The present disclosure relates generally to orthopaedic implants, and more particularly to reverse shoulder orthopaedic implants.
During the lifetime of a patient, it may be necessary to perform a total shoulder replacement procedure on the patient as a result of, for example, disease or trauma. In a total shoulder replacement procedure, a humeral prosthesis is used to replace the natural head of the patient's humerus. The humeral prosthesis typically includes an elongated stem component that is implanted into the intramedullary canal of the patient's humerus and a hemispherically-shaped prosthetic head component that is secured to the stem component. In such a total shoulder replacement procedure, the natural glenoid surface of the scapula is resurfaced or otherwise replaced with a glenoid component that provides a bearing surface upon which the prosthetic head component of the humeral prosthesis articulates.
However, in some cases the patient's natural shoulder, including its soft tissue, has degenerated to a severe degree of joint instability and pain. In many such cases, it may be necessary to change the mechanics of the shoulder. Reverse shoulder implants are used to do so. As its name suggests, a reverse shoulder implant reverses the anatomy, or structure, of the healthy shoulder. In particular, a reverse shoulder implant is designed such that the prosthetic head (i.e., the “ball” in the ball-and-socket joint) known as a glenosphere component is secured to the patient's scapula, with the corresponding concave bearing (i.e., the “socket” in the ball-and-socket joint) known as a humeral cup being secured to the patient's humerus. Such a reverse configuration allows the patient's deltoid muscle, which is one of the larger and stronger shoulder muscles, to raise the arm.
In some cases, the patient's natural shoulder anatomy has also suffered trauma such as a proximal humeral fracture. Proximal humeral fractures are one of the most common fractures among elderly patients. In a proximal humeral fracture, the patient's humerus generally breaks into a number of pieces including the humeral head, the greater tuberosity, the lessor tuberosity, and the humeral shaft.
According to one aspect, a modular reverse shoulder orthopaedic implant includes an elongated humeral stem component configured to be implanted into the humerus of a patient. The implant also includes a fracture epiphysis component that is separable from the humeral stem component. The fracture epiphysis component includes a cup-shaped body having an annular rim formed in the superior end thereof. A lateral suture collar extends outwardly from the annular rim of the cup-shaped body within a segment of the annular rim defined by an anterior-most point of the rim and a posterior-most point of the rim. An anteromedial suture collar extends outwardly from the annular rim of the cup-shaped body within a segment of the annular rim defined by the anterior-most point of the rim and a medial-most point of the rim. An posteromedial suture collar extends outwardly from the annular rim of the cup-shaped body within a segment of the annular rim defined by the posterior-most point of the rim and the medial-most point of the rim. The lateral suture collar, the anteromedial suture collar, and the posteromedial suture collar are discontiguous with one another. The implant also includes a locking screw secured to the humeral stem component and the fracture epiphysis component and a humeral cup component secured to the fracture epiphysis component. The humeral cup component has a concave bearing surface configured to articulate with a rounded head surface of a glenosphere component.
Each of the lateral suture collar, the anteromedial suture collar, and the posteromedial suture collar may be embodied with a number of suture holes formed therein. In such a case, the suture holes may be positioned radially on the lateral suture collar, the anteromedial suture collar, and the posteromedial suture collar.
The lateral suture collar may be longer than both the anteromedial suture collar and the posteromedial suture collar.
In an embodiment, the anteromedial suture collar and the posteromedial suture collar are similar in size and face opposite one another along the annular rim of the cup-shaped body.
An outer surface of the cup-shaped body of the fracture epiphysis component has a plurality of suture pockets formed in a posterior end thereof. Each of such suture pockets formed in the cup-shaped body of the fracture epiphysis component is separated by a wall, with each of such walls having a suture hole formed therein.
The outer surface of the cup-shaped body of the fracture epiphysis component may also have a number of suture holes extending therethrough, with each of such suture holes extending in the anteroposterior direction.
