length.
In another preferred embodiment, the body portion extends to an edge having a circular configuration while, in a second embodiment, the body portion has an edge defining a non-circular configuration, such as an oval, an elongated configuration, or a configuration which may be characterized as rectangular with slightly rounded ends. In another preferred embodiment, the glenoid implant is implanted in a prepared cavity of the glenoid which conforms generally to the backside (medial) surface only and sits inset slightly within the glenoid vault. In another preferred embodiment, the glenoid implant is implanted in a prepared cavity of the glenoid which conforms generally to the single short peg or multiple short pegs, if present, and the backside (medial) surface of the glenoid implant.
In another preferred embodiment, the glenoid implant of the invention is manufactured using polyethylene, metal, or ceramic, or combinations thereof, e.g., a combination of metal and polyethylene or ceramic and polyethylene.
In another preferred embodiment, the glenoid implant of the invention is secured to the glenoid using cement fixation or press fit technique. In yet another preferred embodiment, the glenoid implant is further secured to the glenoid using screws, e.g., in press fit designs.
In another preferred embodiment, the glenoid implant can be customized during the surgical procedure, as is required based on the condition of the patient. In another embodiment, the glenoid implant is sterilized prior to implantation. In yet another embodiment, the glenoid implant is provided in sterile packaging.
In the method of implanting the glenoid component, the first step after exposing the glenoid cavity is to determine the appropriate size of component to be used. This is done by placing a series of circular sizers having varying diameters over the glenoid cavity to determine the proper diameter to which the scapula should be reamed at the surface defining the glenoid cavity and the proper size of glenoid component. Using a combined sizer/guide having a central hole and passageway formed therein to determine the correct location and attitude, a hole is drilled a few millimeters into the scapula through the glenoid surface using a combined guide wire/drill. The guide wire/drill is calibrated in order to readily determine the depth of drilling and is attached to a chuck if a power drill is used or a T-handle or the like if the drilling is manual. The guide wire/drill should be drilled into the scapula substantially perpendicular to the anatomic axis of the glenoid surface. Thereafter, the combined sizer/guide is removed and a reamer is positioned to ream the scapula to the proper shape and depth forming a cavity having a circular cross-sectional configuration for a circular implant or an oval configuration for an oval implant in a plane normal to the axis defined by the guide wire.
In another aspect of the invention, the glenoid implant can be used in patients with deficient glenoid bone due to fracture or severe arthritis. In preferred embodiments, the glenoid implant has none, one, two, or three or more short backside pegs that do not extend beyond about 10 mm outwardly from the backside (medial) surface of the glenoid implant. In a preferred embodiment, the peg or pegs do not extend beyond about 8 mm from the backside (medial) surface of the glenoid implant. Because the glenoid implant lacks a long backside extension, it can be safely placed inside a glenoid vault with minimal depth. This minimizes the risk of fracturing the body of the scapula or injuring the suprascapular nerve or rotator cuff.
Another aspect of the invention features a humeral implant for use in a total shoulder replacement procedure. The humeral implant of the present invention is less than 70 mm in length, preferably about 60 mm in length, and is less than 40 mm wide anterior to posterior (preferably 20 to 30 mm wide). In an embodiment, the humeral implant includes a collar, which prevents the humeral implant from embedding too deeply in the humerus. In other embodiment, the humeral implant includes a flange (fin), which provides fixation of the humeral implant in the medial to lateral plane and rotational control. Alternatively, the humeral implant can contain 3 flanges (fins) with 1 lateral, 1 anterior, and 1 posterior. The stem of the humeral implant defines a longitudinal axis and the planar surface extends from between about 45° to about 60° to the axis of the stem. The proximal end of the stem includes a bore that extends downward from the planar surface and is adapted to be engaged by an artificial humeral head by means of a morse taper. In other embodiments, the humeral implant is fixed using a bone cement, such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or a compatible fixation material, or it is press-fit without bone cement. The humeral implant can be customized during the surgical procedure, as is required based on the condition of the patient. In another embodiment, the humeral implant is sterilized prior to implantation. In another embodiment, the humeral implant is provided in sterile packaging. In another preferred embodiment, the humeral implant of the invention is manufactured using polyethylene, metal, or ceramic, or combinations thereof, e.g., a combination of metal and polyethylene or ceramic and polyethylene.
Another aspect of the invention features a cutting jig for preparing a humerus for replacement by a humeral implant. The humeral head cutting jig is a simple, low profile humeral cutting jig that can be a fill circle or part thereof. The cutting jig is placed along the anatomic neck of the humerus in the appropriate version (angle of the cut) as determined by the surgeon. The cutting jig can be secured along the anatomic neck of the proximal humerus using K-wires, pins, or screws and is removed after completion of humeral head resection. In an embodiment, the cutting jig includes a handle portion.
Another aspect of the invention features a method for providing a shoulder implant which can be performed through a minimal incision technique (“mini-incision”). Instead of an extensive deltopectoral approach involving extensive soft tissue stripping, capsular releases, and circumferential glenoid exposure, this inset implant can be performed through a more limited mini-incision technique. A mini-deltopectoral incision is utilized. The skin incision is shorter, and the pectoralis tendon is left intact. The majority of the inferior capsule is also left intact. In a preferred embodiment, the glenoid labrum can be left intact if this is preferred by the surgeon. The central portion of the glenoid bone is then reamed while leaving the peripheral cortex intact. There are three major consequences of this mini-incision technique:
The present invention is also directed to a method for implanting such glenoid implant for precise placement in the scapula and precise drilling and reaming of the scapula. The method is performed using a specialized power drill having a lateral drilling attachment and a short drill bit incorporated into the attachment, which is used to drill a central hole in the glenoid surface. The bone is then reamed with a reamer bit attached to the drill. The lateral drilling attachment inclines the axis of the drill relative to the axis of the access pathway by an angle within the range of from about 45° to about 110°, often within the range of from about 50° to about 90°, and, in one implementation about 60°.
