Methods and systems for constraint of spinous processes with attachment

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8523904
  • Patent Number
    8,523,904
  • Date Filed
    Friday, July 13, 2007
    17 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 3, 2013
    11 years ago
Abstract
Spinal implants for limiting flexion of the spine are implanted between a superior spinous process and an inferior spinous process or sacrum. The implants include upper straps which are placed over the upper spinous process, while the lower portions of the implant are attached to the adjacent vertebra or sacrum. The attachments may be fixed, for example using screws or other anchors, or may be non-fixed, for example by placing a loop strap through a hole in the spinous process or sacrum.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention


The present invention relates generally to medical methods and apparatus. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and devices for restricting spinal flexion in patients having back pain or other spinal conditions.


A major source of chronic low back pain is discogenic pain, also known as internal disc disruption. Patients suffering from discogenic pain tend to be young, otherwise healthy individuals who present with pain localized to the back. Discogenic pain usually occurs at the discs located at the L4-L5 or L5-S1 junctions of the spine (FIG. 1). Pain tends to be exacerbated when patients put their lumbar spines into flexion (i.e. by sitting or bending forward) and relieved when they put their lumbar spines into extension (i.e. arching backwards). Discogenic pain can be quite disabling, and for some patients, can dramatically affect their ability to work and otherwise enjoy their lives.


This pain experienced by patients with discogenic low back pain can be thought of as flexion instability, and is related to flexion instability that is manifested in other conditions. The most prevalent of these is spondylolisthesis, a spinal condition in which abnormal segmental translation is exacerbated by segmental flexion. The device described here should as such also be useful for these other spinal disorders associated with segmental flexion, for which the prevention or control of spinal segmental flexion is desired.


Current treatment alternatives for patients diagnosed with chronic discogenic pain are quite limited. Many patients follow a conservative treatment path, such as physical therapy, massage, anti-inflammatory and analgesic medications, muscle relaxants, and epidural steroid injections, but typically continue to suffer with a significant degree of pain. Other patients elect to undergo spinal fusion surgery, which commonly requires discectomy (removal of the disk) together with fusion of adjacent vertebra. Fusion is not usually recommended for discogenic pain because it is irreversible, costly, associated with high morbidity, and of questionable effectiveness. Despite its drawbacks, however, spinal fusion for discogenic pain remains common due to the lack of viable alternatives.


Recently, a less invasive and potentially more effective treatment for discogenic pain has been proposed. A spinal implant has been designed which inhibits spinal flexion while allowing substantially unrestricted spinal extension. The implant is placed over one or more adjacent pairs of spinal processes and provides an elastic restraint to the spreading apart of the spinal processes which occurs during flexion. Such devices and methods for their use are described in U.S. Patent Application 2005/02161017A1, published on Sep. 29, 2005, and having common inventors with the present application.


As illustrated in FIG. 2, an implant 10 as described in the '017 application, typically comprises an upper strap component 12 and a lower strap component 14 joined by a pair of compliant members 16. The upper strap 12 is shown disposed over the top of the spinous process SP4 of L4 while the lower strap 14 is shown extending over the bottom of the spinous process SP5 of L5. The compliance member 16 will typically include an internal element, such as a spring of rubber block, which is attached to the straps 12 and 14 in such a way that the straps may be “elastically” or “compliantly” pulled apart as the spinous processes SP4 and SP5 move apart during flexion. In this way, the implant provides an elastic tension on the spinal processes which provides a force that resists flexion. The force increases, typically linearly with a non-variable spring constant, as the processes move further apart. Usually, the straps themselves will be essentially non-compliant so that the degree of elasticity or compliance may be controlled and provided solely by the compliance members 16.


Although providing significant benefits, the system illustrated in FIG. 2 can be difficult to implant in certain patient anatomies where the spinous processes are relatively small or have certain geometries. Moreover, the systems are not intended for implantation at the L5-S1 junction as the spinous process on the sacrum is not always sufficient for attachment with this system.


For these reasons, it would be desirable to provide improved spinal implants and methods for their use for inhibiting flexion in patients suffering from discogenic pain. It would be particularly desirable if the improved implants and methods would be suitable for implantation at the L5-S1 junction and in patients having anatomies which prevent other difficulties for implantation of the prior systems as described in the '017 application. At least some of these objectives will be met by the inventions described hereinbelow.


