The present invention relates generally to a surgical diagnostic system for detecting the presence of one or more nerves.
Traditional surgical practices emphasize the importance of recognizing or verifying the location of nerves to avoid injuring them. Advances in surgical techniques include development of techniques including ever smaller exposures, such as minimally invasive surgical procedures, and the insertion of ever more complex medical devices. With these advances in surgical techniques, there is a corresponding need for improvements in methods of detecting and/or avoiding nerves.
A neural monitoring system is provided that is capable of detecting an artificially-induced mechanical response of a muscle to an electrical stimulus that is provided within an intracorporeal treatment area of a human subject. The electrical stimulus may be a periodic stimulus provided at a stimulation frequency, and having a predetermined pulse width. Additionally, the intracorporeal treatment area generally includes a nerve that innervates the monitored muscle.
The neural monitoring system includes a non-invasive mechanical sensor and a processor. The non-invasive mechanical sensor is configured to be placed in mechanical communication with the muscle and to generate a mechanomyography output signal corresponding to a sensed mechanical movement of the muscle. By non-invasive, it is intended that the mechanical sensor does not require an incision or related surgical procedure to be properly positioned. Instead, it may be held in contact with an external surface of the skin, or may be positioned within a naturally occurring lumen/orifice. The mechanical sensor may generally include an accelerometer, a microphone, a strain gauge, or a piezoelectric device.
The processor is in communication with the mechanical sensor and is configured to receive the mechanomyography output signal from the mechanical sensor. In one configuration, the processor may determine a frequency component of the mechanomyography output signal that has a peak magnitude relative to one or more adjacent frequencies. The processor may provide an indication to a user if the determined frequency component is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency. In another configuration, the processor may determine a fundamental frequency of the mechanomyography output signal, and provide an indication to a user if the determined fundamental frequency is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency.
The above features and advantages and other features and advantages of the present invention are readily apparent from the following detailed description of the best modes for carrying out the invention when taken in connection with the accompanying drawings.
“A,” “an,” “the,” “at least one,” and “one or more” are used interchangeably to indicate that at least one of the item is present; a plurality of such items may be present unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. All numerical values of parameters (e.g., of quantities or conditions) in this specification, including the appended claims, are to be understood as being modified in all instances by the term “about” whether or not “about” actually appears before the numerical value. “About” indicates that the stated numerical value allows some slight imprecision (with some approach to exactness in the value; about or reasonably close to the value; nearly). If the imprecision provided by “about” is not otherwise understood in the art with this ordinary meaning, then “about” as used herein indicates at least variations that may arise from ordinary methods of measuring and using such parameters. In addition, disclosure of ranges includes disclosure of all values and further divided ranges within the entire range. Each value within a range and the endpoints of a range are hereby all disclosed as separate embodiment.
Referring to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to identify like or identical components in the various views,
As used herein, an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response refers to a contraction or relaxation of a muscle in response to a stimulus that is not received through natural sensory means (e.g., sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch). Instead, it is a contraction/relaxation of a muscle that is induced by the application of a stimulus directly to a nerve that innervates the muscle. Examples of stimuli that may cause an “artificially-induced” muscle response may include an electrical current applied directly to the nerve or to intracorporeal tissue or fluid immediately surrounding the nerve. In this example, if the applied electrical current is sufficiently strong and/or sufficiently close to the nerve, it may artificially cause the nerve to depolarize (resulting in a corresponding contraction of the muscle innervated by that nerve). Other examples of such “artificial stimuli” may involve mechanically-induced depolarization (e.g., physically stretching or compressing a nerve, such as with a tissue retractor), thermally-induced depolarization (e.g., through ultrasonic cautery), or chemically-induced depolarization (e.g., through the application of a chemical agent to the tissue surrounding the nerve).
