The present invention relates to patient specific instrumentation to facilitate implantation of a total shoulder joint and to the process and technique for creating the instruments.
Shoulder hemiarthroplasty is commonly used to treat patients with glenohumeral joint arthrosis. Total shoulder arthroplasty may be indicated for patients without a good articular surface on the glenoid at the time of surgery. For patients with glenohumeral joint arthrosis and an additional deficient rotator cuff, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty may be indicated. The 12%, 15%, and 22% revision rates, respectively, remains high compared to hip and knee arthroplasty. Glenoid component loosening and instability are important complications and may be caused by poor positioning of the component. An accurate placement of the complementary humeral cut is also important to achieve a stable joint.
There is a continuing need to improve the instruments used to facilitate the implantation of total shoulder joint components.
Patient specific instruments according to the invention carry surfaces and features that facilitate implantation of shoulder implant components. These surfaces are patient specific and they conform to the actual diseased joint surfaces presented by the patient. In use the physician uses the instruments to align and direct surgical cuts, to prepare the patient to receive an otherwise standard and conventional joint components of either “normal” or “reverse” configurations.
The process of the invention that results in the creation of a set of patient specific instruments takes a computed tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) file of the patient's shoulder and presents it to a user on a computer screen. The user using a mouse or other pointing device defines reference points on the image to define geometric axes, planes and offsets. Next the user imports and aligns a computer automated design (CAD) file of the implant component with the native anatomy. The image of the implant component is merged and displayed with the anatomy image. Using a rule based system the user finds an optimum location for the glenoid component of the implant. Once the optimum location for the glenoid component is defined a custom instrument CAD file is created and a glenoid placement instrument or tool is generated from the file using conventional techniques. The tool is formed from plastic and/or metal that can be sterilized and used directly in the surgery.
In general the glenoid instrument consists of an oval or egg shaped “disk” with a protruding stalk like “handle”. The disk has an upper surface and a lower surface, and a side wall separating the two.
In general the humeral instrument consists of a “cap” like structure connected to an offset “block” feature. There is a clearance volume between the “cap” and “block”. The cap has an inner surface and an outer surface.
With the glenoid instrument defined and created a companion humeral cutting instrument is generated to guide the resection of bone in preparation for the implantation of the humeral component of the total shoulder implant system. The humeral instrument is likewise defined and manufactured from sterilizable plastic and/or metal in a process similar to the glenoid component. The instruments are used together and they share several characteristics.
The glenoid instrument has a complementary surface to a surface of the diseased joint formed in the lower surface.
The glenoid instrument has one or more index surfaces adjacent to its articular lower surface that facilitate placement of the tool during surgery.
The glenoid instrument has windows to permit visual confirmation of placement.
The glenoid instrument has a handle to assist in proper positioning of the instrument.
The glenoid instrument has holes that aid in defining the direction of screws should screw placement be pre-operatively determined.
The humeral resection guide instrument or humeral instrument has a complementary surface matching the humeral head contour on its inner surface.
The humeral resection guide instrument has one or more index surfaces adjacent to its articular inner surface of the cap portion that facilitates the placement of the tool during surgery.
The humeral resection guide instrument has an block offset from the cap that includes a saw slot that directs the use of a surgical saw to remove the humeral head.
The humeral resection guide instrument has holes that accept pins or other fasteners which connect the block portion of the humeral instrument to the proximal humerus bone.