2. Description of the Background Art


US 2005/0216017A1 has been described above. 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; 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. US 2002/0151978; US 2004/0024458; US 2004/0106995; US 2004/0116927; US 2004/0117017; US 2004/0127989; US 2004/0172132; US 2005/0033435; US 2005/0049708; US 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.


BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides spinal implants and methods for restricting spinal flexion for the treatment of discogenic pain and other spinal conditions, such as spondylolisthesis, in which the physician may desire to control segmental flexion. The methods comprise positioning a first segment of a tether structure over a spinous process of a vertebra without attachment. At least one other segment of the tether structure is attached to an adjacent vertebra or sacrum, and at least a portion of the tether structure is adapted to elastically elongate to apply tension between the spinous process and the adjacent vertebra or sacrum as the spine undergoes flexion, i.e., as the spinous process moves apart from the adjacent vertebra or sacrum as the patient leans forward. The methods and implants of the present invention are particularly useful for treating the L4-L5 and the L5-S1 junctions of the spine (FIG. 1). The first segment of the tether structure is generally a loop similar or identical to strap 12 in FIG. 1 which is non-fixedly attached to a spinous process, typically being placed over a superior spinous process but not being otherwise attached to the spinous process. Thus, the first segment of the tether will be able to move or shift laterally and/or in the anterior-posterior direction relative to the spinous process as the spine undergoes flexion and extension.


The at least one other segment of the tether may be attached to the adjacent vertebra or sacrum in a variety of ways. In a first group of embodiments, the at least one other segment of the tether structure will be fixedly attached to the adjacent vertebra or sacrum so that the segment will not move relative to a point of attachment. For example, the other segment of the tether structure may comprise two separate end segments which are fixedly attached to the vertebra or sacrum, for example with screws, dowels, staples, pins, sutures, or the like. When attached to a vertebra, the two separate end segments may be attached to opposed sides of a spinous process on an inferior vertebra. When attached to a sacrum, the two separate end segments may be attached to an alar surface of the sacrum, typically with alar screws.


In a second set of embodiments, the at least one other segment of the tether structure may be non-fixedly attached to the adjacent vertebra or sacrum so that the segment can move or shift relative to a point of attachment. For example, the at least one other segment may comprise a loop similar to the lower strap 14 of FIG. 2. A hole may be formed in the spinous process of an adjacent vertebra so that the loop may be passed through the hole to provide a non-fixed attachment. Similarly, a hole could be formed in a protruding surface structure on the sacrum to receive the lower loop segment of the tether structure. Alternatively, such a loop segment could be passed through the eye(s) of one or more islet screws which are implanted into the lower vertebra or sacrum.


The tether structure will typically comprise at least one compliance member and more typically comprise two compliance members, generally as described in connection with the embodiment in FIG. 2. When the tether structure comprises at least two compliance members, there will be at least one loop segment or strap extending between the upper ends of the compliance members. The strap will usually be non-compliant but could in other embodiments have a limited compliance or flexibility. The tether structure may comprise a further lower loop segment or strap, generally as illustrated in FIG. 2, when the tether structure is intended to pass through an islet or hole in the lower vertebra or sacrum. Alternatively, the tether structure will comprise at least two additional segments having separate ends which extend from each of the two compliance members. The separate ends will be adapted for anchoring to the adjacent vertebra or sacrum using screws, dowels, staples, or any of the techniques described above.


In all cases, the tether structure will typically provide little or no restriction or resistance to extension of the spine. Most often, the tether structure will be free from components or other structures which are located between the adjacent spinous processes or between the spinous processes and the adjacent sacrum. In other instances, however, a cross-member or other low profile structure may be placed between the two compliance members to maintain alliance of the compliance members, generally as described in co-pending application Ser. No. 11/777,366, filed on the same day as the present application. The use of cross-members for stabilizing the compliance members may be advantageous when the lower portion of the tether structure is non-fixedly attached to the lower vertebra or sacrum.


