The leading cause of lower back pain arises from rupture or degeneration of lumbar intervertebral discs. Pain in the lower extremities is caused by the compression of spinal nerve roots by a bulging disc, while lower back pain is caused by collapse of the disc and by the adverse effects of articulation weight through a damaged, unstable vertebral joint.
In some cases, when a patient having a collapsed disc moves in extension (e.g., leans backward), the posterior portion of the annulus fibrosus may further compress and extend into the spinal canal. This condition (called “spinal stenosis”) produces a narrowing of the spinal canal and impingement of tissue upon the spinal cord, thereby producing pain.
There have been numerous attempts to provide relief for these afflictions by providing a spacer that inserts between adjacent spinous processes present in the posterior portion of the spinal column. In general, these interspinous implants are adapted to allow flexion, rotation, translation and lateral bending movement in the patient, but resist or limit extension.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,068,630 (“Zuchermann”) discloses a spinal distraction implant that alleviates pain associated with spinal stenosis by expanding the volume in the spinal canal or neural foramen. Zucherman discloses a plurality of implants having a body portion and lateral wings. The body portion is adapted to seat between the adjacent spinous processes, while the wings are adapted to prevent lateral movement of the body portion, thereby holding it in place between the adjacent spinous processes. The designs disclosed in FIGS. 15, 80 and 84 of Zuchermann comprise central body having an integral wing.
Although the Zucherman device achieves spinal distraction, it nonetheless possesses some limitations. First, it is a multi-piece design, and so is subject to wear and implantation complexity. Second, since the Zuchermann central bodies have at least one integral wing, the clinician may encounter difficulty in sizing the central body independently of delivering the lateral wings. Third, the expansive geometry of the disclosed devices may not lend itself to minimally invasive surgical techniques seeking to conserve muscle mass and soft tissue in the regions adjacent the spinous processes.
The present inventors have developed a number of flexible interspinous devices having improvements over the conventional devices.
In a first embodiment, the extensions on one side of the implant are made of a shape memory metal. This implant is inserted into the interspinous space in a collapsed, low temperature form. When the implant rises to the temperature of the patient's body, the upper and lower extensions made of memory metal transform to the austenitic phase to extend upwards and downwards respectfully, thereby bracketing the upper and lower spinous processes and locking the implant in place.
In addition, since the shape memory extensions can deform elastically in their austenitic phase, the ends of the extensions on a lateral side of the implant can be forced together, inserted through the interspinous space, and then released, thereby allowing the extensions to spring back to their unconstrained shape.
Therefore, in accordance with the present invention, there is provided an interspinous implant for insertion into an interspinous space between adjacent spinous processes, comprising:
wherein each of the first upper and first lower extension comprises a shape memory metal.
In a second embodiment, the implant has bases fastened to opposite sides of the same spinous process, and the bases are connected by a flexible cord. The cord is adapted to have a flexibility and resiliency such that, during extension (when the spinous processes move closer towards one another, the flexible cord provides a soft stop for the movement of the opposite spinous process, thereby gently limiting excessive extension.
Therefore, in accordance with the present invention, there is provided an interspinous implant for insertion into an interspinous space between a first and second spinous process, the first spinous process having a first and second side, the implant comprising:
In a third embodiment, the implant is a three-piece device having a central body and a pair of lateral extensions, wherein the extensions are slid through axial slots in the central body. Because neither extension is integrally formed to the central body, the physician can first view and assess the placement of the central body prior to adding the extensions without being shielded by the extension.
Therefore, in accordance with the present invention, there is provided an interspinous implant for insertion into an interspinous space between a first and second spinous process, the implant comprising:
wherein the lower ends of the extensions collectively define a lower bracket.
In a fourth embodiment, the implant is a three-piece device having a central body and a pair of lateral extensions, wherein side surfaces of the central body are connected to the extensions. As with the third embodiment, because neither extension is integrally formed to the central body, the physician can first view and assess the placement of the central body prior to adding the extensions without being shielded by the extension.
Therefore, in accordance with the present invention, there is provided an interspinous implant for insertion into an interspinous space between a first and second spinous process, the implant comprising:
In a fifth embodiment, the interspinous implant has a pair of U-shaped hooks adapted to cradle the opposing processes and a connection piece therebetween. The hooks have leading and trailing ends and are further adapted to be slid laterally around the spinous process.