In the figures of the drawings like reference numerals indicate identical structure, wherein:
Glenoid Component Instrument
Humeral Component Cutting Block Instrument
Use of the Glenoid Instrument
Use of the Humeral Head Cutting Block Guide
Glenoid Component in Position
Humeral Component in Position
Overview of Instrument Creation and Use
Glenoid Component Instrument Creation Process
A software program Mimics® is used to take MRI or CT data and to create a 3-dimensional image of the glenoid and scapular spine that can be manipulated on the computer screen. The user defines three points, including a glenoid center point in the center of the glenoid articular surface, a junction point along the ridge of the scapular spine where the medial border and scapular spine meet, and an inferior point at the most distal end of the scapular spine. These three reference points depicted in
In order to reproduce the normal anatomic orientation of the glenoid after TSA, the ideal orientation of the glenoid component should have 4 degrees of superior inclination and 1 degree of retroversion. Therefore, the central peg or keel should achieve this orientation given adequate bone stock. In reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the glenoid component should have 5 degrees of inferior inclination seen at reference numeral 200 in
The alignment of the implant with the native bones is depicted in
The glenoid component instrument has a set of apertures that can function as windows to observe tissue and or as guide to direct cutting tools into the glenoid. For example, the instrument may carry a center hole for a drill bit to pass for a central peg designed glenoid component, or a slot to facilitate cutting a keel slot designed for a glenoid component. The orientation of the center aperture will be normal to glenoid component plane and be centered based on pre-operative plan. Peripheral holes in the instrument can be added to match any peripheral pegs/keels/screws or the like that the glenoid component may require. The peripheral holes will control the orientation of the glenoid component in rotation about the central axis for the glenoid component. The location of the holes or windows or slots will determine the rotation of the glenoid component. Next, the location of viewing slot(s) is defined for the instrument. These slots will be positioned so that they can be observed by the physician during the surgery and will communicate with the bony surface so that the presence or absence of a bony surface in the window helps verify the seating of the instrument. The remainder of the glenoid component instrument includes an extending handle that is directed away (usually anteriorly) from the axis of the peg/keel, as depicted in
For reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, a second glenoid component instrument can be used to target peripheral fixation screws for the glenoid component. After pre-operatively determining the depth of the reaming operation used to seat the glenoid component, the surgeon or engineer can pre-operatively determine the number, length, and alignment of said peripheral fixation screws. Said second glenoid component instrument will have a mating surface that is the 3D inverse of the reamed surface. The second instrument has a center hole in line with the central peg hole. In addition, peripheral holes in the second instrument will be in line with the pre-operatively planned screw locations. Drill taps will pass through said peripheral holes. The second instrument can also have as few as one mark on the visible (lateral) surface (e.g. a mark pointing superiorly) to aid in the rotational alignment of second instrument. During surgery, the surgeon can use electrocautery to mark the surface of the glenoid (e.g. a mark pointing superiorly). The second instrument's mark can now be aligned to the glenoid's surface mark. Viewing slots on the instrument will allow the surgeon to verify the seating of the instrument on the reamed bone. A handle extends laterally from second instrument but will not interfere with drill.
Bone modulus can be characterized from the Hounsfield unit obtained from CT scans. Bone with higher modulus is stronger, and would be ideal locations for peg/screw fixation. The surgeon or engineer can use this information to pre-operatively design the first and/or second instruments to direct the peg/screw into bone of higher modulus.
The process has created an instrument that can be used to define the location of a glenoid implant based upon an analysis of the native bone structure in conjunction with a representation of the glenoid implant.
Humeral Head Cutting Block Creation Process
Similar to the glenoid component instrument, the humeral head cutting block utilizes MRI or CT data to determine the appropriate orientation and size of the orthopaedic component. For shoulder hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty, the position of the humeral component will be 20 degrees in retroversion. For reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, it will be closer to neutral. In order to properly correct the version of the humeral head, it is recommended that a MRI or CT scan of the elbow (same side) be taken as well. The diaphysis of the humerus will be approximated to be a cylinder with its long axis to be defined as the long axis of the humerus. Landmark points will be placed on the medial and lateral epicondyles of the distal humerus. A humeral coronal plane passes through said landmark points and is parallel to said long axis. The version of the humeral head will be offset from the coronal plane. If the elbow is not scanned, the calcar of the humerus can be used as a reference when determining version angle as depicted in
The level of resection is built into the humeral head cutting block. Using MRI or CT data, this block engages with the humeral head by having a backside face that is a 3D inverse of the native humeral head created via a Boolean subtraction operation where the native surface of the humeral head is subtracted from a template block instrument. An approximately 1 mm gap between the bony surface of the humeral head and the inverse surface of the humeral head cutting block is added when using CT data to accommodate cartilage and/or slight errors in the reconstruction. Said block engages the superior-medial aspect of the head and has an additional feature that wraps around the lateral side of the lesser tubercle (subscapularis attachment sight) to additionally aid in the alignment of the block. The instrument has openings to allow the subscapularis and rotator cuff to pass without impingement as depicted in
Other features include a minimum of two non-parallel pin holes for additional stability of the block to the proximal humerus. Said pin holes are located distal to the saw blade slot, and can accept pins screws or other fasteners. Viewing slots/portals on the block are used to visually ensure that the instrument is fully seated onto the humeral head. A targeting sight in line with the long axis of the humerus on the superior surface of the humeral head cutting block is used to target the humeral stem reamer.