In a further aspect of the present invention, a spinal implant comprises at least two compliance members, where each compliance member has an upper and a lower end. An upper tether structure extends between the upper ends of the two compliance members and is adapted for placement over a spinous process of a first vertebra. Typically, the upper tether structure will be a non-compliant strap. The spinal implant further comprises a first lower tether structure attached at an upper end to the lower end of the compliance member and having a lower end adapted to be fixedly attached to a vertebra or sacrum adjacent to the first vertebra. A second lower tether segment is attached at its upper end to a lower end of the second compliance member and has a lower end adapted to be fixedly attached to the vertebra or sacrum adjacent to the first vertebra. The lower ends of the first and second lower tether segments are typically non-compliant straps and may be adapted to be screwed into the adjacent vertebra or sacrum. Alternatively, the lower ends of the first and second lower tether segments may be adapted to be attached to a dowel implanted in the adjacent vertebra or sacrum. The spinal implant may optionally comply to screws, anchors, or other attachment members for fixedly attaching the lower ends of the tether segments to the vertebra or sacrum.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating the lumbar region of the spine including the spinous processes (SP), facet joints (FJ), lamina (L), transverse processes (TP), and sacrum (S).



FIG. 2 illustrates a spinal implant of the type described in US 2005/0216017A1.



FIG. 3 illustrates a first embodiment of a spinal implant adapted to be placed between a pair of spinous processes and having a lower tether segment non-fixedly attached to the lower spinous process.



FIG. 4 is a second embodiment of a spinal implant adapted to be placed between adjacent spinous processes and having a lower segment adapted to be fixedly attached to the lower spinous process.



FIG. 5 illustrates a third embodiment of a spinal implant according to the present invention having an upper end placed over the spinous process of L5 and a lower end non-fixedly attached to the sacrum.



FIG. 6 illustrates a fourth embodiment of a spinal implant according to the present invention having an upper end secured over a spinous process of L5 and two separate lower segments attached to a dowel implanted in the sacrum.



FIG. 7 illustrates a fifth embodiment of a spinal implant according to the present invention having an upper segment placed over a spinous process of L5 and two separate lower segments fixedly attached by alar screws to the sacrum.



FIG. 8 illustrates a sixth embodiment of a spinal implant according to the present invention having an upper segment placed over a spinous process of L5 and two separate lower segments fixedly attached by superior articular facet screws to the sacrum.



FIG. 9 illustrates a seventh embodiment of a spinal implant according to the present invention having an upper segment placed over a spinous process of L5 and two separate lower tether segments each of which passes through a hole created in the superior articular facet of S1 and is non-fixedly attached via a toggle anchor (t-anchor).



FIG. 10 illustrates an eighth embodiment of a spinal implant according to the present invention having an upper segment placed over a spinous process of L5 and two separate lower tether segments each of which is connected to a hook attached to the dorsal S1 foramen.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Referring now to FIG. 3, a spinal implant 20 suitable for use in accordance with the methods of the present invention comprises an upper strap 22, a lower strap 24, and a pair of compliance members 26 joining the upper and lower straps. Typically, the upper and lower straps 22 and 24 will be non-distensible but will be joined to the compliance members 26 so that they can be expanded from a constricted configuration, as shown in broken line, when the patient's spine is in a neutral position between flexion and extension, to an expanded configuration (shown in full line) when the patient's spine is in flexion. The compliance members 26 will provide a force which acts against the extension of the spinous processes SP4 and SP5, as generally described in prior patent application U.S. 2005/0216017, which has been previously incorporated herein by reference. In contrast to the teachings of the '017 application, however, the lower strap 24 is non-fixedly attached to the spinous process SP5 of L5. By passing through a hole H formed in the spinous process SP5, the lower strap 24 is maintained stably and will not be displaced.


Referring now to FIG. 4, a spinal implant 30 may comprise a tether structure including an upper strap 32, a pair of compliance members 34, and first and second lower straps 36 and 38, one strap extending from each of the compliance members 34. The lower straps 36 will typically be non-compliant, as is the upper strap 32, with the compliance and elasticity being provided by compliance members 34. The lower ends of the lower straps 36 and 38 may be fixedly attached to the spinous process SP5 using screws 40 or any other suitable anchors. By using the screw or other anchors, the lower straps 36 and 38 will be fixedly attached to the spinous process SP5, permitting no relative movement between the straps 36 and 38 and the spinous process SP5 and L5. The upper strap 32, in contrast, will be able to move or shift slightly relative to the upper spinous process SP4 on L4, although the interspinous ligament that stretches between L4 and L5 (through which the strap passes) will resist motion in the anterior-posterior direction.