According to another aspect, a modular reverse shoulder orthopaedic implant includes an elongated humeral stem component configured to be implanted into the humerus of a patient. The implant also includes a fracture epiphysis component that is separable from the humeral stem component. The fracture epiphysis component includes a cup-shaped body having a rounded outer surface, a channel formed in an inferior end of the rounded outer surface of the cup-shaped body, and a plurality of walls positioned in the channel so as to form a plurality of suture pockets within the channel. Each of the plurality of walls has a suture hole formed therein. The implant may also include a locking screw secured to the humeral stem component and the fracture epiphysis component and a humeral cup component secured to the fracture epiphysis component. The humeral cup component has a concave bearing surface configured to articulate with a rounded head surface of a glenosphere component.
An outer surface of the cup-shaped body of the fracture epiphysis component has an additional suture hole extending therethrough, with such an additional suture hole extending in the anteroposterior direction.
The cup-shaped body of the fracture epiphysis component may include an annular rim formed in the superior end thereof with a number of suture collars extending outwardly from the annular rim.
Each of such suture collars has a number of suture holes formed therein, with the suture holes being positioned radially on the suture collars.
The suture collars may include a lateral suture collar that extends outwardly from the annular rim of the cup-shaped body within a segment of the annular rim defined by an anterior-most point of the rim and a posterior-most point of the rim. The suture collars may also include an anteromedial suture collar extending outwardly from the annular rim of the cup-shaped body within a segment of the annular rim defined by the anterior-most point of the rim and a medial-most point of the rim. Further, the suture collars may also include an posteromedial suture collar extending outwardly from the annular rim of the cup-shaped body within a segment of the annular rim defined by the posterior-most point of the rim and the medial-most point of the rim. The lateral suture collar, the anteromedial suture collar, and the posteromedial suture collar are discontiguous with one another.
The lateral suture collar may be longer than both the anteromedial suture collar and the posteromedial suture collar.
The anteromedial suture collar and the posteromedial suture collar may be similar in size and face opposite one another along the annular rim of the cup-shaped body.
According to yet another aspect, a method of surgically repairing a proximal fracture of a patient's humerus includes rotating a locking screw to secure an elongated humeral stem component to a fracture epiphysis component and implanting the humeral stem component into the intramedullary canal of the patient's humerus. The method also includes advancing a first suture through the humeral shaft of the patient's humerus, through a first suture hole formed in an annular suture collar of the fracture epiphysis component, and through the patient's rotator cuff proximate the greater tuberosity of the patient's humerus. A second suture is advanced through the humeral shaft of the patient's humerus, through a second suture hole formed in the annular suture collar of the fracture epiphysis component, and through the patient's rotator cuff proximate the lessor tuberosity of the patient's humerus. A third suture is advanced through a third suture hole located in a suture pocket on an outer inferior surface of the of the fracture epiphysis component, through the greater tuberosity of the patient's humerus, and through the lessor tuberosity of the patient's humerus.
The method also includes tensioning the third suture so as to bring the greater tuberosity of the patient's humerus and the lessor tuberosity of the patient's humerus into contact with one another, and thereafter tying the third suture so as to secure the greater tuberosity of the patient's humerus and the lessor tuberosity of the patient's humerus in contact with one another.
The method also includes installing a polymeric humeral cup on the fracture epiphysis component subsequent to the tying step.
A tab formed in a superior surface of the humeral stem component may be positioned into one of a plurality of notches formed in an inferior surface of the fracture epiphysis component so as to position the fracture epiphysis component in a selected version angle relative the humeral stem component prior to rotation of the locking screw.
The detailed description particularly refers to the following figures, in which:
While the concepts of the present disclosure are susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific exemplary embodiments thereof have been shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that there is no intent to limit the concepts of the present disclosure to the particular forms disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention.
Terms representing anatomical references, such as anterior, posterior, medial, lateral, superior, inferior, etcetera, may be used throughout this disclosure in reference to both the orthopaedic implants described herein and a patient's natural anatomy. Such terms have well-understood meanings in both the study of anatomy and the field of orthopaedics. Use of such anatomical reference terms in the specification and claims is intended to be consistent with their well-understood meanings unless noted otherwise.