During an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response, a muscle innervated by the artificially depolarized nerve may physically contract or relax (i.e., a mechanical response). Such a mechanical reaction may primarily occur along a longitudinal direction of the muscle (i.e., a direction aligned with the constituent fibers of the muscle), though may further result in a respective swelling/relaxing of the muscle in a lateral direction (which may be substantially normal to the skin for most skeletal muscles). This local movement of the muscle during an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response may be measured relative to the position of the muscle when in a non-stimulated state, and is distinguished from other global translations of the muscle
The neural monitoring system 10 may include a processor 20 that is in communication with at least one mechanical sensor 22. The mechanical sensor 22 may include, for example, a strain gauge, a force transducer, a position encoder, an accelerometer, a piezoelectric material, or any other transducer or combination of transducers that may convert a physical motion into a variable electrical signal.
Each mechanical sensor 22 may specially be configured to monitor a local mechanical movement of a muscle of the subject 14. For example, each sensor 22 may include a fastening means, such as an adhesive material/patch, that allows the sensor 22 to be adhered, bandaged, or otherwise affixed to the skin of the subject 14 (i.e. affixed on an external skin surface). Other examples of suitable fastening means may include bandages, sleeves, or other elastic fastening devices that may hold the sensor 22 in physical contact with the subject 14. Alternatively, the mechanical sensor 22 (and/or coupled device) may be configured to monitor a local mechanical movement of a muscle by virtue of its physical design. For example, the sensors/coupled devices may include catheters, balloons, bite guards, orifice plugs or endotracheal tubes that may be positioned within a lumen or natural opening of the subject to monitor a response of the lumen or orifice, or of a muscle that is directly adjacent to and/or connected with the lumen or orifice. In one configuration, the mechanical sensor may be a non-invasive device, whereby the term “non-invasive” is intended to mean that the sensor is not surgically placed within the body of the subject (i.e., via cutting of tissue to effectuate the placement). For the purposes of this disclosure, non-invasive sensors may include sensors that are placed within naturally occurring body lumens that are accessible without the need for an incision.
In one configuration, the sensor 22 may include a contact detection device, that may provide an indication if the sensor 22 is in physical contact with the skin of the subject 14. The contact detection device may, for example, include a pair of electrodes that are configured to contact the skin of the subject 14 when the sensor 22 is properly positioned. The sensor 22/contact detection device may then monitor an impedance between the electrodes to determine whether the electrodes are in contact with the skin. Other examples of suitable contact detection devices may include capacitive touch sensors or buttons that protrude slightly beyond the surface of the sensor.
The system 10 may further include one or more elongate medical instruments 30 that are capable of selectively providing a stimulus within the intracorporeal treatment area 12 of the subject 14 (i.e., also referred to as a stimulator 30). For example, in one configuration, the elongate medical instrument 30 may include a probe 32 (e.g., a ball-tip probe, k-wire, or needle) that has an electrode 34 disposed on a distal end portion 36. The electrode 34 may be selectively electrified, at either the request of a user/physician, or at the command of the processor 20, to provide an electrical stimulus 38 to intracorporeal tissue of the subject. In other configurations, the elongate medical instrument 30 may include a dialator, retractor, clip, cautery probe, pedicle screw, or any other medical instrument that may be used in an invasive medical procedure. Regardless of the instrument, if the intended artificial stimulus is an electrical current, the instrument 30 may include a selectively electrifiable electrode 34 disposed at a portion of the instrument that is intended to contact tissue within the intracorporeal treatment area 12 during a procedure.
During a surgical procedure, the user/surgeon may selectively administer the stimulus to intracorporeal tissue within the treatment area 12 to identify the presence of one or more nerve bundles or fibers. For an electrical stimulus 38, the user/surgeon may administer the stimulus, for example, upon depressing a button or foot pedal that is in communication with the system 10, and more specifically in communication with the stimulator 30. The electrical stimulus 38 may, for example, be a discrete pulse (e.g., a step pulse) having a pulse width within the range of about 30 μs to about 500 μs. In other examples, the discrete pulse may have a pulse width within the range of about 50 μs to about 200 μs, or within the range of about 75 μs to about 125 μs. The discrete pulse may be periodically applied at a frequency of, for example, between about 1 Hz and about 10 Hz.