Referring now to FIG. 5, the spinal implant 20, generally described in FIG. 3, may also be implanted between the spinous process SP5 of L5 and the sacrum S. The upper strap 22 will be placed over spinous process SP5 while the lower strap 24 will be placed through a hole H placed in a surface ridge on the dorsal surface of the sacrum.


Referring now to FIG. 6, a spinal implant 40 comprising an upper strap 42, a pair of compliance members 44 and lower strap segments 46 and 48 may be implanted over the spinous process SP5 of L5 and the sacrum S. In particular, a dowel or other anchor element may be implanted in the S1 spinous process of the sacrum (which is typically small relative to the L5 spinous process and less able to provide an anchor around which a strap can be looped) and rings 50 and 52 at the lower ends of the lower strap segments 46 and 48 may be placed over the dowel or other anchor.


As illustrated in FIG. 7, a further alternative for implanting an implant 60 is illustrated. Implant 60 comprises an upper strap 62, a pair of compliance members 64 and lower strap segments 66 and 68. The upper strap segment is placed over spinous process SP5 of L5 while the lower strap segments 66 and 68 are anchored on the alar region of the sacrum by alar screws 70.


As illustrated in FIG. 8, a further alternative for implanting an implant 60 is illustrated. Implant 60 comprises an upper strap 62, a pair of compliance members 64 and lower strap segments 66 and 68. The upper strap segment is placed over spinous process SP5 of L5 while the lower strap segments 66 and 68 are anchored to superior articular facets of the sacrum by superior articular facet screws 72.


As illustrated in FIG. 9, a further alternative for implanting an implant 80 is illustrated. Implant 80 comprises an upper strap 82, a pair of compliance members 84 and lower strap segments 86 and 88. The upper strap segment is placed over spinous process SP5 of L5 while the lower strap segments 86 and 88 pass dorsal-medial to proximal-lateral through holes 90 created in the superior articular facet of S1 and are non-fixedly attached via toggle anchors (t-anchors) 92 on the proximal-lateral side of the facets.


As illustrated in FIG. 10, a further alternative for implanting an implant 100 is illustrated. Implant 100 comprises an upper strap 102, a pair of compliance members 104 and lower strap segments 106 and 108. The upper strap segment is placed over spinous process SP5 of L5 while the lower strap segments 106 and 108 are connected to hooks 110 attached to the dorsal S1 foramen F.


While the above is a complete description of the preferred embodiments of the invention, various alternatives, modifications, and equivalents may be used. Therefore, the above description should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention which is defined by the appended claims.

Claims
  • 1. A method for restricting flexion of a spine, said method comprising: positioning a first segment of a tether structure over a spinous process of a vertebra without attachment; andattaching at least one other segment of the tether structure to an adjacent vertebra or sacrum, wherein the first segment and the at least one other segment are attached to each other by a separate compliance member;wherein the compliance member elastically elongates to controllably restrict flexion and the at least one other segment of the tether structure includes two segments each having an end segment which is fixedly attached to the adjacent vertebra or sacrum with one or more anchors so that said end segment will be fixed at a point of attachment.
  • 2. A method as in claim 1, wherein the end segments are attached to opposed sides of a spinous process with screws or dowels.
  • 3. A method as in claim 1, wherein attaching comprises attaching the end segments to an alar surface of the sacrum.
  • 4. A method as in claim 1, wherein positioning comprises positioning the first segment of the tether structure over a spinous process of L4 and attaching comprises attaching the at least one other segment to L5.
  • 5. A method as in claim 1, wherein positioning comprises positioning the first segment of the tether structure over a spinous process of L5 and attaching comprises attaching the at least one other segment to the sacrum.
  • 6. A method as in claim 1, wherein the first and at least one other segment of the tether structure are non-compliant and do not substantially elongate in response to flexion of the spine.
  • 7. A method as in claim 1, wherein the segments of the tether structure are attached by at least two compliance members which are disposed on opposite sides of the spinous processes.
  • 8. A method as in claim 1, wherein the tether structure provides no substantial restriction to extension of the spine.
  • 9. A method as in claim 8, wherein the tether structure is free from components placed between adjacent spinous processes or a spinous process and an adjacent sacrum.
CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of prior provisional application 60/862,085, filed on Oct. 19, 2006, the full disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. This application is also a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 11/076,469, filed on Mar. 9, 2005 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,458,981, which claimed the benefit of prior provisional application 60/551,235, filed on Mar. 9, 2004, the full disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.