Another aspect of the invention features a slim design power drill for preparing a glenoid for implantation of a glenoid implant, in which the power drill includes a right angle drilling attachment having an extension rod with a length of at least 10 cm, more preferably at least 12, 15, or 18 cm long, the end of which is includes a collet or chuck that is positioned at a 90° angle relative to the extension rod and which is adapted to receive a short drill bit; the power drill being prepared for use in the surgical field by sterilization. In a preferred embodiment, the drill and accessories are sterilized and provided in a sterile container. In other preferred embodiments, the drill bit is 10 mm long, more preferably 12, 14, 16, 18, or 20 mm long, and most preferably 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75 mm long. In other preferred embodiments, the drill bit has the following diameters: 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.0 mm, 3.2 mm, 4.0 mm, 4.5 mm, 5.0 mm, 5.5 mm, 6.0 mm, 6.5 mm, 7.0 mm, 8.0 mm, 9.0 mm, or 10.0 mm. The power drill is designed to allow drilling in spaces as tight as 50 mm. In other preferred embodiments, the overall length of the right angle drilling attachment is 18 cm, more preferably 20 cm, most preferably 22 cm. The head width and extension rod diameter are preferably less than 25 mm, more preferably less than 22 mm, and most preferably less than 20 mm. The head length is preferably less than 30 mm, more preferably less than 28 mm, and most preferably less than 25 mm. In other preferred embodiments, the right angle drilling attachment is designed to be attached to any power drill, the use of which is acceptable in a surgical field, and is designed to be lightweight, e.g., less than about 200 grams, more preferably less than about 180 grams, and most preferably less than about 150 grams. The power drill can be powered using a battery supply (cordless) or it can be powered using an electrical cord powered from a standard electrical outlet. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,037,724, incorporated herein by reference.
The design of the glenoid implant of the invention provides increased implant fixation strength to glenoid bone and therefore decreases the rate of glenoid implant loosening. This implant is also designed for use in cases of deficient glenoid bone which would preclude the use of a current glenoid implant since they require adequate bone in the glenoid vault to support multiple long pegs or a keel.
The invention also features a humeral implant, which is less than 70 mm in length, preferably about 60 mm in length, and is less than 40 mm wide from anterior to posterior (preferably 20-30 mm). The humeral implant of the invention is significantly shorter and thinner (in the anterior to posterior dimension) than most current stems, which are about 70-115 mm in length and bulkier in the proximal (metaphyseal) area than distally both in the anterior to posterior dimension and medial to lateral dimension. Because the humeral implant of the invention is shorter, it can be implanted in a narrower metaphyseal area and does not require the removal of a significant amount of bone. Fixation of the present humeral implant depends upon good interference fixation in the medial-lateral plane when press fit (similar to some current total hips). The humeral implant can be fixed using a bone cement, such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or a compatible fixation material. Alternatively, the humeral implant can be press-fit.
The invention also features a minimal incision shoulder arthroplasty technique that allows replacement of the glenoid surface and humeral head with only a small incision and less extensive soft tissue stripping. The “mini-incision” procedure also leaves the pectoralis tendon and the majority of the inferior capsule intact. The glenoid labrum can also be left intact. The central portion of the glenoid bone is then reamed while leaving the peripheral cortex intact. The advantages of this “mini-incision” procedure include a shorter incision with less scarring, increased safety, and a more simple exposure of the glenoid, thus allowing general orthopedists to perform a shoulder replacement with less difficulty and potentially fewer complications.
The glenoid implant of the invention lacks a keel and multiple long pegs, which are typically present in the prior art glenoid implants. Instead, the glenoid implant of the invention optionally includes one or more pegs or flanges disposed radially symmetrically about a central axis of the implant, such as only a single short (less than about 8 mm), central backside peg which stabilizes the glenoid implant. The glenoid implant of the invention does not require a long extended keel or long pegs because the majority of the fixation strength is concentrated on the rim of the embedded implant. This obviates the need for significant backside fixation. The fixation, with either cement or press fit techniques, offers circumferential cortical bone fixation around the prosthesis. The shear stresses placed on the implant are therefore supported by a circumferential buttress of bone, which is more mechanically sound than an onlay prosthesis with an extended backside keel or multiple long pegs.
An object of the invention is to minimize the common complications of glenoid implant loosening and fatigue failure that exist with current glenoid implants. All previous glenoid implants sit on the surface of a reamed articular surface and utilize a keel or multiple pegs to secure the implant inside the glenoid vault (see, e.g.,
Patients who can benefit from the use of the glenoid implant of the invention and the improved methods for performing a total shoulder arthroplasty include young, middle, and older patients with arthritis (typical total shoulder replacement (TSR) patients) or damage or injury to the shoulder. This new inset glenoid implant allows TSR surgery for new, previously contraindicated applications, including applications in which the patient presents with bone defects on the glenoid. The glenoid implant of the invention can also be utilized in revision surgeries.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Glenoid implant 10, including or excluding short, backside peg 12, is adapted to be implanted in a prepared cavity of the glenoid (see, e.g.,
Glenoid component 10 of the present invention includes concave lateral articulating surface 14 against which the head of a humerus or humeral component moves. Glenoid implant 10 is manufactured using a suitable material, for example, polyethylene, metal, ceramic, or combinations thereof, with lateral articulating surface 14 being smoothly contoured. The radius of curvature of the articulating glenoid surface can match the humeral head surface or it can be slightly larger than the radius of curvature of the humeral head implant.