If a nerve extends within a predetermined distance of the electrode 34, the electrical stimulus 38 may cause the nerve to depolarize, resulting in a mechanical twitch of a muscle that is innervated by the nerve (i.e., an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response). In general, the magnitude of the response/twitch may be directly correlated to the distance between the electrode and the nerve, and the magnitude of the stimulus current. In one configuration, a lookup table may be employed by the processor 20 to provide an approximate distance between the electrode and the nerve, given a known stimulus magnitude and a measured mechanical muscle response.
Prior to beginning a surgical procedure, the one or more mechanical sensors 22 may be placed in mechanical communication with one or more muscles of the subject 14. In the present context, a sensor 22 may be in mechanical communication with the muscle if it can physically detect a movement, velocity, acceleration, strain or other physical response of the muscle, either via direct contact with the muscle, or via a mechanical relationship through one or more intermediate materials and/or tissues (e.g., skin and/or subcutaneous tissue).
In general, each mechanical sensor 22 may generate a mechanomyography (MMG) output signal (schematically shown at 62) that corresponds to a sensed mechanical movement/response of the adjacent muscle. The MMG output signal 62 may be either a digital or analog signal, and may typically be provided to the processor 20 through either wired or wireless communication means (e.g., through a physical wire, or using radio frequency communication protocols, such as according to IEEE 802.11 or another protocol such as Bluetooth). As a specific signal, the MMG output signal 62 is intended to be separate and distinct from any electrical potentials of the muscle or skin (often referred to as electromyography (EMG) signals). While electrical (EMG) and mechanical (MMG) muscle responses may be related, their relationship is complex, and not easily described (e.g., electrical potentials are very location specific, with a potentially variable electrical potential across the volume of the muscle of interest).
Referring again to
The processor 20 may be configured to automatically perform one or more signal processing algorithms 70 or methods to determine whether a sensed mechanical movement (i.e., via the MMG output signal 62) is representative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response or if it is merely a subject-intended muscle movement and/or an environmentally caused movement. These processing algorithms 70 may be embodied as software or firmware, and may either be stored locally on the processor 20, or may be readily assessable by the processor 20.
While the muscle contractions may be easily represented in the time domain (as generally illustrated by the graph 80 in
The flow diagram of
After the processor 20 receives the MMG output signal 62 it may convert the received signal 62 from the time domain to the frequency domain (at step 104). Such a conversion may occur using, for example, Fourier Methods (e.g., a Fourier Transform, a Fast Fourier Transform, or a Discrete Fourier Transform), or through other similar methodologies. Once in the frequency domain, the processor 20 may then determine one or more frequency components that have a peak magnitude (at step 106). While numerous methods may be used to detect magnitude peaks, the most basic method includes identifying one or more frequencies that have magnitudes greater than the magnitudes of adjacent frequencies.
Referring again to
Referring back to step 108, in general, there may be two strategies (112, 114) that the processor 20 may employ to determine whether a sensed movement of the mechanical sensor 22 is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response. These strategies 112, 114 may both operate by attempting to correlate the detected frequency peaks of the MMG output signal with an attribute of the provided electrical stimulus 38. In practice, the processor 20 may use either of these strategies alone, or it may combine them both together into a single strategy (i.e., either performed concurrently, sequentially, or in combination).
In the first detection strategy 112, the processor 20 may receive an indication of the frequency at which the electrical stimulus 38 is administered (at 118). This frequency indication may either be received directly from the stimulator, or from a register or memory location within the processor itself. In step 120, the processor 20 may examine the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks from step 106, and determine whether any of the identified frequencies is an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency. Finally, in step 122 the processor 20 may identify that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response if it is determined that one or more of the identified frequencies is an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency. In other configurations, this determination may require that two or more, or even three or more frequencies are integer multiples of the stimulation frequency before an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response is identified.