Therefore, in accordance with the present invention, there is provided an interspinous implant for insertion into an interspinous space between a first and second spinous process, the implant comprising:
a and 1b disclose embodiments of the same memory metal implant of the present invention in the austentitic and martensitic phases.
a and 3b disclose a second embodiment of the present invention having two flexible cords between two bases.
c discloses the implant of
a and 4b disclose components of a third embodiment of the present invention wherein the central body has axial openings adapted for the reception of extensions.
c shows the assembly of the components of
a-5d disclose a fourth embodiment of the present invention wherein the central body and extensions are connected by rivets.
a-6c disclose a fifth embodiment of the present invention having a pair of U-shaped hooks.
For the purposes of the present invention, the term “interspinous” refers to the volume located between two adjacent spinous processes of adjacent vertebrae. The terms “anterior” and “posterior” are used as they are normally used in spinal anatomy. Accordingly, the “anterior” portion of the interspinous device is that portion rests relatively close to the spinal cord, while the “posterior” portion of the interspinous device is that portion rests relatively close to the skin on the patient's back. Now referring to
Now referring to
In some preferred embodiments, the first upper and first lower extensions are adapted to extend upwards and downwards in an austenitic phase, and laterally in the martensitic phase. This implant is inserted into the interspinous space in a collapsed, low temperature (martensitic) form, as shown in
The austenitic and martensitic forms of the implant are respectively shown in
Because the memory-metal induced transformation of each of the second upper and second lower extensions occur in response to a change in temperature, the desired shape changes occur without any action from the surgeon. Accordingly, the implantation of this device is very simple.
In one preferred embodiment, the side surface of the central body from which the memory metal extensions extend has a slight recess. This recess reduces the stress produced by the transformation.
In some embodiments, the implant is a unitary body. The unitary nature of the body provides for ease of manufacturing and implantation, and reduces the stress on the implant.
In some embodiments, the first upper and first lower extensions are adapted to superelastically extend sideways in a martensitic phase. This embodiment provides for a reduced stress upon the implant.
In some embodiments, at least one of the memory metal extensions has a chamfered end 23. The chamfer increases the ease of insertion on these extensions into the interspinous space. In preferred embodiments, each of the first upper and first lower extensions has a chamfered end.
In some embodiments, the upper and lower surfaces of the central body define a body height HCB, wherein each of the first upper and first lower extensions have an end defining an extension height therebetween HE, and wherein the extension height HE is less than the central body height HCB. When the extension height HE is less than the central body height HCB, the implant may more easily be implanted into the interspinous space. Preferably, each end of the second upper and second lower extensions contact one another in the martensitic phase.
Preferably, the shape memory material is a nickel-titanium alloy.
Now referring to
Now referring to
The cord has flexibility and resiliency such that, during extension (when the spinous processes move closer towards one another, the flexible cord provides a soft stop for the movement of the opposite spinous process, thereby gently limiting excessive extension. Since the limitation on extension is provided gradually and gently (i.e., it is not a hard stop), it is believed that there will be less wear of the respective contacting surfaces, thereby prolonging the life of the implant.
Referring to
In some embodiments, the upper surfaces of each base form an angle of no more than 180 degrees, preferably less than 180 degrees, more preferably between 100 degrees and less than 180 degrees. In this range, the ligament takes on an arcuate shape well suited to flexibly accept and resist extension of the upper spinous process.
In some embodiments, the implant further comprises a second flexible ligament 49 having a first end 51 connected to the first base and a second end 52 connected to the second base. The provision of the second flexible ligament is advantageous because the spinous processes have a proportionally larger dimension from the anterior to the posterior (thereby causing a posterior narrowing of the interspinous space). In addition, the provision of a second ligament distributes compressive extension loads more evenly along the processes.
In some embodiments, each base comprises a transverse hole 50 through passing through the side surface adapted for fixation to a side of a spinous process. The tranverse holes allows the surgeon to pass a fixation device (such as a screw) through each hole, thereby fixing the implant to the lower spinous process.
In some embodiments, the first ligament is made of a flexible polymer, and is preferably selected from the group consisting of polyester (preferably, Dacron®) and polyethylene. Preferably, the ligament is a longitudinal element having a thickness of between 3 cm and 8 cm. The selection of a thickness in this range, along with the selection of a flexible polymer as the material of construction, should provide a ligament that is suitably flexible to provide a gentle stop to extreme extension.
In other embodiments, the ligament takes the form of a fabric or strap. When the fabric embodiment is selected, it is desirable to use only a single ligament.