US Referenced Citations (190)
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
4773402 Asher 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
4998936 Mehdian Mar 1991 A
5002574 May et al. Mar 1991 A
5011484 Bréard Apr 1991 A
5011494 Von Recum et al. Apr 1991 A
5030220 Howland Jul 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
5366455 Dove et al. Nov 1994 A
5387213 Breard et al. Feb 1995 A
5395374 Miller et al. Mar 1995 A
5415658 Kilpela 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
5593407 Reis Jan 1997 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
5810815 Morales Sep 1998 A
5836948 Zucherman et al. Nov 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
6290724 Marino 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
6427080 Radak Jul 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
6899716 Cragg May 2005 B2
6989011 Paul et al. Jan 2006 B2
7029475 Panjabi Apr 2006 B2
7163558 Senegas et al. Jan 2007 B2
7201751 Zucherman et al. Apr 2007 B2
7335203 Winslow et al. Feb 2008 B2
7413576 Sybert et al. Aug 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 et al. Apr 2009 B2
7553320 Molz, IV et al. Jun 2009 B2
7591837 Goldsmith Sep 2009 B2
7837711 Bruneau et al. Nov 2010 B2
8114135 Malandain Feb 2012 B2
20010007073 Zucherman et al. Jul 2001 A1
20020095154 Atkinson et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020147449 Yun Oct 2002 A1
20020151978 Zacouto et al. Oct 2002 A1
20030050700 Kihara Mar 2003 A1
20030088251 Braun et al. May 2003 A1
20030153914 Oribe et al. Aug 2003 A1
20040024458 Senegas et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040034351 Sherman et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040082954 Teitelbaum et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040106995 Le Couedic et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040116927 Graf Jun 2004 A1
20040117017 Pasquet et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040127989 Dooris et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040143268 Falahee Jul 2004 A1
20040167520 Zucherman et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040172132 Ginn Sep 2004 A1
20040243239 Taylor Dec 2004 A1
20050033435 Belliard et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050049708 Atkinson et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050123581 Ringeisen et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050154390 Biedermann et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050192581 Molz et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050203624 Serhan 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
20060069447 DiSilvestro 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 et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060149230 Kwak et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060195102 Malandain et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060217726 Maxy et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060240533 Sengupta et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060241591 Biscup 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
20070173818 Hestad et al. Jul 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
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
20090118766 Park et al. May 2009 A1
20090182296 Dennis et al. Jul 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
20100249839 Alamin et al. Sep 2010 A1
20110295318 Alamin et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120123482 Fielding et al. May 2012 A1
20120165872 Alamin et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120184998 Alamin et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120209328 Alamin et al. Aug 2012 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (45)
Number Date Country
0 322 334 Jun 1989 EP
0322334 Jun 1989 EP
0322334 Jun 1989 EP
0743045 Nov 1996 EP
0873718 Oct 1998 EP
1994901 Nov 2008 EP
2 681 525 Mar 1993 FR
2693364 Jan 1994 FR
2714591 Jan 1994 FR
2703239 Oct 1994 FR
2704745 Nov 1994 FR
2717675 Sep 1995 FR
2722980 Feb 1996 FR
2844179 Mar 2004 FR
2851154 Aug 2004 FR
2874167 Feb 2006 FR
2884136 Oct 2006 FR
7508444 Sep 1995 JP
2001507599 Jun 2001 JP
2003516173 May 2003 JP
2003523784 Aug 2003 JP
2004502490 Jan 2004 JP
2004527287 Sep 2004 JP
2006517824 Aug 2006 JP
WO 9942051 Aug 1999 WO
WO 0128442 Apr 2001 WO
WO 0203882 Jan 2002 WO
WO 02051326 Jul 2002 WO
WO 02071960 Sep 2002 WO
WO 03045262 Jun 2003 WO
WO 2004052246 Jun 2004 WO
WO 2004073532 Sep 2004 WO
WO 2004073533 Sep 2004 WO
WO 2005037150 Apr 2005 WO
WO 2005110258 Nov 2005 WO
WO 2005112835 Dec 2005 WO
WO2006034423 Mar 2006 WO
WO2006034423 Jun 2006 WO
WO 2005112835 Feb 2008 WO
WO 2008051423 May 2008 WO
WO 2008051801 May 2008 WO
WO 2008051802 May 2008 WO
WO 2008051806 May 2008 WO
WO 2010028165 Mar 2011 WO
WO 2009149407 Dec 2011 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (39)
Entry
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), pp. 1241-1244.
Dickman et al., “Comparative Mechanical Properties of Spinal Cable and Wire Fixation Systems,” Spine, vol. 22, No. 6, Mar. 15, 1997, pp. 596-604.
