The present subject matter is directed generally to total ankle prosthesis apparatuses and methods. More specifically, the present subject matter is directed to a system and method for ankle prosthesis apparatuses and methods having a plurality of components, the selection of which determines the extent of freedom of movement allowed.
The concept of total ankle arthroplasty has a long and relatively unsuccessful history. Only recently has total ankle arthroplasty regained some recognition as a viable treatment for limited indications. Replacement of the ankle joint is particularly problematic due to the relatively small articular surfaces, complex biomechanics, and limited access to the joint during replacement, and wide variation in patient candidacy. These factors have led to post-operative complications such as loosening, subsidence, pain, and prosthetic wear. In addition to these technical difficulties, regulatory agencies have classified ankle prosthetics in a manner substantially limiting scientific progress in ankle replacement due to the financial burden of obtaining market clearance for such devices. What is needed is an ankle prosthetic system or kit that can sufficiently address all types of surgical candidates considered for total ankle replacement. The kit must provide means to adjust the fixation and articular adjustment such that modifications to the “fit” and “function” of the prosthesis can be made intraoperatively or interoperatively (i.e. within the same or in a separate operation). Further the kit must provide means for legal distribution of the device depending on the legal and/or regulatory constraints place on such devices and the geographic location of use.
Other ankle prosthetics currently marketed include the following:
The key element in the chart above is the type of prosthesis. Two types of prosthetics are generally available: Semi-constrained, and unconstrained. Both types of prosthetics make use of a 3-component design: upper, middle, and lower component (tibial, bearing, and talar component, respectively).
A semiconstrained prosthesis such as the Alvine device provides for a tibial fixation component (metal), which provides firm attachment to the distal end of the tibial bone. A talar component provides firm attachment to the proximal end of the talar bone, and provides on its upper or proximal side a generally convex surface for articulation. Into the tibial component fits a UHMWPE bearing that intimately fits into a socket formed to receive the bearing. The two components fit together such that no motion is considered between the bearing and the tibial component. The underside of the bearing provides a generally concave surface to articulate with the convex surface of the talar component. The radii of curvature of these curved surfaces are mismatched such that all motions present in a nature ankle can be at least partially replicated. These motions include plantar/dorsiflexion, rotation about the tibial axis, medial/lateral translation, and anterior/posterior translation. Rotations in the frontal region are not well supported as there is little curvature in this region. These motions (they can occur actively) lead to edge loading, causing higher stress and greater propensity for wear. Also, as the articular surfaces are designed for mismatch, even under optimum implant positioning and loading, higher stress will be seen at the contact point due to the point loading associated with mismatched radii.
The unconstrained prosthetics are all generally the same in function. They are similar to the semiconstrained prostheses except that there is designed into the prosthesis the potential for motion between the tibial tray component and the bearing. There is no intimate fit between the bearing and the tibial component; the tibial component has a flat undersurface and the bearing has a simple flat upper surface so that translation and rotation are allowed at this interface. Further, the curvature of the interface between the talar component and the bearing are matched, so there is a large contact surface area and optimized contact stress (reduced wear). This match articulation can be accomplished because other motions are allowed for between the tibial and bearing components. It has been clearly shown with clinical history in all joints that if these motions are not allowed for, the force must be absorbed at the implant bone interface, and can lead to a greater propensity for loosening.
Another known device is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,824,106 (hereafter the '106 Patent) to Fournol, which describes an ankle prosthesis having a tibial component with an articular surface that slides on an intermediate element, which in turn has a recess for accommodating a protrusion or lug of a talar component. The '106 Patent, aside from differing substantially from the embodiments of the present subject matter, does not contemplate selecting the intermediate component from a plurality of components, each having a differently shaped recess for meeting a recipient's ambulatory needs and for overcoming the legal obstacles of different regions.
It has been commonly considered to have a kit that allows a surgeon to select from varying sized or thickness of bearings. However, it has not been known thus far to have the option of selecting from a plurality of bearings that allow one to control, in varying amounts, the amount of motion allowable between the potential articular surfaces.
Further, it must be noted that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently classifies unconstrained ankle prostheses as class III devices. Under FDA regulations, class III devices require Pre-Market Approval (PMA) prior to distribution in the US. This further means the clinical data must be provided that can substantial the efficacy of the new medical device. This clinical data is increasingly expensive to develop and in most cases prevents a particular project from being financially viable. The semiconstrained device is a class II device, and typically does not require PMA, but substantial equivalency to a currently approved device. There are currently no legally marketed ankle prostheses in the US.
An ankle implant system or kit and method are provided that can provide a surgeon the option of selecting the type of prosthesis desired during a surgical operation. The surgeon can implant a set of standardized fixation components into the tibia and/or fibula bones and the talus bone. Once implanted, the surgeon can select a bearing component from a plurality of bearing components that allow for different size patients, but also modify the manner in which the prosthesis functions (either semiconstrained or unconstrained). This decision can be made on a variety of patient factors as well as legal factors depending on the particular case.
It is therefore an object to provide novel apparatuses and methods for an ankle implant or prosthesis system. An object having been stated hereinabove, and which is addressed in whole or in part by the present subject matter, other objects will become evident as the description proceeds when taken in connection with the accompanying drawings as best described hereinbelow.