In some embodiments, the bases are made of a material selected from the group consisting of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene and PEEK. These materials are well known biocompatible materials of construction for load bearing medical devices.
Now referring to
In use, the surgeon first orients the central body portion of the implant so that its throughholes run in the (axial) saggital plane. The surgeon then inserts the oriented central body laterally into the interspinous space so that one axial throughhole is disposed on one side of the interspinous space and the second axial throughhole is disposed on the second side of the interspinous space. The surgeon then adjusts the position of the device so that it is approximately centered about each spinous process. The surgeon then inserts the extensions into the respective axial throughholes to secure the implant to the spinous processes.
Because neither extension is connected to the central body during insertion, but rather may be inserted separately, the physician can first view and assess the placement of the central body prior to adding the extensions without being visually shielded by the extension. In addition, the separate insertion of the extensions lowers the lateral span of the implant during insertion, thereby causing less damage to the sensitive musculature surrounding the interspinous space.
In addition, since the human spinous process is often a source of significant interindividual variation, each of the central body and extensions may be provided in different shapes and sizes, so that the surgeon can intra-operatively select the appropriate central body and extensions, thereby providing greater surface area contact between the implant and the adjacent processes and minimizing stresses. Different shapes (which, in some cases, have very small lateral profiles) may be suitable for different anatomical interspinous spaces. In addition, the central body may be provided in different heights so that the surgeon can select the central body producing the most appropriate degree of interspinous space distraction.
In some embodiments, the central body has a saggital profile comprising a substantially parallel anterior portion and an inwardly tapering posterior portion. It is believed that this profile more closely resembles the profile of the interspinous space, and so should provide for more contact therebetween and reduced stresses.
Since the physiologic loads experienced by central body during extension are relatively low (e.g., only about 20 pounds-force), the central body may be made of materials such as UWMWPE or PEEK. These materials are also preferred for the suitability in medical imaging procedures.
In some embodiments, the extensions comprise a centrally located recess 79 having a length substantially similar to the height of the central body. The recess allows the extension to snap into place when it is appropriately situated within the central body, thereby insuring a secure fit. When the extension is made of a metal material (such as a titanium alloy), the extension may further desirably comprise an internal slot (not shown) adapted to behave in a spring-like manner during extension insertion, thereby facilitating the insertion of the extension.
Now referring to
In use, the surgeon first inserts the central body laterally into the interspinous space so that one opening of the tranverse throughhole is disposed on one side of the interspinous space and the second opening of the throughhole is disposed on the second side of the interspinous space. The surgeon then adjusts the position of the device so that it is approximately centered about each spinous process, and orients the central body portion of the implant so that its throughhole runs in the medial-lateral plane.
Next, the surgeon selects the appropriate extensions and places connecting pins through the throughholes of the extensions.
In some embodiments, as in
In some embodiments, the extensions have an inner surface 144 having a convex contour and an outer surface 140 having a concave contour. As shown in
In some embodiments, the extensions have an anterior surface 142 having a concave contour 143. As shown in
Referring back to
In some embodiments, as shown in
The implants of
Now referring to
Now referring to
In some embodiments, the leading and trailing ends of the upper hook extend in substantially a first same direction (more preferably, upward), and the leading and trailing ends of the lower hook extend in substantially a second same direction (more preferably, downward). In this condition, the profile of the implant is relatively low.
In some embodiments, the upper surface of the central body is adapted for connection to the lower surface of the upper hook by a male-female connection. In preferred embodiments, thereof the upper surface of the central body is adapted for connection to the lower surface of the upper hook by a dovetail connection 176. The dovetail connection is believed to produce a highly secure fixation.
In some embodiments, the upper surface of the central body has a female recess traversing the upper surface in a direction from the leading end to the trailing end. In others, the upper surface of the central body has a projection 177 traversing the upper surface in a direction from the leading end to the trailing end. In each of these cases, the orientation of the mating feature allows fixation to occur in the same motion as insertion of the central body. In preferred embodiments thereof, the upper surface of the central body has a dovetail feature traversing the upper surface in a direction from the leading end to the trailing end.