Referring now to
As can be seen in
As can be seen in
As can be seen in
A number of suture collars 44, 46, 48 extend outwardly from the fracture epiphysis component's annular rim 42. Specifically, in the embodiment described herein, a lateral suture collar 44 extends outwardly from a lateral segment 54 of the annular rim 42, an anteromedial suture collar 46 extends outwardly from an anteromedial segment 56 of the annular rim 42, and a posteromedial suture collar 48 extends outwardly from a posteromedial segment 58 of the annular rim 42. As can be seen in
As can also be seen in
It should be appreciated that such an arrangement in which the suture collars 44, 46, 48 do not collectively extend all the way around the perimeter of the annular rim 42 may reduce the occurrences of impingement in some patients. In particular, depending on the anatomy of a specific patient, the design of the fracture epiphysis component 22 (i.e., it being devoid of a suture collar along its medial-most side) may reduce the occasions in which the medial side of the fracture epiphysis component would otherwise contact the scapula of the patient at certain ranges of motion. Such a configuration also facilitates mating the fracture epiphysis component 22 with an insertion tool or extraction tool during implantation or removal of the modular reverse shoulder orthopaedic implant 10.
As can be seen in
As can be seen in
The fracture epiphysis component 22 and the humeral stem component 24 may be constructed with an implant-grade biocompatible metal, although other materials may also be used. Examples of such metals include cobalt, including cobalt alloys such as a cobalt chrome alloy, titanium, including titanium alloys such as a Ti6Al4V alloy, and stainless steel. Such metallic components 22, 24 may also be coated with a surface treatment, such as hyaluronic acid (HA), to enhance biocompatibility. Moreover, the surfaces of the fracture epiphysis component 22 and the humeral stem component 24 that engage the natural bone, such as the rounded outer surface 38 of the fracture epiphysis component 22 and the outer surfaces of the humeral stem component 24 may be textured to facilitate securing the component to the bone. Such surfaces may also be porous coated to promote bone ingrowth for permanent fixation.
Moreover, each of the components of the modular reverse shoulder orthopaedic implant 10 may be provided in various different configurations and sizes to provide the flexibility necessary to conform to varying anatomies from patient to patient. For example, the fracture epiphysis component 22 and the polymeric humeral cup 18 may be provided in various diameters to match the needs of a given patient. Moreover, as shown in phantom lines in
Referring now to
The surgeon then assembles the modular reverse shoulder orthopaedic implant 10. Specifically, the surgeon selects a fracture epiphysis component 22 and a humeral stem component 24 of the desired size and configuration and thereafter inserts the locking screw 26 through the cannulated post 30 of the epiphysis component 22. The version angle of the fracture epiphysis component 22 relative to the humeral stem component 24 may be selected by inserting the tab 32 extending superiorly from the planar surface of the stem component's superior end into a selected one of the notches 34 formed in the inferior end of the fracture epiphysis component 22 (see
Thereafter, as shown in
As can be seen in
As shown in
Thereafter, as shown in
As shown in
As shown in
Referring now to
As shown in
The surgeon repeats the process, as shown in
As shown in
The surgeon then completes the remaining surgical steps, such as installation of the humeral cup 18 and installation of the glenosphere component 12. The surgeon then closes the surgical site.
While the disclosure has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description, such an illustration and description is to be considered as exemplary and not restrictive in character, it being understood that only illustrative embodiments have been shown and described and that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit of the disclosure are desired to be protected.
There are a plurality of advantages of the present disclosure arising from the various features of the apparatus, system, and method described herein. It will be noted that alternative embodiments of the apparatus, system, and method of the present disclosure may not include all of the features described yet still benefit from at least some of the advantages of such features. Those of ordinary skill in the art may readily devise their own implementations of the apparatus, system, and method that incorporate one or more of the features of the present invention and fall within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure as defined by the appended claims.