In the second detection strategy 114, the processor 20 may similarly receive an indication of the frequency at which the electrical stimulus 38 is administered (at 118). In step 124, the processor 20 may examine the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks from step 106, and determine a fundamental frequency of the MMG output signal 62. This may be accomplished, for example, by determining a greatest common factor of a plurality of the frequencies where magnitude peaks are detected. This technique applied to the peaks 150 shown in
The method 100 illustrated in
As shown in
Referring back to step 202, in general, there may be three free-run detection strategies (204, 206, 208) that the processor 20 may employ to determine/infer whether a sensed movement of the mechanical sensor 22 is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response. These free-run strategies 204, 206, 208 may operate by monitoring the MMG output signal, and attempting to detect signal attributes that may be indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response. In practice, the processor 20 may use any of these strategies alone, or it may combine two or more of them together into a single strategy (i.e., either performed concurrently, sequentially, or in combination, and/or may be combined with the stimulated techniques of
In the first free-run detection strategy 204, the processor 20 may first determine one or more frequency components that have a peak magnitude (at step 106). In step 124, the processor 20 may examine the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks from step 106, and determine a fundamental frequency of the MMG output signal 62. Finally, the processor 20 may compare the determined fundamental frequency to a range of expected fundamental frequencies for an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response in step 210. Such a range may be, for example, between about 1 Hz and about 10 Hz. If the determined fundamental frequency falls within this range, the processor 20 may infer that the sensed mechanical sensor movement is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response (in step 212).
In the second free-run detection strategy 206, the processor 20 may begin by determining one or more frequency components that have a peak magnitude (at step 106). Once the peaks are identified, the processor 20 may compare the peaks to a range of frequencies where frequency content is expected to exist for an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response (in step 214). Such a range may be, for example between about 1 Hz and about 20 Hz. In one configuration, if one or more of the identified peaks are within this range, the processor 20 may infer that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response in step 212. In other configurations, the processor 20 may require that two or more, or even three or more of the identified peaks lie within the range before it infers that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response.
Finally, in the third free-run detection strategy, 208 the processor 20 does not necessarily need to compute the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks, instead, it may first establish a noise floor at step 216, and then it may determine if any of the respective frequency magnitudes exceed the noise floor by a threshold amount (in step 218). If so, the processor 20 may infer that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response in step 212.
The noise floor may generally represent the normal background mechanical noise/movement that may be reported by the sensor. It may be a function of the precision of the transducer within the sensor, it may include received electromagnetic radiation, and/or it may include mechanical movement that may be attributable to continuous rhythmic events such as breathing or heart beat. The noise floor may either have a varying magnitude for each frequency, or may generally be a constant value across all frequencies. In this strategy 208, the threshold may be either a fixed amount above the noise floor, or may be a multiple of the noise floor (e.g., a level twice the noise floor, or a level that is set about one or more standard deviations above an average noise level across a period of time).
While the stimulation-based methods/strategies of
In addition to use as a stand alone, or hand-held nerve monitoring apparatus, the present nerve monitoring system 10 and described artificially-induced mechanical muscle response detection algorithms (as described within method 100) may be used by a robotic surgical system, such as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/428,693, filed 23 Mar. 2012, entitled “ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEM WITH MECHANOMYOGRAPHY FEEDBACK,” which is incorporated by reference in its entirety and for all of the disclosure setforth therein. In such a system, the above-described neural monitoring system 10 may be used to provide one or more control signals to a robotic surgical system if an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response is detected. In such an embodiment, the one or more elongate medical instruments 30 described above may be robotically controlled in up to 6 or more degrees of freedom/motion by a robotic controller. This instrument may be configured to perform a surgical procedure within an intracorporeal treatment area at the direction of the robotic controller, and may provide an electrical stimulus 38 in the manner described above. If an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response is detected, the neural monitoring system 10 may instruct the robotic controller (via the provided control signal) to limit the range of available motion of the elongate medical instrument 30 and/or to prevent an actuation of an end effector that may be disposed on the instrument 30 and controllable by the robotic controller.