In preferred embodiments, glenoid implant 10 has a lateral articulating surface 14 having a concave circular or oval surface encircled by circular edge 20. The implant at the circular edge 20 has a thickness in an axial direction in the range of about 3-6 mm, preferably about 3 mm. The peripheral edge will have a greater axial dimension in embodiments such as illustrated in
The medial, back side of glenoid implant 10 is preferably roughened or textured. For example, glenoid implant 10 can include a series of elongated groves 18 in multiple locations for receiving bone cement to assist in the cement augmentation and retention of glenoid implant 10.
In preparing the glenoid to receive glenoid implant 10, the glenoid (G; see, e.g.,
Referring now to
In preparing the cavity in the glenoid (G) to receive glenoid implant 10, the surgeon will initially determine the position of the drill site using a guide known in the art (see, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,712,823; 6,364,910; 5,030,219; and 5,489,310; all of which are incorporated in their entireties by reference herein).
A reamer of appropriate size is then chosen based on the size of the sizer guide previously chosen. The reamer has a symmetrical head with a plurality of cutting blades and may have a peripheral stop surface. The previously drilled hole is used as a center guide for the reamer. The reamer is used to create a cavity in the glenoid surface of the scapula in which the prosthetic glenoid component will be installed. The reamed cavity is a receiving cavity for the glenoid repair device and is of a geometry that is generally complimentary to the geometry of the medial and peripheral aspects of the glenoid repair implant After the cavity has been created, the glenoid repair device is installed within the reamed bone cavity, with or without the use of bone cement. Insertion may be achieved by manually placing the repair device through the incision into the cavity within the bone or by means of an elongated insertion device so as to permit easy location, guidance and manipulation of the repair device through the incision and into and within the reamed bone cavity.
A method for implanting glenoid implant 10 will now be described with reference to
Once the holes have been drilled and the glenoid reamed, a confirmation step is performed in which a provisional or surrogate glenoid implant (often called “a trial”) may be used prior to cementing the final glenoid implant to verify placement, range of motion, and glenoid size, and to verify that the glenoid implant is sufficiently inset within the bone. Several iterations of this step may occur, in which various surrogate implant devices are tested in-vivo in order to select a preferred implant geometry. After the preferred glenoid implant has been selected, the surrogate implant is removed. In instances where the surgeon elects to insert the implant within the reamed bone cavity a suitable bone cement, such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or other compatible material, is placed in the reamed bone cavity of the glenoid vault and may also be applied to the medial (back) surface of glenoid implant 10. Glenoid implant 10 is then positioned within the prepared cavity. If a cemented construct has been chosen, the glenoid implant 10 is then held in place until the cement hardens to assure strong fixation of glenoid implant 10 in the scapula. The head portion of the humerus or humeral component may then engage the concave articulating surface of the glenoid implant 14.
As can be appreciated, the reaming is contained completely within the boundary of the glenoid cavity (G) and therefore does not destroy the peripheral margin of the glenoid surface. Additionally, as can be seen in
This method can be performed using a deltopectoral or anterolateral surgical approach. For most cases, a limited deltopectoral incision will be adequate to allow exposure to all involved structures. Use of glenoid implant 10 in the shoulder arthroplasty procedure allows the surgeon to use a “mini-incision technique,” similar to techniques utilized for total knee surgery and total hip surgery. Typical incision sizes for current Glenoid repair procedures are in the range of 150 mm to 200 mm, use of the methods and devices disclosed herein permits a typical incision size in the range of 70 mm to 100 mm to be used. Further, the use of the glenoid implant 10 reduces the number of surgical steps, entries into the wound and has other surgical benefits as outlined in Table 1. Thus, the glenoid reaming and insertion of the glenoid trial and/or final glenoid implant as described herein may be accomplished via an incision of no more than about 100 mm, preferably no more than about 90 mm and in some embodiments of the invention, no more than about 80 mm.
Referring to
In this embodiment the medial surface 16 of the implant device has been configured to facilitate the flow of bone cement across and around the medial and circumferential aspects of said device so as to attain enhanced adhesion and stability of the glenoid implant after insertion into the reamed cavity in the glenoid bone. The medial surface 16 has therein a plurality of concentric grooves 18, and a plurality of radial flow channels 120 disposed to interconnect the concentric grooves forming a continuous flow path between each of the concentric grooves. The interconnecting channels 120 on the medial surface are further connected to one or more circumferentially disposed channels 102 via the radial flow channels 120, thereby forming an open continuous flow pathway from the central anchoring peg 12, across the medial surface of the device 16 to and around the perimeter wall 20 of the glenoid implant device. This interconnected system of concentric grooves 18, radial flow channels 120 and circumferential channel 102 is designed to accommodate the flow of bone cement across the medial surface and around the circumference of the glenoid implant device so as to assure enhanced adhesion of the implant device to and within the reamed glenoid cavity in the bone.
Further illustrated are bone cement wells 100 on the medial aspect of the implant device 16. These wells 100 may be used in conjunction with the interconnected system of grooves 18 and radial flow channels 120 to accommodate and accept any excess bone cement material which may migrate while the glenoid implant device is being compressively inserted into the reamed cavity in the glenoid bone.