The instruments will be steam sterilizable and biocompatible (e.g. DuraForm polyamide). Both the glenoid component instrument and the humeral head cutting block have been prototyped and manufactured. For the proper execution of these instruments during surgery, it is necessary to minimize the profile and volume of these instruments as much as possible, as the surgical exposure for these types of procedures are small. Modifications to these instruments continue to be made to make the operative procedure more efficient and accurate.
The present case claims the benefit of and incorporates by reference both U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/319,484, filed Mar. 31, 2010 entitled “Patient Specific Instruments” and U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/325,435, filed Apr. 19, 2010 entitled “Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Instrumentation”.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4986833 | Worland | Jan 1991 | A |
5030219 | Matsen, III et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5098383 | Hemmy et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5141680 | Almquist et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5768134 | Swaelens | Jun 1998 | A |
5769856 | Dong et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5800551 | Williamson et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
6327491 | Franklin et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6364910 | Shultz et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6712856 | Carignan et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6772026 | Bradbury et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6827723 | Carson | Dec 2004 | B2 |
7194120 | Wicker et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7534263 | Burdulis, Jr. et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7618451 | Berez et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7695477 | Creger et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7799077 | Lang et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
8092465 | Metzger | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8241293 | Stone et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8282646 | Schoenefeld | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8382765 | Axelson et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8480679 | Park et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8617171 | Park et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8632547 | Maxson et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8644973 | Bake et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8655468 | Bake et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8657822 | Bake et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8682052 | Fitz et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8715291 | Park et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8735773 | Lang | May 2014 | B2 |
8764760 | Metzger et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8808301 | Nofsinger | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8828012 | May et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8882770 | Barsoum | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8965088 | Tsougarakis et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8986309 | Murphy | Mar 2015 | B1 |
9017336 | Park et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9020788 | Lang et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9254155 | Iannotti et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9381025 | Fitz et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
20050107799 | Graf et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050148843 | Roose | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050203528 | Couture | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060079963 | Hansen | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20070172815 | Weaver | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070198022 | Lang et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070233121 | Carson et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070239282 | Caylor et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070250174 | Tornier et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070276501 | Betz et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080114370 | Schoenefeld | May 2008 | A1 |
20080215059 | Carignan et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080243127 | Lang et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080255566 | Lyons | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080269906 | Iannotti et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080287954 | Kunz et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080319491 | Schoenefeld | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090018546 | Daley | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090088763 | Aram et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090131941 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138020 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090151736 | Belcher et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090163922 | Meridew et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090222016 | Park et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090254093 | White et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090274350 | Pavlovskaia et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100009314 | Tardieu | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100023015 | Park | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100030231 | Revie et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100049195 | Park et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100082035 | Keefer | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100087829 | Metzger et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100152741 | Park et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100152782 | Stone et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100191242 | Massoud | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100217270 | Polinski et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100256479 | Park et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100274253 | Ure | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100286700 | Snider et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100292743 | Singhal et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100322497 | Dempsey | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110015636 | Katrana et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110015639 | Metzger et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110029088 | Rauscher et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110046735 | Metzger