This divisional application claims priority from co-pending U.S. Ser. No. 10/796,359, filed Mar. 9, 2006, entitled Posterior Process Dynamic Spacer, (Hawkins), the specification of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1985032 | Hoult | Dec 1934 | A |
2677369 | Knowles | May 1954 | A |
3648691 | Lumb | Mar 1972 | A |
3805443 | Duncan, Jr. | Apr 1974 | A |
4759670 | Linder | Jul 1988 | A |
5011484 | Breard | Apr 1991 | A |
5180393 | Commarmond | Jan 1993 | A |
5403316 | Ashman | Apr 1995 | A |
5496318 | Howland | Mar 1996 | A |
5609634 | Voydeville | Mar 1997 | A |
5616142 | Yuan | Apr 1997 | A |
5645599 | Samani | Jul 1997 | A |
5725582 | Bevan | Mar 1998 | A |
5836948 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5860977 | Zucherman | Jan 1999 | A |
5876404 | Zucherman | Mar 1999 | A |
5993484 | Shmulewitz | Nov 1999 | A |
6048342 | Zucherman | Apr 2000 | A |
6068630 | Zucherman | May 2000 | A |
6074390 | Zucherman | Jun 2000 | A |
6090112 | Zucherman | Jul 2000 | A |
6149652 | Zucherman | Nov 2000 | A |
6152926 | Zucherman | Nov 2000 | A |
6156038 | Zucherman | Dec 2000 | A |
6183471 | Zucherman | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6190387 | Zucherman | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6193757 | Foley et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6235030 | Zucherman | May 2001 | B1 |
6238397 | Zucherman | May 2001 | B1 |
6280444 | Zucherman | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6332882 | Zucherman | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6364883 | Santilli | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6379355 | Zucherman | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6402750 | Atkinson | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6406478 | Kuo | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6419676 | Zucherman | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6419677 | Zucherman | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6440169 | Elberg | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6451019 | Zucherman | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6451020 | Zucherman | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6478796 | Zucherman | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6500178 | Zucherman | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6514256 | Zucherman | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6530926 | Davison | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6582433 | Yun | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6626944 | Taylor | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6652534 | Zucherman | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6660038 | Boyer, II | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6669697 | Pisharodi | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6695842 | Zucherman | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6699246 | Zucherman | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6699247 | Zucherman | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6712819 | Zucherman | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6733534 | Sherman | May 2004 | B2 |
6761720 | Senegas | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6796983 | Zucherman | Sep 2004 | B1 |
7011685 | Arnin et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7029473 | Zucherman | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7048736 | Robinson | May 2006 | B2 |
7101375 | Zucherman | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7186254 | Dinh | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7189234 | Zucherman | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7442208 | Mathieu | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7530991 | Nekozuka | May 2009 | B2 |
20010031965 | Zucherman | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020029039 | Zucherman | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020143331 | Zucherman | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20040153071 | Zucherman | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040167520 | Zucherman | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050143738 | Zucherman | Jun 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
3113142 | Jan 1982 | DE |
322334 | Feb 1992 | EP |
1330987 | Mar 2005 | EP |
WO 9004948 | May 1990 | WO |
WO 9942051 | Aug 1999 | WO |
WO 03015645 | Feb 2003 | WO |
WO 03071966 | Sep 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Hoshi, “Expansive Cervical Laminoplasties—Observations on Comparative Changes in Spinous Process Lengths Following Longitudinal Laminal Divisions Using Autogenous Bone or Hydroxyapatite Spacers”, Spinal Cord, 1996, pp. 725-728, vol. 34, Issue 12.—Abstract only. |
Nakano, “Spinous Process-Splitting Laminoplasty Using Hydroxyapatite Spinous Process Spacer”, Spine, Mar. 1992; pp. S41-S43, vol. 17 (3 Suppl). |
Yang, “Biomechanical Comparison of the Stable Efficacy of Two Anterior Plating Systems”, Clinical Biomechanics, 2003, pp. S59-S66, vol. 18. |
Kubo, “Biomechanical Evaluation of Cervical Double-Door Laminoplasty Using Hydroxyapatite Spacer”, Spine, 2003, pp. 227-234, vol. 28, No. 3. |
Wallice Brochure, product believed to be introduced in 1986. |
Grant Skidmore, X-Stop Interspinous Process Distraction (IPD), St. Francis Medical Technologies, Inc., product believed to have received FDA approval in 2005. |
Vitallium Surgical Appliances, Misc. Orthopedic Appliances, 1959, p. 5, Section VI. |
Khoueir, “Classification of Posterior Dynamic Stabilization Devices”, Neurosurg. Focus, 2007, vol. 22(1), E3, pp. 1-8. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110015676 A1 | Jan 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10796359 | Mar 2006 | US |
Child | 12817552 | US |