While the cross sectional geometry of the flow channel system shown is generally rectilinear in nature it will be understood that various other geometries can be used to further enhance performance, including but not limited to those with negative tapers. FIG. 27A illustrates flow channels with such a negative taper geometry. As illustrated in
As illustrated in
The outer periphery of the second layer 111 is substantially circular in configuration, and carries an outer peripheral annular flange 116. Outer peripheral flange 116 may be provided with at least one radially inwardly directed projection or ridge 118, such as an annular ridge having a complementary configuration to one or more radially inwardly extending annular channels 102 on the perimeter surface 20 of the glenoid implant device.
The hardened cement thus takes on the configuration of a concave shell, which corresponds to the mismatch in size and configuration between the surface of the implant and the complementary reamed surface of the glenoid bone. The thickness of the cement shell may vary, potentially down to zero in spots, depending upon placement and size of the implant relative to its corresponding reamed cavity in the glenoid bone.
In certain patients arthritis or other degenerative conditions may have caused substantial wear and degeneration of the glenoid bone structure, resulting in a substantial deficiency of native bone and/or a loss of the natural concave structure of the glenoid joint. As a consequence there may be insufficient native bone remaining to completely engage the circumference of the glenoid implant device using the surgical methods previously described herein.
Referring now to
The illustrated engagement structure 110 is positioned at the peripheral edge of the implant 10. However, the bone engagement structure 110 may be spaced radially inwardly from the outer peripheral edge of the implant 110. In general, the engagement structure 110 will comprise either a single annular ridge, or a plurality of projections. See, e.g.,
To accommodate the embodiment of implant device of
Significant posterior wear and bone loss is common in patients with osteoarthritis, and significant medial wear and bone loss is common in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Combinations of different wear patterns further complicate surgical decision making. Since all current models of glenoid implants lay on the surface of the disfigured, erratic joint surface, it is often impossible to provide secure fixation with current implants that can withstand the stresses of a rotating, elevating, translating humeral head throughout a full array of shoulder motions. Therefore, surgeons often abandon placement of a glenoid implant in deficient bone. In other instances, the surgeon may elect to create a bone graft by cutting out part of the humeral head or resecting hip bone in order to provide a wedge of bone to be secured onto the glenoid bone tissue with screws or other means of fixation. Thereafter, a glenoid implant can be placed through the graft wedge. This procedure is extremely difficult to perform, even by highly skilled surgeon, there is a high degree of subjectivity and the rate of complications is high. Complications may include implant loosening, screw breakage or loosening, graft resorption, neurovascular injury and death.
Further, in patients with substantial bone wear, degradation, or deficiency there may be a need to restore the natural angulation of the articulating surface so as to recreate the natural geometry of the glenoid to humeral interface so as to restore normal mobility and range of motion to the joint. Current practices include the use of a bone graft material in conjunction with prosthetic implant devices, the bone graft material being implanted between the prosthetic and native bone tissue in an attempt to reconstruct the volume and angulation of the bony structure to receive and support the prostheses.
Proposed herein is an alternate embodiment of a glenoid implant device which can be implanted in a minimally invasive manner into bone deficient patients which allows for the restoration of natural angulation and geometry at the humerus to glenoid interface, does not require the use of bone graft material and does not require the use of a long keel or anchor peg system.
Referring now to
The position of the neutral or resting position of the humeral to glenoid interface, Point R, may be adjusted by varying the nominal thickness of the implant device, d3 This thickness is typically in a range of 3 mm to 15 mm, depending upon the extent of the deficiency of native bone and the corrective angle necessary to restore functional angulation to the glenoid joint.
Referring specifically now to
The combination of a circular implant device with this offset angular surface construction enables the surgeon to accurately orient the primary axis of the articulating surface within the wound by rotating the implant device about the centerline of the device CL while it is in-situ in the reamed cavity of the glenoid bone. Referring to
As an aid to the surgeon, one or more indicator marks can be included on the device, this indicator being visible when the device is implanted within the reamed cavity in the glenoid bone.
Referring now to the embodiment of
In the foregoing illustration, a line drawn perpendicular to the axis of rotation 400 at the articulating surface 14 (e.g., a tangent) will be angularly inclined relative to the centerline by an Angle A. Angle A may be at least about 5°, 10°, 15°, or 20° or more, depending upon the desired clinical performance.
In an alternate embodiment, shown in
In general, glenoid implants in accordance with the present invention will often have a lateral offset distance within the range of from about 2 mm to about 18 mm, and a radius for the arc of revolution within the range of from about 30 mm to about 200 mm and have a circular diameter of 20 mm to 55 mm.
There remains ongoing debate as to the relative benefits of a constrained or non-constrained shoulder replacement system. A constrained system is a specific combination on a prosthetic humeral head and glenoid implant pair, wherein there is a precise and constrained fit between the humeral head and the glenoid implant device, limiting relative motion of the two components to pure spherical articulation. In non-constrained systems the spherical diameters of the humeral head prosthesis and that of the glenoid implant device are deliberately mismatched, the glenoid implant having a larger diameter than the humeral head. In this construct the humeral head can articulate spherically and can translate across the surface of the glenoid implant in an unconstrained manner.
