The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for performing surgical procedures and, more particularly, for accessing a surgical target site in order to perform surgical procedures.
A noteworthy trend in the medical community is the move away from performing surgery via traditional “open” techniques in favor of minimally invasive or minimal access techniques. Open surgical techniques are generally undesirable in that they typically require large incisions and high amounts of tissue displacement to gain access to the surgical target site, which produces concomitantly high amounts of pain, lengthened hospitalization (increasing health care costs), and high morbidity in the patient population. Less-invasive surgical techniques (including so-called “minimal access” and “minimally invasive” techniques) are gaining favor due to the fact that they involve accessing the surgical target site via incisions of substantially smaller size with greatly reduced tissue displacement requirements. This, in turn, reduces the pain, morbidity and cost associated with such procedures. The access systems developed to date, however, fail in various respects to meet all the needs of the surgeon population.
One drawback associated with prior art surgical access systems relates to the ease with which the operative corridor can be created, as well as maintained over time, depending upon the particular surgical target site. For example, when accessing surgical target sites located beneath or behind musculature or other relatively strong tissue (such as, by way of example only, the psoas muscle adjacent to the spine), it has been found that advancing an operative corridor-establishing instrument directly through such tissues can be challenging and/or lead to unwanted or undesirable effects (such as stressing or tearing the tissues). While certain efforts have been undertaken to reduce the trauma to tissue while creating an operative corridor, such as (by way of example only) the sequential dilation system of U.S. Pat. No. 5,792,044 to Foley et al., these attempts are nonetheless limited in their applicability based on the relatively narrow operative corridor. More specifically, based on the generally cylindrical nature of the so-called “working cannula,” the degree to which instruments can be manipulated and/or angled within the cannula can be generally limited or restrictive, particularly if the surgical target site is a relatively deep within the patient.
This highlights yet another drawback with the prior art surgical access systems, namely, the challenges in establishing an operative corridor through or near tissue having major neural structures which, if contacted or impinged, may result in neural impairment for the patient. Due to the threat of contacting such neural structures, efforts thus far have largely restricted to establishing operative corridors through tissue having little or substantially reduced neural structures, which effectively limits the number of ways a given surgical target site can be accessed. This can be seen, by way of example only, in the spinal arts, where the exiting nerve roots and neural plexus structures in the psoas muscle have rendered a lateral or far lateral access path (so-called trans-psoas approach) to the lumbar spine virtually impossible. Instead, spine surgeons are largely restricted to accessing the spine from the posterior (to perform, among other procedures, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)) or from the anterior (to perform, among other procedures, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)).
Posterior-access procedures involve traversing a shorter distance within the patient to establish the operative corridor, albeit at the price of oftentimes having to reduce or cut away part of the posterior bony structures (e.g. lamina, facets, spinous process) in order to reach the target site (which typically comprises the disc space). Anterior-access procedures are relatively simple for surgeons in that they do not involve reducing or cutting away bony structures to reach the surgical target site. However, they are nonetheless disadvantageous in that they require traversing through a much greater distance within the patient to establish tire operative corridor, oftentimes requiring an additional surgeon to assist with moving the various internal organs out of the way to create the operative corridor.
The present invention is directed at eliminating, or at least minimizing the effects of, the above-identified drawbacks in the prior art.
The present invention accomplishes this goal by providing a novel access system and related methods which involve detecting the existence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures before, during, and after the establishment of air operative corridor through (or near) any of a variety of tissues having such neural structures which, if contacted or impinged, may otherwise result in neural impairment for the patient. It is expressly noted that, although described herein largely in terms of use in spinal surgery, the access system of the present invention is suitable for use in any number of additional surgical procedures wherein tissue having significant neural structures must be passed through (or near) in order to establish an operative corridor. It is also expressly noted that, although shown and described herein largely within the context of lateral surgery in the lumbar spine, the access system of the present invention may be employed in any number of other spine surgery access approaches, including but not limited to posterior, postero-lateral, anterior, and antero-lateral access, and may be employed in the lumbar, thoracic and/or cervical spine, all without departing from the present invention.