While the best modes for carrying out the invention have been described in detail, those familiar with the art to which this invention relates will recognize various alternative designs and embodiments for practicing the invention within the scope of the appended claims. It is intended that all matter contained in the above description or shown in the accompanying drawings shall be interpreted as illustrative only and not as limiting.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3200814 | Taylor et al. | Aug 1965 | A |
3565080 | Ide et al. | Feb 1971 | A |
3797010 | Adler et al. | Mar 1974 | A |
4155353 | Rea et al. | May 1979 | A |
4493327 | Bergelson et al. | Jan 1985 | A |
4807642 | Brown | Feb 1989 | A |
4817628 | Zealear et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4940453 | Cadwell | Jul 1990 | A |
4994015 | Cadwell | Feb 1991 | A |
5047005 | Cadwell | Sep 1991 | A |
5078674 | Cadwell | Jan 1992 | A |
5116304 | Cadwell | May 1992 | A |
5178145 | Rea | Jan 1993 | A |
5284153 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5284154 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5482038 | Ruff | Jan 1996 | A |
5566678 | Cadwell | Oct 1996 | A |
5593429 | Ruff | Jan 1997 | A |
5631667 | Cadwell | May 1997 | A |
5775331 | Raymond et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5860939 | Wofford et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5888370 | Becker et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5993630 | Becker et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5993632 | Becker et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6030401 | Marino | Feb 2000 | A |
6093205 | McLeod et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6181961 | Prass | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6183518 | Ross et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6206921 | Guagliano et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6221082 | Marino et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6224603 | Marino | May 2001 | B1 |
6251140 | Marino et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6264659 | Ross et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266394 | Marino | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266558 | Gozani et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6280447 | Marino et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6287832 | Becker et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6290724 | Marino | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6312443 | Stone | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324432 | Rigaux | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6361508 | Johnson et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6368325 | McKinley et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6387070 | Marino et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6387130 | Stone et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6436143 | Ross et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6466817 | Kaula et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6478805 | Marino et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6485518 | Cornwall et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6491626 | Stone et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6500128 | Marino | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6519319 | Marino et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6530930 | Marino et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6533797 | Stone et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6540747 | Marino | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6564078 | Marino et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6638281 | Gorek | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6641708 | Becker et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654634 | Prass | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6739112 | Marino | May 2004 | B1 |
6760616 | Hoey et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6764452 | Gillespie et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6764489 | Ferree | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6802844 | Ferree | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6805668 | Cadwell | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807438 | Brun Del Re et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6843790 | Ferree | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6852126 | Ahlgren | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6870109 | Villarreal | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6887248 | McKinley et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6923814 | Hildebrand et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6945973 | Bray | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6964674 | Matsuura et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6972199 | Lebouitz et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6981990 | Keller | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7001432 | Keller et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7025769 | Ferree | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7050848 | Hoey et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7072521 | Cadwell | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7079883 | Marino et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7160303 | Keller | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7162850 | Marino et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7166113 | Arambula et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7175662 | Link et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7177677 | Kaula et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7207949 | Miles et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7214197 | Prass | May 2007 | B2 |
7214225 | Ellis et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7216001 | Hacker et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7230688 | Villarreal | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7236832 | Hemmerling et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7267691 | Keller et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7296500 | Martinelli | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7320689 | Keller | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7338531 | Ellis et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7341590 | Ferree | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7367958 | McBean et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7374448 | Jepsen et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7379767 | Rea | May 2008 | B2 |
7470236 | Kelleher et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7485146 | Crook et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7522953 | Kaula et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7527629 | Link et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7527649 | Blain | May 2009 | B1 |