et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110054478 | Vanasse et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110060417 | Simmen et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110071533 | Metzger et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110092804 | Schoenefeld et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110092977 | Salehi et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110144760 | Wong et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110160736 | Meridew et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110172672 | Dubeau et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110184419 | Meridew et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110190775 | Ure | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110190899 | Pierce et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110213372 | Keefer et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110218545 | Catanzarite et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120010711 | Antonyshyn et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120078259 | Meridew | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120109137 | Iannotti et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120123420 | Honiball | May 2012 | A1 |
20120130382 | Iannotti et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120141034 | Iannotti et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120143267 | Iannotti et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120203233 | Yoshida et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120209276 | Schuster | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120226283 | Meridew et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120234329 | Vancraen et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120245647 | Kunz et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120245699 | Lang et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120259335 | Scifert et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120271366 | Katrana et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120276509 | Iannotti et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120289965 | Gelaude et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120303004 | Uthgenannt et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120316564 | Serbousek et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120323246 | Catanzarite et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130001121 | Metzger | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130018378 | Hananouchi | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130053854 | Schoenefeld et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130066321 | Mannss et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130085500 | Meridew et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130110116 | Kehres | May 2013 | A1 |
20130110470 | Vanasse | May 2013 | A1 |
20130116699 | Smith et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130119579 | Iannotti et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130123850 | Schoenefeld et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130138111 | Aram et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130158671 | Uthgenannt et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130197528 | Zakaria et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130197529 | Metzger et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130204384 | Hensley et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130230838 | Iannotti et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130261503 | Sherman et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130282132 | White et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130317510 | Couture et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130338673 | Keppler | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140012266 | Bonin, Jr. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140018934 | Meridew et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140052270 | Witt et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140066720 | Wilkinson et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140066938 | Catanzarite et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140081342 | Iannotti et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140088724 | Meridew | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140094814 | Hughes et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140094816 | White et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140100578 | Metzger et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140107654 | Kehres et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140107715 | Heilman et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140114320 | Kurtz | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140135940 | Goldstein et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140163564 | Bollinger | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140163565 | Bollinger | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140188119 | Catanzarite et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140243833 | Smith | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140257304 | Eash | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140276854 | Schoenefeld et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140276856 | Schoenefeld | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140276870 | Eash | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140276873 | Meridew et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140316416 | Liu et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140324058 | Metzger et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140378979 | Stone et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150088142 | Gibson | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150088143 | Lipman et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150088293 | Metzger | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150112348 | Schoenefeld et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150112349 | Schoenefeld | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150150688 | Vanasse et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150223941 | Lang | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150305752 | Eash | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150320430 | Kehres et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150342620 | Winslow | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150342622 | Kehres et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150351778 | Uthgenannt et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160008009 | Aram et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160074052 | Keppler et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160089163 | Eash et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160089166 | Maxson | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160095608 | Iannotti et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160100847 | Maxson | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160120555 | Bonin, Jr. et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160143744 | Bojarski et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160206331 | Fitz et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0558789 | Sep 1993 | EP |