Talar component 10 can preferably be made from any suitable material such as a metallic material such as cobalt-chrome or titanium alloy, or other biologically stable material. As shown in
On bottom or lower surface 39 of tibial component 30, a structure such as at least one protrusion 38 exists for guidance of articulation between tibial component 30 and bearing component 20. Protrusion 38 is adapted to fit within a pocket or recess 23 (shown best in
The height of the prosthesis can also be adjusted to modify to resolved motion during the operation. The prosthesis can provide for varying thickness bearings, which allows for tensioning of joint tissues during the operation, thus enhancing the potential for joint prosthesis longevity, etc.
In another form, bearing component 20′ and recess 23′ as shown in
In yet another form, bearing component 20″ as shown in
As can be appreciated by those of skill in the art, other embodiments of the present subject matter can be provided and are contemplated within the scope of the present subject matter. For example, the fixation features of the tibial and talar components could be modular. Also, the protrusion of the tibial component could be suitably rotated, such as 90 degrees, for a different set of possible ranges of motion. Similarly, the protrusion and recess features of the tibial and bearing components could be inverted so that the protrusion would extend from the bearing component with the recess defined on the tibial component instead of on the bearing component without affecting functionality. In this configuration, the protrusion could comprise one or more protrusion portions positioned on and extending from the bearing component as an integral part of the bearing component or as an attachment thereto. Such a configuration would therefore still the bearing component to be provided with a variety of suitable configurations for the protrusion portion or portions such that different bearing components could be selected for controlling or limiting range of motion as desired.
It will be understood that various details of the presently disclosed subject matter may be changed without departing from the scope of the subject matter. Furthermore, the foregoing description is for the purpose of illustration only, and not for the purpose of limitation.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/499,760, filed Sep. 3, 2003; the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3839742 | Link | Oct 1974 | A |
3872519 | Giannestras et al. | Mar 1975 | A |
3886599 | Schlein | Jun 1975 | A |
3889300 | Smith | Jun 1975 | A |
3896502 | Lennox | Jul 1975 | A |
3896503 | Freeman et al. | Jul 1975 | A |
3975778 | Newton, III | Aug 1976 | A |
3987500 | Schlein | Oct 1976 | A |
4016606 | Murray et al. | Apr 1977 | A |
4021864 | Waugh | May 1977 | A |
4069518 | Groth, Jr. et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
4069528 | Newton et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
4085466 | Goodfellow et al. | Apr 1978 | A |
4156944 | Schreiber et al. | Jun 1979 | A |
4207627 | Cloutier | Jun 1980 | A |
4209861 | Walker et al. | Jul 1980 | A |
4224697 | Murray et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4232404 | Samuelson et al. | Nov 1980 | A |
4309778 | Buechel et al. | Jan 1982 | A |
4340978 | Buechel et al. | Jul 1982 | A |
4470158 | Pappas et al. | Sep 1984 | A |
4755185 | Tarr | Jul 1988 | A |
4759766 | Buettner-Janz et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4792340 | Aulie et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
5314485 | Judet | May 1994 | A |
5326365 | Alvine | Jul 1994 | A |
5387240 | Pottenger et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5514139 | Goldstein et al. | May 1996 | A |
5597379 | Haines et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5609639 | Walker | Mar 1997 | A |
5609644 | Ashby et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5643272 | Haines et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5755801 | Walker et al. | May 1998 | A |
5755803 | Haines et al. | May 1998 | A |
5766259 | Sammarco | Jun 1998 | A |
5810827 | Haines et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5824106 | Fournol | Oct 1998 | A |
5879354 | Haines et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
6039764 | Pottenger et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6056754 | Haines et al. | May 2000 | A |
6080195 | Colleran et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6090144 | Letot et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6099570 | Livet et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6117175 | Bosredon | Sep 2000 | A |
6123728 | Brosnahan et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6162254 | Timoteo | Dec 2000 | A |
6165223 | Metzger et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6183519 | Bonnin et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6197064 | Haines et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6203576 | Afriat et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6210444 | Webster et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6210445 | Zawadzki | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6217618 | Hileman | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6299646 | Chambat et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6409767 | Perice et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6413279 | Metzger et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6443991 | Running | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6475241 | Pappas | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6485520 | Hubach et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6695848 | Haines | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6875222 | Long et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6939380 | Guzman | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7011687 | Deffenbaugh et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7025790 | Parks et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7323012 | Stone et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7465319 | Tornier | Dec 2008 | B2 |
20010014827 | Chambat et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20030181985 | Keller et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030187511 | Ball et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204265 | Short et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030216813 | Ball et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040002768 | Parks et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040138756 | Reeder | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040186585 | Feiwell | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050049711 | Ball | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050171613 | Sartorius et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050182492 | Pappas et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060015109 | Haines | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015115 | Haines | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015116 | Haines | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015117 | Haines | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060030853 | Haines | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060030854 | Haines | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060030855 | Haines | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060030944 | Haines | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060030946 | Ball et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060058882 | Haines | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060136062 | DiNello et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060161260 | Thomas et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070112431 | Kofoed | May 2007 | A1 |
20070162137 | Kloss et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050049711 A1 | Mar 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60499760 | Sep 2003 | US |