This continuation application claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/393,294, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,147,678, which was filed on Apr. 24, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/465,233, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,368,998, which was filed on Mar. 21, 2017 and which is a divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/597,662, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,597,190 which was filed on Jan. 15, 2015, the entirety of each of the above-identified applications is hereby expressly incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5489310 | Mikhail | Feb 1996 | A |
5769856 | Dong et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
6165224 | Alain | Dec 2000 | A |
6334874 | Tornier et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6398812 | Masini | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6530957 | Jack | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6790234 | Frankle | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6899736 | Rauscher et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
7070622 | Brown et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7175663 | Stone | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7241314 | Winslow | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7462197 | Fornier et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7556652 | Angibaud et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7621961 | Stone | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7854768 | Wiley et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
8062376 | Shultz et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8070820 | Winslow et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8080063 | Ferrand et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8118875 | Rollet | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8337563 | Roche et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8500815 | Fockens | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8512410 | Metcalfe et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8591591 | Winslow et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8632597 | Lappin | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8632598 | McDaniel et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8840672 | Winslow et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8845743 | Termanini | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8870962 | Roche et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8940054 | Wiley et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
9044330 | Chavarria et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9597190 | Chavarria et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
11147678 | Chavarria | Oct 2021 | B2 |
20040064187 | Ball et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050177241 | Angibaud et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20070156246 | Meswania et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070173945 | Wiley et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070225818 | Reubelt et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080177393 | Grant et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080208348 | Fitz | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090171462 | Poncet et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090210065 | Nerot et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090306782 | Schwyzer | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20110060417 | Simmen et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110106266 | Schwyzer et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110130840 | Oskouei | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120029647 | Winslow et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120101583 | Lascar et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120179262 | Metcalfe et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120253467 | Frankle | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120330428 | Splieth et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130150973 | Splieth et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130197652 | Ekelund et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130289738 | Humphrey | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140039633 | Roche et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140128981 | Lappin | May 2014 | A1 |
20140156011 | Termanini | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140188232 | Metcalfe et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140236304 | Hodorek et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140243986 | Frankle | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140364953 | Tomlinson et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150012103 | Winslow et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150088262 | Lappin | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150127110 | Lappin | May 2015 | A1 |
20170189196 | Chavarria et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
329854 | Aug 1989 | EP |
1402854 | Mar 2004 | EP |
1804729 | Jul 2007 | EP |
1937188 | Jul 2008 | EP |