7553307 | Bleich et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7555343 | Bleich | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7569067 | Keller | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7578819 | Bleich et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7582058 | Miles et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7583991 | Rea | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7611522 | Gorek | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7618423 | Valentine et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7628813 | Link | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7634315 | Cholette | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7657308 | Miles et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7664544 | Miles et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7666195 | Kelleher et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7668588 | Kovacs | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7691057 | Miles et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7693562 | Marino et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7708776 | Blain et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7713463 | Reah et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7722613 | Sutterlin et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7722673 | Keller | May 2010 | B2 |
7738968 | Bleich | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7738969 | Bleich | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7740631 | Bleich et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7766816 | Chin et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7776049 | Curran et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7776094 | McKinley et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7785248 | Annest et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7785253 | Arambula et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7815682 | Peterson et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7819801 | Miles et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7828855 | Ellis et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7833251 | Ahlgren et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7857813 | Schmitz et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7862592 | Peterson et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7862614 | Keller et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7867277 | Tohmeh | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7883527 | Matsuura et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7887538 | Bleich et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7887568 | Ahlgren | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7887595 | Pimenta | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7892173 | Miles et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7901430 | Matsuura et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7905840 | Pimenta et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7905886 | Curran et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7914350 | Bozich et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7918849 | Bleich et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7918891 | Curran et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7920922 | Gharib et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7927337 | Keller | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7935051 | Miles et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7938830 | Saadat et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7942104 | Butcher et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7942826 | Scholl et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
7946236 | Butcher | May 2011 | B2 |
7959577 | Schmitz et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7962191 | Marino et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7963915 | Bleich | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7963927 | Kelleher et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7981058 | Akay | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7981144 | Geist et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7991463 | Kelleher et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8000782 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8005535 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8012212 | Link et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8016767 | Miles et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8016776 | Bourget et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8027716 | Gharib et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8048080 | Bleich et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8050769 | Gharib et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8055349 | Gharib | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8062298 | Schmitz et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8062300 | Schmitz et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8062369 | Link | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8062370 | Keller et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8063770 | Costantino | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8068912 | Kaula et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8070812 | Keller | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8074591 | Butcher et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8075499 | Nathan et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8075601 | Young | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8083685 | Fagin et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8083796 | Raiszadeh et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8088163 | Kleiner | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8088164 | Keller | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8090436 | Hoey et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8092455 | Neubardt et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8092456 | Bleich et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8103339 | Rea | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8114019 | Miles et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8114162 | Bradley | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8123668 | Annest et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8133173 | Miles et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8137284 | Miles et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8147421 | Farquhar et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8147551 | Link et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8165653 | Marino et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8167915 | Ferree et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8172750 | Miles et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8206312 | Farquhar | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8255044 | Miles et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8255045 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8303515 | Miles et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8337410 | Kelleher et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8343065 | Bartol et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8343079 | Bartol et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8394129 | Morgenstern Lopez et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8500653 | Farquhar | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8500738 | Wolf, II | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8517954 | Batrol et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8535224 | Cusimano Reaston et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8538539 | Gharib et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8556808 | Miles et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8562539 | Marino | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8562660 | Peyman | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8568317 | Gharib et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8591431 | Calancie et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8641638 | Kelleher et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8731654 | Johnson et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8784330 | Scholl et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8792977 | Kakei et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8864654 | Kleiner et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8936626 | Tohmeh et al. | Jan 2015 | B1 |
8945004 | Miles et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8958869 | Kelleher et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8989855 | Murphy et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8989866 | Gharib et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9014776 | Marino et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9014797 | Shiffman et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9037250 | Kaula et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9066701 | Finley et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9084551 | Brunnett et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9131947 | Ferree | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9192415 | Arnold et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9295396 | Gharib et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9295401 | Cadwell | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9301711 | Bartol et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9392953 | Gharib | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9446259 | Phillips et al. | Sep 2016 | B2 |
20010031916 | Bennett et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020038092 | Stanaland et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020165590 | Crowe et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030074037 | Moore et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20040077969 | Onda et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040186535 | Knowlton | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040230138 | Inoue et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243018 | Organ et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050075578 | Gharib et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050085741 | Hoskonen et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050102007 | Ayal et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050240086 | Akay | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050245839 | Stivoric et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050280531 | Fadem et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283204 | Buhlmann | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060020177 | Seo et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060052726 | Weisz et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060135888 | Mimnagh-Kelleher et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060270949 | Mathie et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070038155 | Kelly, Jr. et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070232958 | Donofrio et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070265675 | Lund et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276270 | Tran | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080051643 | Park et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080058656 | Costello et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080167695 | Tehrani et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080234767 | Salmon et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080287761 | Hayter et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080306363 | Chaiken et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080306397 | Bonmassar et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080312560 | Jamsen et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080312709 | Volpe et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090036747 | Hayter et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090062696 | Nathan et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090069709 | Schmitz et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090069722 | Flaction et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090076336 | Mazar et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090171381 | Schmitz et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090192416 | Ernst et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090228068 | Buhlmann et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090247910 | Klapper | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090306741 | Hogle et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090318779 | Tran | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100137748 | Sone et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100152619 | Kalpaxis et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100152622 | Teulings | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100152623 | Williams | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100168559 | Tegg et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100292617 | Lei et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110004207 | Wallace et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110237974 | Bartol | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110270121 | Johnson et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120053491 | Nathan et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20130213659 | Bartol et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130197321 | Wilson | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130204097 | Rondoni et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130253533 | Bartol et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140020178 | Stashuk et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140163411 | Rea | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140275926 | Scott et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140276195 | Papay et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140358026 | Mashiach et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150045783 | Edidin | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150112325 | Whitman | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150230749 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150342521 | Narita et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150342621 | Jackson, III | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160051812 | Montgomery, Jr. et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1417000 | May 2004 | EP |