Garner, et al., “Development and preclinical testing of a new tension-band device the spine: the Loop system,” Euro Spine Journal, vol. 11 (Suppl. 2), (2002), pp. S186-S191.
Heller et al., “Stability of different wiring techniques in a segmental spinal instrumentation,” Archives Orthopedics Trauma Surgery, vol. 117, (1998), pp. 96-99.
Leahy et al., “Design of spinous process hooks for flexible fixation of the lumber spine, ”Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., Part H, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, (2000), vol. 214, 9 pages in length.
Leavy et al., “Mechanical testing of a flexible fixation device for the lumbar spine,” Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., Part H, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, (2000), vol. 214, pp. 489-495.
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. 1997, pp. 1819-1825.
Miyasaka et al., “Radiographic Analysis of Lumbar Motion in Relation to Lumbosacral Stability: Investigation of Moderate and Maximum Motion,” Spine, Col. 25, No. 6, (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., “Slippage of a spinous process hook during flexion in a flexible fixation system for the lumbar spine,” Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 23, (2001), pp. 135-141.
Shepherd et al., “Spine Process Strength,” Spine, vol. 25, No. 3, (2000), pp. 319-323.
Voydeville et al., “Ligamentoplastic interverebrale avec cale souple dans les instabilities lombaires,” Orthop Traumatol, vol. 2, (1992), pp. 259-264.
Fielding et al.; U.S. Appl. No. 12/262,877 entitled “Spinal implant and method for restricting spinal flexion” filed Oct. 31, 2008.
In re PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2007/022191, “Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” mailed Mar. 14, 2008, 13 pages in length.
In re PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2007/081835, “Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” mailed Mar. 24, 2008, 8 pages in length.
Abbott Spine; Wallis Surgical Technique; The Art & Science of Spine Surgery; Product brochure; 22 pgs.; 2006.
Brinckmann et al.; Mechanical aspects of the lumbar spine; Theime Stuttgart-New York; Chapter 11; pp. 105-128; 2002.
Frymoyer et al.; An overview of the incidences and costs of low back pain; Ortho. Clin. North Am.; vol. 22; No. 2; pp. 263-271; Apr. 1991.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.; DIAM system implants; Product brochure; 20 pgs.; 2006.
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, pp. 1241-1244; Jun. 1, 1995.
EPO; European search report dated Dec. 4, 2012 for EP Application No. 07844408.0; 4 pages.
EPO; European search report dated Dec. 6, 2012 for EP Application No. 10765340.4, 4 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Jan. 20, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/106,049; 20 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Mar. 5, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/455,917; 14 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Mar. 19, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/106,049; 20 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Oct. 12, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/777,366; 12 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Apr. 24, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,674; 15 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated May 13, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/426,167; 13 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated May 31, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/206,339; 23 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Jun. 10, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,674; 15 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Jun. 13, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/426,119; 16 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Jun. 19, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,674; 19 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Aug. 5, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/106,049; 23 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Oct. 2, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/106,049; 22 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Oct. 4, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,674; 18 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Oct. 17, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/426,167; 17 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Oct. 23, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,674;18 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Oct. 29, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/455,917; 13 pages.
USPTO; Office action dated Oct. 31, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/206,339; 16 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20080009866 A1 Jan 2008 US
Provisional Applications (2)
Number Date Country
60862085 Oct 2006 US
60551235 Mar 2004 US
Continuation in Parts (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 11076469 Mar 2005 US
Child 11827980 US