Published literature discusses various biomechanical benefits and limitations of both systems. Both systems offer significant benefits and limitations and several attempts have been made to develop hybrid systems. U.S. Pat. No. 5,928,285 to Bigliani et Al. discloses a system wherein the glenoid surface is defined by 2 or more tangentially intersecting radii, with the central radius being matched to that of the humeral head and the lateral radii of the glenoid being larger than that of the humeral head. The cited benefit being that in the central neutral position the pair acted as a constrained pair and when the humeral head translated laterally onto a glenoid surface of larger radius size than the head, the system mimicked the characteristics of an un-constrained system. In this construct it is necessary to match the humeral head radius to that of the glenoid, thereby requiring that matched pairs be implanted within the patient. US patent application 6,875,234 to Lipman et al. discloses a system wherein the glenoid articulating surface is comprised of 2 non tangential radii, the radius in the central neutral zone being larger than that of the humeral head and the glenoid radius lateral to the neutral zone being of a smaller size and being non-tangential to the radius of the neutral zone. In this configuration the humeral head is free to articulate and translate within the central neutral zone and becomes more constrained as the humeral head translates laterally across the glenoid surface.
Of further note is that fact that in unconstrained systems the contact between the humeral head and the articulating glenoid surface is essentially a point contact. This increases load transfer within and through the glenoid implant and has been shown to negatively impact wear and permits loosening of the glenoid repair implant over time.
Referring now to
In
The exemplary embodiment of
Referring once again to
Referring now to
The mechanical fastener illustrated in
The mechanical fastener 601 includes a proximally facing surface 650, which, following installation, will face the humeral ball. Surface 650 is preferably recessed beneath the adjacent articulating surface 14. This may be accomplished by providing a recess 652 into the articulating surface 14 to receive a head on which the surface 650 resides. Alternatively, the mechanical fastener 601 may comprise a threaded body having a relatively constant outside diameter throughout its axial length, such that it can be axially advanced into the access channel 600 until the proximally facing surface 650 is beneath the level of articulating surface 14.
In an embodiment in which mechanical fastener 601 is rotated into engagement with segments 610, the proximal surface 650 is provided with a mechanical interfit coupling, for removably cooperating with a driver tool. The coupling may comprise a recess such as slot or polygon such as a triangle, square, pentagon or hexagon. Implants in accordance with this aspect of the invention may be provided in a kit which includes a driver tool, such as an Allen wrench, or other specialized screwdriver to rotationally engage the mechanical fastener 601. The driver tool may comprise an elongate tubular body, having a lateral bend such as a 90° bend at its distal end. A rotatable tip is carried by the distal end, and configured to complement the geometry of the engagement structure on mechanical fastener 601. The rotatable tip is connected via the central lumen to a proximal control, which may be rotated by the clinician to rotate the mechanical fastener 601 into place. Mechanical connection between the proximal control and the distal rotatable tip may comprise a flexible cable extending through the central lumen, or a torque rod which may be provided with suitable gears at the point of the bend to translate rotational force from the longitudinal axis of the tool to the transverse axis of the rotatable tip.
In general, any of a variety of structures may be utilized to convert axial proximal or distal movement, or rotational movement of an active engagement mechanism, to produce a radially outwardly directed advance of one or more bone engaging components carried by the post 12, to facilitate bone engagement.
Referring now to
The segmented anchor peg of this embodiment may further be provided with a hollow core 132, capable of accepting and retaining supplemental bone graft material so as to promote osteointegration of the glenoid repair implant within the native bone. Radially outwardly actuatable barbs, spikes or other bone engagement structures may also be provided as discussed above.
Referring now to
Humeral Head Cutting Jig
Referring now to
The cutting jig should be placed along the anatomic neck of the humeral head. Osteophytes which obscure the junction of the humeral head and humeral shaft should be removed in order to accurately mark the level of the anatomic neck circumferentially from anterior to inferior to posterior. The cutting jig can be fixed to the humerus using wires, pins, or screws at the appropriate angle and version as determined by the surgeon. The rotator cuff should be carefully protected with retractors, and then the humeral cut is performed using an oscillating saw or osteotome along the surface of the cutting jig.
The cutting jig can be manufactured using metal.
Humeral Implant
Referring now to
At the distal end of the stem, there is rounded portion 48 and at the proximal end of the stem is a support surface extending radially from the stem. The support surface has an upper planar surface 50 that includes bore (hole with morse taper) 52 extending inwardly from the top plane thereof, and which is adapted to be engaged by a humeral head implant with a morse taper extension. Modular humeral head implants (both concentric and eccentric) are known in the art (see, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,865,605; 5,314,479; 5,462,563, and 5,489,309, and U.S. Patent Application Nos. 2004/0167629, 2004/0064187; each of which is incorporated herein by reference). The plane of upper planar surface 50 is preferably between about 45 degrees and about 60 degrees to the axis of the stem.
The entire stem portion, or a portion thereof, is preferably coated with a porous material for aiding in the fixation of the humeral implant in the humerus for a press fit stem. The implants made for cement fixation can have a smooth surface or a roughened, textured surface.
Humeral implant 38 can be rectangular or rounded edges, but is significantly thinner anterior to posterior than medial to lateral. It will have a morse taper for securing a standard humeral head implant.
An advantage of the humeral implant of the present invention over current humeral implant stems is that the humeral implant of the invention is significantly shorter than most current stems, which are about 70-115 mm in length. Because the humeral implant is shorter, it saves bone because of the narrow metaphyseal area required for implantation. The present humeral implant is less than 70 mm in length, preferably about 60 mm in length, and less than 40 mm anterior-posterior width (preferably about 30 mm). Fixation of the present humeral implant depends upon good interference fixation in the medial-lateral plane when press fit (similar to some current total hips). The humeral implant can be fixed using a bone cement, such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or a compatible fixation material, or it can be press-fit.
The invention will now be described by the following examples. The following examples are meant to illustrate the invention. They are not meant to limit the invention in any way.