1996125 | Dec 2008 | EP |
2001414 | Dec 2008 | EP |
2124829 | Dec 2009 | EP |
2242452 | Oct 2010 | EP |
2301481 | Mar 2011 | EP |
2405866 | Jan 2012 | EP |
2474288 | Jul 2012 | EP |
2604227 | Jun 2013 | EP |
2665445 | Nov 2013 | EP |
2668930 | Dec 2013 | EP |
2672929 | Dec 2013 | EP |
2773290 | Sep 2014 | EP |
2779951 | Sep 2014 | EP |
2841021 | Mar 2015 | EP |
2844194 | Mar 2015 | EP |
2854712 | Apr 2015 | EP |
2972627 | Sep 2012 | FR |
2007503861 | Mar 2007 | JP |
2007536944 | Dec 2007 | JP |
2012143562 | Aug 2012 | JP |
2013525047 | Jun 2013 | JP |
2306904 | Sep 2007 | RU |
138160 | Mar 2014 | RU |
2007133335 | Nov 2007 | WO |
2012051552 | Apr 2012 | WO |
2014067961 | May 2014 | WO |
2014096912 | Jun 2014 | WO |
2015001525 | Jan 2015 | WO |
2015048385 | Apr 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Japanese Office Action with English translation for Japanese Application No. 2016-005043, dated Nov. 12, 2019, 11 pages. |
Translation of FR2972627A1 performed using Google Translate on Dec. 10, 2020 (Year: 2020). |
Bell, J-E. et al., “Trends and Variation in Incidence, Surgical Treatment, and Repeat Surgery of Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Elderly,” JBJS, 93A(2): 121-131, 2011. |
Kim, S.H. et al., “Epidemiology of Humerus Fractures in the United States: Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, 2008,” Arthritis Care Res, 64(3): 407-414, Mar. 2012. |
Roux, A. et al., “Epidemiology of proximal humerus fractures managed in a trauma center,” Ortho Trauma Surg Res, 98:715-719, 2012. |
Palvanen, M. et al., “Update in the Epidemiology of Proximal Humeral Fractures,” CORR, 442: 87-92, 2006. |
Solberg, B.D. et al., “Locked Plating of 3- and 4-Part Proximal Humerus Fractures in Older Patients: The Effect of Initial Fracture Pattern on Outcome,” J. Ortho Trauma, 23: 113-119, Feb. 2009. |
Sproul, R.C. et al., “A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures,” Injury, 42: 408-413, 2011. |
Sudkamp, N. et al., “Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Proximal Humeral Fractures with Use of the Locking Proximal Humerus Plate,” JBJS, 91A: 1320-1328, 2009. |
Thanasas, C. et al., “Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: A systematic review,” JSES, 18: 837-844, 2009. |
Brunner, F. et al., “Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Proximal Humerus Fractures Using a Proximal Humeral Locked Plate: A Prospective Multicenter Analysis,” J. Ortho Trauma, 23: 163-172, Mar. 2009. |
Krappinger, D. et al., “Predicting failure after surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures,” Injury, 42: 1283-1288, 2011. |
Owsley, K.C. et al., “Displacement/Screw Cutout After Open Reduction and Locked Plate Fixation of Humeral Fractures,” JBJS, 90A: 233-240, 2008. |
Schliemann, B. et al., “Complex fractures of the proximal humerus in th elderly—outcome and complications after locking plate fixation,” Musculoskeletal Surg, 96(Suppl 1): S3-S11, 2012. |
Boileau, P. et al., “Tuberosity malposition and migration: Reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus,” JSES, 11:401-412, 2002. |
Kontakis, G. et al., “Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty,” JBJS, 90B: 1407-1413, 2008. |
Sirveaux, F. et al., “Reverse Prosethesis for Proximal Humerus Fracture, Technique and Results,” Tech Shoulder & Elbow Surg, 9(1): 15-21, 2008. |
Gallinet, D. et al., “Three or four parts complex proximal humerus fractures: Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse prosethesis: A comparative study of 40 cases,” Ortho Trauma Surg Res, 95:48-55, 2009. |
Green, A. et al., “Humeral head replacement for acute, four-part proximal humerus fractures,” JSES, 2: 249-254, 1993. |
Robinson, C.M. et al., “Primary Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures,” JBJS, 85A: 1215-1223, 2003. |
Sirveaux, F. et al., “Shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fracture,” Ortho Trauma Surg Res, 96: 683-694, 2010. |
Wretenberg, P. et al., “Acute hemiarthroplasty after proximal humerus fracture in old patients,” Acta Ortho Scand, 68: 121-123, 1997. |
Valenti, P. et al., “Mid-term outcome of reverse shoulder prostheses in complex proximal humeral fractures,” Acta Ortho Belg, 78: 442-449, 2012. |
Gallinet, D. et al. “Improvement in shoulder rotation in complex shoulder fractures treated by reverse shoulder arthroplasty,” JSES, 22: 38-44, 2013. |
Bufquin, T. et al., “Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly,” JBJS, 89B: 516-520, 2007. |
Klein, M. et al., “Treatment of Comminuted Fractures of the Proximal Humerus in Elderly Patients With the Delta III Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis,” J. Ortho Trauma, 22: 698-704, Nov./Dec. 2008. |
Extended European Search Report, European Application No. 17171503.0-1664, dated Jul. 3, 2017, 9 pages. |
Russian Federation Office Action and Search Report with English translation for Application No. 2015156536, dated Dec. 29, 2015, 11 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220039962 A1 | Feb 2022 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14597662 | Jan 2015 | US |
Child | 15465233 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16393294 | Apr 2019 | US |
Child | 17504868 | US | |
Parent | 15465233 | Mar 2017 | US |
Child | 16393294 | US |