According to one broad aspect of the present invention, the access system comprises a tissue distraction assembly and a tissue retraction assembly, both of which may be equipped with one or more electrodes for use in detecting the existence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures. The tissue distraction assembly (in conjunction with one or more elements of the tissue retraction assembly) is capable of, as an initial step, distracting a region of tissue between the skin of the patient and the surgical target site. The tissue retraction assembly is capable of, as a secondary step, being introduced into this distracted region to thereby define and establish the operative corridor. Once established, any of a variety of surgical instruments, devices, or implants may be passed through and/or manipulated within the operative corridor depending upon the given surgical procedure. The electrode(s) are capable of, during both tissue distraction and retraction, defecting the existence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures such that the operative corridor may be established through (or near) any of a variety of tissues having such neural structures which, if contacted or impinged, may otherwise result in neural impairment for the patient. In this fashion, the access system of the present invention may be used to traverse tissue that would ordinarily be deemed unsafe or undesirable, thereby broadening the number of manners in which a given surgical target site may be accessed.
The tissue distraction assembly may include any number of components capable of performing the necessary distraction. By way of example only, the tissue distraction assembly may include a K-wire and one or more dilators (e.g., sequentially dilating cannulae) for performing the necessary tissue distraction to receive the remainder of the tissue retractor assembly thereafter. One or more electrodes may be provided on one or more of the K-wire and dilator(s) to detect the presence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures during tissue distraction.
The tissue retraction assembly may include any number of components capable of performing the necessary retraction. By way of example only, the tissue retraction assembly may include one or more retractor blades extending from a handle assembly. The handle assembly may be manipulated to open the retractor assembly; that is, allowing the retractor blades to separate from one another (simultaneously or sequentially) to create an operative corridor to the surgical target site. In a preferred embodiment, this is accomplished by maintaining a posterior retractor blade in a fixed position relative to the surgical target site (so as to avoid having it impinge upon any exiting nerve roots near the posterior elements of the spine) while the additional retractor blades (i.e. cephalad-most and caudal-most blades) are moved or otherwise translated away from the posterior retractor blade (and each other) so as to create the operative corridor in a fashion that doesn't impinge upon the region of the exiting nerve roots. In one optional aspect of the present invention, the cephalad-most and/or caudal-most blades may pivot or rotate outward from a central axis of insertion, such that the operative corridor may be further expanded. In a further optional aspect of the present invention, the retractor may include a locking element to maintain the blades in an initial alignment during insertion, and a variable-stop mechanism to allow the user to control the degree of expansion of the operative corridor. A blade expander tool may be provided to facilitate manual pivoting of the retractor blades.
The retractor blades may be optionally dimensioned to receive and direct a rigid shim element to augment the structural stability of the retractor blades and thereby ensure the operative corridor, once established, will not decrease or become more restricted, such as may result if distal ends of the retractor blades were permitted to “slide” or otherwise move in response to the force exerted by the displaced tissue. In a preferred embodiment, only the posterior refractor blade is equipped with such a rigid shim element. In an optional aspect, this shim element may be advanced into the disc space after the posterior retractor blade is positioned, but before the retractor is opened into the fully retracted position. The rigid shim element is preferably oriented within the disc space such that is distracts the adjacent vertebral bodies, which serves to restore disc height. It also preferably advances a sufficient distance within the disc space (preferably past the midline), which advantageously forms a protective barrier that prevents the migration of tissue (such as nerve roots) into the operative field and the inadvertent advancement of instruments outside the operative field. In an optional embodiment, the caudal-most and/or cephalad-most blades may be fitted with any number of retractor extenders for extending (laterally or length-wise) the blades, which advantageously forms a protective barrier that prevents the migration of tissue (such as muscle and soft tissue) into the operative field and the inadvertent advancement of instruments outside the operative field.
The retractor blades may optionally be equipped with a mechanism for transporting or emitting light at or near the surgical target site to aid the surgeon's ability to visualize the surgical target site, instruments and/or implants during the given surgical procedure. According to one embodiment, this mechanism may comprise, but need not be limited to, coupling one or more light sources to the retractor blades such that the terminal ends are capable of emitting light at or near the surgical target site. According to another embodiment, this mechanism may comprise, but need not be limited to, constructing the retractor blades of suitable material (such as clear polycarbonate) and configuration such that light may be transmitted generally distally through the walls of the retractor blade light to shine light at or near the surgical target site. This may be performed by providing the retractor blades having light-transmission characteristics (such as with clear polycarbonate construction) and transmitting the light almost entirely within the walls of the retractor blade (such as by frosting or otherwise rendering opaque portions of the exterior and/or interior) until it exits a portion along the interior (or medially-facing) surface of the retractor blade to shine at or near the surgical target site. The exit portion may be optimally configured such that the light is directed towards the approximate center of the surgical target site and may be provided along the entire inner periphery of the retractor blade or one or more portions therealong.