A 62 year old woman presented with progressive, debilitating shoulder pain from osteoarthritis, which she had experienced for approximately 15 years. She had constant pain (rated 9/10) and difficulty washing her hair, fastening her bra, lifting a cup of coffee, and performing other daily activities. The preoperative radiographs and CT scan showed severe shoulder arthritis and glenoid bone loss that would preclude the use of a keeled or pegged glenoid implant. There was concern that a hemiarthroplasty procedure (replacement of the humeral ball, which would leave the arthritic glenoid socket bare) would not relieve the patient's pain.
A total shoulder replacement using an inset glenoid implant of the invention and a standard humeral implant was performed. The smaller size and circumferential fixation of the inset glenoid implant allowed safe placement of the prosthesis within the confines of the patient's deficient glenoid cavity.
The deficient glenoid vault was not fractured and the fixation was very stable. The patient had 100% relief of pain only 1 week after surgery. Her own assessment of shoulder function 4 weeks after surgery was 56% of normal (American Shoulder and Elbow Society validated outcome score [ASES score]) was 56 compared to 16% of normal before the surgery (ASES score 16).
This surgery was performed through the “mini-incision total shoulder technique” described above.
An 81 year old woman presented with severe shoulder pain and stiffness. She had severe shoulder arthritis with medial wear causing glenoid bone loss. Her own assessment of shoulder function was 25% of normal (American Shoulder and Elbow Society validated outcome score [ASES score] was 25).
A total shoulder replacement using an inset glenoid implant prosthesis was performed. Two months after her surgery, the patient had no pain and exhibited improved function. Her own assessment of shoulder function was 70% of normal (American Shoulder and Elbow Society validated outcome score [ASES score] was 70).
While the invention has been described in connection with specific embodiments thereof, it will be understood that it is capable of further modifications and this application is intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of the invention following, in general, the principles of the invention and including such departures from the present disclosure that come within known or customary practice within the art to which the invention pertains and may be applied to the essential features hereinbefore set forth.
This is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/477,316 filed on Apr. 3, 2017, which is in turn a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/329,853 filed on Jul. 11, 2014 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,610,166), which is in turn a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/719,182 filed Mar. 8, 2010 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,778,028), which is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/066,978 filed on Feb. 25, 2005 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,007,538). The entireties of these foregoing applications is hereby incorporated by reference herein and made a part of the present specification.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2781758 | Jacques | Feb 1957 | A |
3979778 | Stroot | Sep 1976 | A |
4003095 | Gristina | Jan 1977 | A |
4012796 | Weisman et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
4045826 | Stroot | Sep 1977 | A |
4206517 | Pappas et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4261062 | Amstutz et al. | Apr 1981 | A |
4404693 | Zweymuller | Sep 1983 | A |
4550450 | Kinnett | Nov 1985 | A |
4698063 | Link et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4700660 | Levchenko et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4783192 | Wroblewski et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4827919 | Barbarito et al. | May 1989 | A |
4865605 | Dines et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4908036 | Link et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4964865 | Burkhead et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4986833 | Worland | Jan 1991 | A |
4990161 | Kampner | Feb 1991 | A |
5030219 | Matsen, III et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5032132 | Matsen, III et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5080673 | Burkhead et al. | Jan 1992 | A |
5108440 | Grundei | Apr 1992 | A |
5282865 | Dong | Feb 1994 | A |
5314479 | Rockwood, Jr. et al. | May 1994 | A |
5314489 | Hoffman et al. | May 1994 | A |
5344458 | Bonutti | Sep 1994 | A |
5358525 | Fox et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5370694 | Davidson | Dec 1994 | A |
5437677 | Shearer et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5462563 | Shearer et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5480450 | James et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5489309 | Lackey et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5489310 | Mikhail | Feb 1996 | A |
5507748 | Sheehan et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5507819 | Wolf | Apr 1996 | A |
5514184 | Doi | May 1996 | A |
5549683 | Bonutti | Aug 1996 | A |
5593448 | Dong | Jan 1997 | A |
5702447 | Walch et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702486 | Craig et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5746771 | Clement, Jr. et al. | May 1998 | A |
5755811 | Tanamal et al. | May 1998 | A |
5769856 | Dong et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5800551 | Williamson et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5928285 | Bigliani et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
6019766 | Ling et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6037724 | Buss et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6228119 | Ondria et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6231913 | Schwimmer et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6290726 | Pope et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6334874 | Tornier et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6364910 | Shultz et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6368353 | Arcand | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6379386 | Resch et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6458136 | Allard et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6514287 | Ondria et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6520964 | Tallarida | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6589281 | Hyde, Jr. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6610067 | Tallarida et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6620197 | Maroney | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6673115 | Resch et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6679916 | Frankle et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6679917 | Ek | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6699289 | Iannotti et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6709463 | Pope et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6712823 | Grusin et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6761740 | Tornier | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6783549 | Stone et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6875234 | Lipman et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6953478 | Bouttens et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