1639949 | Mar 2006 | EP |
WO9729901 | Aug 1997 | WO |
WO0211945 | Feb 2002 | WO |
WO2009058319 | May 2009 | WO |
WO2010121147 | Oct 2010 | WO |
WO2011056995 | May 2011 | WO |
WO2011075697 | Jun 2011 | WO |
2013060851 | May 2013 | WO |
2013062851 | May 2013 | WO |
WO2015071757 | May 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
US 8,849,621, 09/2014, Fitz et al. (withdrawn) |
R.Sean Churchill, John J. Brems, Helmuth Kotschic, Glenoid size, inclination, and version: An anatomic study, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, vol. 10, Issue 4, Jul.-Aug. 2001, pp. 327-332, ISSN 1058-2746, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058274601551629. last accessed on Nov. 13, 2014. |
Boileau, P., Walch, G.; The Three-Dimensional Geometry of the Proximal Humerus, 1997 British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery, vol. 79-B, No. 5, Sep. 1997. |
Krishnam, S.P., Dawood, A, Richards, R., Henckel, J., and Hart, A.J., A Review of Rapid Prototyped Surgical Guides for Patient-Specific Total Knee Replacement, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 94-B, No. 11, Nov. 2012. |
Iannotti et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/408,324, filed Oct. 29, 2010, entitled “System and Method for Assisting with Attachment of a Stock Implant to a Patient Issue”. |
Iannotti et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/408,376, filed Oct. 29, 2010, entitled “System and Method for Assisting with Arrangement of a Stock Instrument with Respect to a Patient Tissue”. |
Iannotti et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/408,392, filed Oct. 29, 2010, entitled “System of Preoperative Planning and Provision of Patient-Specific Surgical Aids”. |
Murase et al., “Three-Dimensional Corrective Osteotomy of Malunited Fractures of the Upper Extremity with Use of a Computer Simulation System”, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 90(11): pp. 2375-2389; Nov. 2008. |
Oka et al., “Accuracy of Corrective Osteotomy Using a Custom-Designed Device Based on a Novel Computer Simulation System”, Journal of Orthopaedic Science; 16(1); pp. 85-92; Jan. 2011. |
Bohsali et al.; Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty; J Bone Joint Surg Am.; 88(10); pp. 2279-2292; Oct. 2006. |
Bojarski et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/443,155, filed Feb. 15, 2011, entitled “Patient-Adapted and Improved Articular Implants, Designs and Related Guide Tools”. |
Churchill et al.; Glenoid cementing may generate sufficient heat to endanger the surrounding bone; Clin Orthop Relat Res; (419); pp. 76-79; Feb. 2004. |
Dallalana et al.; Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Int J Shoulder Surg.; 10(2); pp. 59-66; Apr.-Jun. 2016. |
Eraly et al.; A patient-specific guide for optimizing custom-made glenoid implantation in cases of severe glenoid defects: an in vitro study; J Shoulder Elbow Surg.; 25(5); pp. 837-845; May 2016. |
Fox et al.; Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty; J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 18(6); pp. 859-863; Nov./Dec. 2009. |
Heylen et al.; Patient-specific instrument guidance of glenoid component implantation reduces inclination variability in total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty; J Shoulder Elbow Surg.; 25(2); pp. 186-192; Feb. 2016. |
Iannotti et al.; Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning Software and a Novel Information Transfer Technology Improve Glenoid Component Positioning; J Bone Joint Surg Am.; 96(9); pp. e71(1-8); May 2014. |
Levy et al.; Accuracy of patient-specific guided glenoid baseplate positioning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty; J Shoulder Elbow Surg.; 23(10); pp. 1563-1567; Oct. 2014. |
Lewis et al.; Testing of a novel pin array guide for accurate three-dimensional glenoid component positioning; J Shoulder Elbow Surg.; 24(12); pp. 1939-1947; Dec. 2015. |
Mannss, Jurgen; GB App. No. 1003921.2 entitled “Orthopaedic Instrument”, filed Mar. 10, 2010. |
Meridew et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/446,660, filed Feb. 25, 2011, entitled “Patient-Specific Acetabular Guides and Associated Instruments”. |
Metzger et al., U.S. Appl. No. 60/812,694, filed Jun. 9, 2006, entitled “Patient Specific Knee Alignment Guide And Associated Method”. |
Metzger, U.S. Appl. No. 60/912,178, filed Apr. 17, 2007, entitled “Surgery System”. |
Metzger, U.S. Appl. No. 60/947,813, filed Jul. 3, 2007, entitled “Patient-Specific Alignment Method”. |
Metzger et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/310,752, filed Mar. 5, 2010, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Manufacturing an Implant”. |
Schoenefeld et al., U.S. Appl. No. 60/892,349, filed Mar. 1, 2007, entitled “Multi-Part Custom Implant Guide”. |
Schoenefeld et al., U.S. Appl. No. 60/911,297, filed Apr. 12, 2007, entitled “Patient-Specific Adjustable Alignment Guide”. |
Schoenefeld, U.S. Appl. No. 60/953,620, filed Aug. 2, 2007, entitled “Patient Positioner Having Image Marker”. |
Schoenefeld, U.S. Appl. No. 60/953,637, filed Aug. 2, 2007, entitled “Patient-Specific Alignment Guide for Multiple Incisions”. |
Sirveaux et al.; Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders; J Bone Joint Surg Br; 86(3); pp. 388-395; Apr. 2004. |
Sperling et al; Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger; J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 13(6); pp. 604-613; Nov./Dec. 2004. |
Stewart et al.; Total shoulder replacement in rheumatoid disease; J Bone Joint Surg Br.;•, 79; pp. 68-72; Jan. 1997. |
Suero et al.; Use of custom alignment guide to improve glenoid component position in total shoulder arthroplasty; Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc; 21(12); pp. 2860-2866; (online: Aug. 30, 2012) Dec. 2013. |
Torchia et al.; Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results; J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 6(6); pp. 495-505; Nov./Dec. 1997. |
Walch et al.; Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study; J Shoulder Elbow Surg.; 24(2); pp. 302-309; Feb. 2015. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120078258 A1 | Mar 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61319484 | Mar 2010 | US | |
61325435 | Apr 2010 | US |