1575010 | Sep 2005 | EP |
2231003 | Sep 2010 | EP |
2535082 | Dec 2012 | EP |
2920087 | Feb 2009 | FR |
0078209 | Dec 2000 | WO |
2007024147 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO2014160832 | Oct 2014 | WO |
WO2015171619 | Nov 2015 | WO |
WO2016100340 | Jun 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Beck et al., Mechanomyographic amplitude and frequency responses during dynamic muscle actions: a comprehensive review, Dec. 2005, BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2005, 4:67 doi:10.1186/1475-925X-4-67. |
Bartol, Stephen MD, and Laschuk, Maria MD, “Arthroscopic Microscopic Discectomy in Awake Patients: The Effectiveness of Local/Neurolept Anaesthetic”, Canadian Spine Society Meeting, Vernon, BC, Canada, Mar. 2002. |
Bartol, Stephen MD, and Laschuk, Maria MD, “Use of Nerve Stimulator to Localize the Spinal Nerve Root During Arthroscopic Discectomy Procedures”, Canadian Spine Society Meeting, Vernon, BC, Canada, Mar. 2002. |
Begg et al. “Computational Intelligence for Movement Sciences: Neural Networks and Other Emerging Techniques” 2006. |
Bourke et al. “A Threshold-Based Fall-Detection Algorithm Using a Bi-Axial Gyroscope Sensor” Medical Engineering and Physics 30 (2008) 84-90. |
Fee JR., James W.; Miller, Freeman; Lennon, Nancy; “EMG Reaction in Muscles About the Knee to Passive Velocity, Acceleration, and Jerk Manipulations”; Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Gait Laboratory, 1600 Rockland Road, Wilmington, DE 19899, United States Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 19 (2009) 467-475. |
Koceja, D.M., Bernacki, R.H. and Kamen, G., “Methodology for the Quantitative Assessment of Human Crossed-Spinal Reflex Pathways,” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, Nov. 1991, pp. 603-606, No. 6, US. |
Tarata, M.; Spaepen, A.; Puers, R.; “The Accelerometer MMG Measurement Approach, in Monitoring the Muscular Fatigue”; Measurement Science Review; 2001; vol. 1, No. 1. |
Murphy, Chris; Campbell, Niall; Caulfield, Brian; Ward, Tomas and Deegan, Catherine; “Micro Electro Mechanical Systems Based Sensor for Mechanomyography”, 19th international conference BIOSIGNAL 2008, Brno, Czech Republic. |
Nijsen, Tamara M.E.; Aarts, Ronald M.; Arends, Johan B.A.M.; Cluitmans, Pierre J.M.; “Model for Arm Movements During Myoclonic Seizures”; Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS Cite Internationale, Lyon, France Aug. 23-26, 2007. |
Ohta, Yoichi; Shima, Norihiro; Yabe, Kyonosuke; “Superimposed Mechanomyographic Response at Different Contraction Intensity in Medial Gastrocnemius and Soleus Muscles”; International Journal of Sport and Health Science, vol. 5, 63-70, 2007. |
J. Herdmann MD; V. Deletis MD PhD; H.Edmonds PhD; N. Morota MD, Spinal Cord and Nerve Root Monitoring in Spine Surgery and Related Procedures, Spine Journal, Apr. 1, 1996, pp. 879-885, vol. 21. |
N. Hollands MB, BS; J. Kostuik. Continuous Electromyographic Moniotring to Detect Nerve Root Injury During Thoracolumbar Scoliosis Surgery, Spine Journal, Nov. 1, 1997, pp. 2547-2550, vol. 22, Issue 21. |
C. Harper, J. Daube, Facial Nerve Electromyography and Other Cranial Nerve Monitoring, Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, May 1998, pp. 206-216, vol. 15, Issue 3. |
D. Beck, J. Ben Ecke Jr, Intraoperative Facial Nerve Monitoring Technical Aspects, Official Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Apr. 27, 1989. |
W. Welch MD, R. Rose PhD, J. Balzer PhD, G. Jacobs, MD, Evaluation with evoked and spontaneous electromyography during lumbar instrumentation: a prospective study, Journal of Neurosurgery, Sep. 1997, pp. 397-402, vol. 87, No. 3. |
W. Young MD, D. Morledge PhD, W. Martin PhD, K. Park MD, Intraoperative Stimulation of Pedicle Screws: A New Method for Verification of Screw Placement, Journal of Neurosurgery, 1995, pp. 544-547 vol. 44. |
K. Sugita MD, S. Kobayashi MD, Technical and instrumental improvements in the surgical treatment of acoustic neurinomas, Journal of Neurosurgery, Dec. 1982, pp. 747-752, vol. 57. |
J. Boston, L. Deneault, Sensory evoked potentials: a system for clinical testing and patient monitoring, International Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 1984, pp. 13-19, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Netherlands. |
A. Moller, Neuromonitoring in Operations in the Skull Base, The Keio Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1991, pp. 151-159. |
J. Maurer, H. Pelster, W. Mann, Intraoperatives Monitoring motorischer Hurnnerven bei Operationen an Hals und Schadelbasis, Laryngo-Rhino-Otol, pp. 561-567, vol. 73. |
W. Friedman MD, M. Curran R. EPT, Somatosensory Evoked Potentials after Sequential Extremity Stimulation: A New Method for Improved Monitoring Accuracy, Neurosurgery, 1987, pp. 755-758, vol. 21, No. 5. |
R. Gopalan, P. Parker, R. Scott, Microprocessor-Based System for Monitoring Spinal Evoked Potentials During Surgery, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Oct. 1986, pp. 982-985, vol. BME-22, No. 10. |
Moed MD, B. Ahmad MD, J. Craig MD, G. Jacobson PhD, M. Anders MD, Intraoperative Monitoring with Stimulus-Evoked Electromyography during Placement Iliosacral Screws, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Apr. 1998, pp. 537-546, vol. 80-A, No. 4, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. |
C. Yingling PhD, J. Gardi PhD, Intraoperative Monitoring of Facial and Cochlear Nerves During Acoustic Neuroma Surgery, Acoustic Neuroma I, Apr. 1992, pp. 413-448, vol. 25, No. 2, Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America. |
N. Holland MB, BS, J. Kostuik MD, Continuous Electromyographic Monitoring to Detect Nerve Root Injury During Thoracolumbar Scoliosis Surgery, Spine, 1997, pp. 2547-2550, vol. 22, No. 21, Lippincott-Raven Publishers. |
P. Dulguerov, F. Marchal, W. Lehmann, Postparotidectomy Facial Nerve Paralysis: Possible Etiologic Factors and Results with Routine Facial Nerve Monitoring, The Laryngoscope, May 1999, pp. 754-762 vol. 109, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. |
M. Imai MS, Y. Harada MD, Y. Atsuta MD, Y. Takemitsu MD, T. Iwahara MD, Automated Spinal Cord Monitoring for Spinal Surgery, Paraplegia, 1989, pp. 204-211. |
R. Witt, Facial nerve monitoring in parotid surgery: The standard of care?, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Nov. 1998, pp. 468-470, vol. 119, No. 5. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150051506 A1 | Feb 2015 | US |