7011686 | Ball et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7044973 | Rockwood et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7238089 | Tsumuraya et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7238208 | Camino et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7261741 | Weisman et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7294149 | Hozack et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7320709 | Felt et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7329284 | Maroney et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7465319 | Tornier | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7517364 | Long et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7618462 | Ek | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7678151 | Ek | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7749278 | Frederick et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7766969 | Justin et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7776098 | Murphy | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7892287 | Deffenbaugh | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7922769 | Deffenbaugh et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8007538 | Gunther | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8038719 | Gunther | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8048161 | Guederian et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8048167 | Dietz et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8303665 | Tornier | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8529629 | Angibaud et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8608805 | Forrer et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8721726 | Capon | May 2014 | B2 |
8778028 | Gunther et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8840671 | Ambacher | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8920508 | Iannotti et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8940054 | Wiley et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
9114017 | Lappin | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9283083 | Winslow et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9381086 | Ries et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9545311 | Courtney, Jr. et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9545312 | Tornier et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9610166 | Gunther et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9615839 | Olson | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9693784 | Gunther | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9867710 | Dalla Pria et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
10034753 | Dressler et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10143559 | Ries et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
10357373 | Gargac et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10492926 | Gunther | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10702390 | Chavarria et al. | Jul 2020 | B2 |
10722373 | Hodorek et al. | Jul 2020 | B2 |
10779952 | Gunther et al. | Sep 2020 | B2 |
10786265 | Gunther | Sep 2020 | B2 |
10925745 | Cardon et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
10966788 | Britton et al. | Apr 2021 | B2 |
11065125 | Ball | Jul 2021 | B2 |
11166733 | Neichel et al. | Nov 2021 | B2 |
11464645 | Cardon et al. | Oct 2022 | B2 |
11564802 | Ball et al. | Jan 2023 | B2 |
D977643 | Ball et al. | Feb 2023 | S |
11696772 | Gunther | Jul 2023 | B2 |
20010011192 | Ondria et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010037153 | Rockwood, Jr. et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047210 | Wolf | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020055783 | Tallarida et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020082702 | Resch et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087213 | Bertram, III | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095214 | Hyde, Jr. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020111689 | Hyde, Jr. et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138148 | Hyde, Jr. et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030100952 | Rockwood, Jr. et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030114933 | Bouttens et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030125809 | Iannotti et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030144738 | Rogalski | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030158605 | Tournier | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163202 | Lakin | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030236572 | Bertram, III | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002766 | Hunter et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040039449 | Tournier | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039451 | Southworth | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040059424 | Guederian et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064187 | Ball et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040064189 | Maroney et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040064190 | Ball et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040107002 | Katsuya | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122519 | Wiley et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122520 | Lipman et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040167629 | Geremakis et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040167630 | Rolston | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040193168 | Long et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193275 | Long et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193276 | Maroney et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193277 | Long et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193278 | Maroney et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199260 | Pope et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220674 | Pria | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040230311 | Cyprien et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040260398 | Kelman | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050043805 | Chudik | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050049709 | Tornier | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065612 | Winslow | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050107882 | Stone et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050119531 | Sharratt | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050177241 | Angibaud et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050261775 | Baum et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050278030 | Tornier et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036328 | Parrott et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060069443 | Deffenbaugh et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069444 | Deffenbaugh et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069445 | Ondrla et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060200249 | Beguin et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070038302 | Shultz et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050042 | Dietz et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070055380 | Berelsman et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070112433 | Frederick et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070156246 | Meswania et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070179624 | Stone et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070225817 | Ruebelt et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070225818 | Reubelt et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080021564 | Gunther | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080082175 | Holovacs et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080177327 | Malandain et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080234820 | Felt et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080294268 | Baum et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090105837 | LaFosse et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125113 | Guederian et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090228112 | Clark et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090281630 | Delince et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090287309 | Walch et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100087876 | Gunther | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100087877 | Gunther | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114326 | Winslow et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100161066 | Ianotti et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100217399 | Groh | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100274360 | Gunther | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110029089 | Giuliani et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110106266 | Schwyzer et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110137424 | Lappin et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110144758 | Deffenbaugh | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110276144 | Wirth et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110313533 | Gunther | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120172996 | Ries et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120209392 | Angibuad et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120239156 | De Wilde et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20130060346 | Collins | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130090736 | Katrana et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130150972 | Iannotti et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130150974 | Iannotti et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130166033 | Gunther | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130194353 | Hirai et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130197651 | McDaniel et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20140025173 | Cardon et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140107794 | Deffenbaugh et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140253641 | Furuya | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140257499 | Winslow et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150223941 | Lang | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150265411 | Deransart et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20160045323 | Kovacs et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160302934 | Chavarria et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20170056187 | Humphrey et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170071749 | Lappin et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170202674 | Gunther et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170209275 | Levy | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170273806 | Cardon et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170304063 | Hatzidakis et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20180071104 | Kovacs et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180078377 | Gargac et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180161169 | Cardon et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180193150 | Winslow et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180200067 | Axelso, Jr. et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180333268 | Cardon et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20190336293 | Kehres | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200261209 | Stchur et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200315808 | Goldberg et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
20200383792 | Cardon et al. | Dec 2020 | A1 |
20210038401 | Ball et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
20210137692 | Budge | May 2021 | A1 |
20210137693 | Ball et al. | May 2021 | A1 |
20210236292 | Chavarria et al. | Aug 2021 | A1 |
20210251640 | Gunther | Aug 2021 | A1 |
20210338446 | Ball | Nov 2021 | A1 |
20220151795 | Running et al. | May 2022 | A1 |
20220175543 | Ball | Jun 2022 | A1 |
20220175544 | Ball et al. | Jun 2022 | A1 |
20230078024 | Gunther et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
20230080207 | Gunther et al. | Mar 2023 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
4220217 | Dec 1993 | DE |
10164328 | Jul 2003 | DE |
0299889 | Jan 1989 | EP |
0339530 | Nov 1989 | EP |
0570816 | Nov 1993 | EP |
1464305 | Oct 2004 | EP |
1858453 | Nov 2007 | EP |
1952788 | Aug 2008 | EP |
2601912 | Jun 2013 | EP |
2083759 | Sep 2015 | EP |
3090705 | Nov 2016 | EP |
3598957 | Jul 2018 | EP |
2248820 | May 1975 | FR |
2567019 | Jan 1986 | FR |
2695313 | Mar 1994 | FR |
2013-158909 | Aug 2013 | JP |
2014-515651 | Jul 2014 | JP |
WO 2006093763 | Aug 2006 | WO |
WO 2008011078 | Jan 2008 | WO |
WO 2009071940 | Jun 2009 | WO |
WO 2011112425 | Sep 2011 | WO |
WO 2013148437 | Oct 2013 | WO |
WO 2012075183 | Apr 2014 | WO |
WO 2014067961 | May 2014 | WO |
WO 20140195909 | Dec 2014 | WO |
WO 2017184792 | Oct 2017 | WO |
WO 2018022227 | Feb 2018 | WO |
WO 2018129286 | Jul 2018 | WO |
WO 2018181420 | Oct 2018 | WO |
WO 2019006205 | Jan 2019 | WO |
WO 2019178104 | Sep 2019 | WO |
WO 2019213073 | Nov 2019 | WO |
WO 2020023975 | Jan 2020 | WO |
WO 2020185893 | Sep 2020 | WO |
Entry |
---|
US 11,672,669 B2, 06/2023, Running et al. (withdrawn) |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/701,118, filed Dec. 2, 2019, Gunther. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/870,666, filed Feb. 1, 2023, Ball et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 18/349,805, filed Jul. 10, 2023, Gunther. |
Biomet, “Absolute™ Bi-Polar.” 2001 in 2 pages. |
Biomet, “Copeland™ Humeral Resurfacing Head, Interlok®/HA Coated Implant Information,” 2003 in 1 page. |
Biomet, “Copeland™ Humeral Resurfacing Head,” 2001 in 12 pages. |
Biomet, “Copeland™ Humeral Resurfacing Head, Macrobond™ Implant Information,” 2003 in 1 page. |
Biomet, “Copeland™ Humeral Resurfacing Head, Surgical Technique,” 2003 in 2 pages. |
Boileau et al., “The Three-Dimensional Geometry of the Proximal Humerus. Implications for Surgical Technique and Prosthetic Design,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 79: 857-865, 1997. |
Braun, et al., Modular Short-stem Prosthesis in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Implant Positioning and the Influence of Navigation, Ortho SuperSite (Oct. 2007) in 8 pages. |
Clavert et al. Glenoid resurfacing: what are the limits to asymmetric reaming for posterior erosion? J. Shoulder and Elbow Surg. Nov./Dec. 2007: 843-848. |
Dalla Pria, Paolo. Slide presentation, entitled “Shoulder Prosthesis Design and Evolution”, to the Naples International Shoulder Congress in Italy (2000) in 55 pages. |
DePuy, “Global C.A.P., Surgical Technique Resurfacing Humeral Head Implant,” 2004 in 23 pages. |
Inset Mini-glenoid Brochure, Titan Modular Shoulder System Brochure, Ascension Orthopedics, 2011, 4 pages. |
Karduna et al. Glenhumeral Joint Translations before and after Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Bone and Joint Surg. 79(8) (1997): 1166-1174. |
Levy et al., “Cementless Surface Replacement Arthroplasty of the Should. 5- to 10-year Results with the Copeland Mark-2 Prosthesis,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 83: 213-221, 2001. |
Lima-Lto Medical Systems Glenoidi/Glenoids catalogue (2001) in 1 page. |
Panisello, et al., Bone remodelling after total hip arthroplasty using an uncemented anatomic femoral stem: a three-year prospective study using bone densitometry, J Ortho Surg 14(1):32-37 (2006). |
Ross, Mark and Duke, Phillip, “Early Experience In The Use of a New Glenoid Resurfacing Technique” Glenoid Presentation, SESA Nov. 4, 2006, Session 4/0800-0930 p. 93 in 1 page. |
Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2006/006330 dated Jan. 24, 2008 in 10 pages. |
Tight Fit Tools, Right Angle Drill Attachment, Serial No. 00400 www.tightfittools.com/riganat.html in 1 page/downloaded Mar. 11, 2005. |
Titan(TM) Modular Shoulder System Brochure, 2011, available at http://www.ascensionortho.com/Assets/PDF/TitanModular/TITANModularShoulder_Brochure-revD.pdf (2 pages). |
Tournier et al., Enhancement of Glenoid Prosthesis Anchorage using Burying Technique. Techniques in Shoulder & Elbow Surgery 9(1)(2008): 35-42. |
Wang et al., Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Glenoid Design in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder & Elbow Surgery (2005) 15: 129S-140S. |
Statement of Grounds and Particulars of Opposition for Australian Patent Application No. 2006218936 dated Oct. 5, 2012 in 8 pages. |
Redacted letter from a third party dated Aug. 24, 2012 in 2 pages. |
Lima-Lto Miniglenoide Cementata document 7560.50.030 (1999) in 1 page. |
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees in PCT/US2023/015740, dated May 24, 2023. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2023/015740, dated Jul. 17, 2023. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210244547 A1 | Aug 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15477316 | Apr 2017 | US |
Child | 17027493 | US | |
Parent | 14329853 | Jul 2014 | US |
Child | 15477316 | US | |
Parent | 12719182 | Mar 2010 | US |
Child | 14329853 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11066978 | Feb 2005 | US |
Child | 12719182 | US |