Many advantages of the present invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art with a reading of this specification in conjunction with the attached drawings, wherein like reference numerals are applied to like elements and wherein:
Illustrative embodiments of the invention are described below. In the interest of clarity, not all features of an actual implementation are described in this specification. It will of course be appreciated that in the development of any such actual embodiment, numerous implementation-specific decisions must be made to achieve the developers' specific goals, such as compliance with system-related and business-related constraints, which will vary from one implementation to another. Moreover, it will be appreciated that such a development effort might be complex and time-consuming, but would nevertheless be a routine undertaking for those of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of this disclosure. It is furthermore to be readily understood that, although discussed below primarily within the context of spinal surgery, the surgical access system of the present invention may be employed in any number of anatomical settings to provide access to any number of different surgical target sites throughout the body. It is also expressly noted that, although shown and described herein largely within the context of lateral surgery in the lumbar spine, the access system of the present invention may be employed in any number of other spine surgery access approaches, including but not limited to posterior, postero-lateral, anterior, and antero-lateral access, and may be employed in the lumbar, thoracic and/or cervical spine, all without departing from the present invention. The surgical access system disclosed herein boasts a variety of inventive features and components that warrant patent protection, both individually and in combination.
The present invention involves accessing a surgical target site in a fashion less invasive than traditional “open” surgeries and doing so in a manner that provides access in spite of the neural structures required to be passed through (or near) in order to establish an operative corridor to the surgical target site. Generally speaking, the surgical access system of the present invention accomplishes this by providing a tissue distraction assembly and a tissue retraction assembly, both of which may be equipped with one or more electrodes for use in detecting the existence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures.
These electrodes are preferably provided for use with a nerve surveillance system such as, by way of example, the type shown and described in the above referenced NeuroVision PCT Applications. Generally speaking, this nerve surveillance system is capable of detecting the existence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures during the distraction and retraction of tissue by detecting the presence of nerves by applying a stimulation signal to such instruments and monitoring the evoked EMG signals from the myotomes associated with the nerves being passed by the distraction and retraction systems of the present invention. In so doing, the system as a whole (including the surgical access system of the present invention) may be used to form an operative corridor through (or near) any of a variety of tissues having such neural structures, particularly those which, if contacted or impinged, may otherwise result in neural impairment for the patient. In this fashion, the access system of the present invention may be used to traverse tissue that would ordinarily be deemed unsafe or undesirable, thereby broadening the number of manners in which a given surgical target site may be accessed.
The tissue distraction assembly of the present invention (comprising a K-wire, an initial dilator, and a plurality of sequentially dilating cannulae) is employed to distract the tissues extending between the skin of the patient and a given surgical target site (preferably along the posterior region of the target intervertebral disc). Once distracted, the resulting void or distracted region within the patient is of sufficient size to accommodate a tissue retraction assembly of the present invention. More specifically, the tissue retraction assembly (comprising a plurality of retractor blades extending from a handle assembly) may be advanced relative to the secondary distraction assembly such that the retractor blades, in a first, closed position, are advanced over the exterior of the secondary distraction assembly. At that point, the handle assembly may be operated to move the retractor blades into a second, open or “retracted” position to create an operative corridor to the surgical target site.
According to one aspect of the invention, following (or before) this retraction, a posterior shim element (which is preferably slidably engaged with the posterior retractor blade) may be advanced such that a distal shim extension in positioned within the posterior region of the disc space. If done before retraction, this helps ensure that the posterior retractor blade will not move posteriorly during the retraction process, even though the other retractor blades (e.g. cephalad-most and caudal-most) are able to move and thereby create an operative corridor. Fixing the posterior retractor blade in this fashion serves several important functions. First, the distal end of the shim element serves to distract the adjacent vertebral bodies, thereby restoring disc height. It also rigidly couples the posterior retractor blade in fixed relation relative to the vertebral bodies. The posterior shim element also helps ensure that surgical instruments employed within the operative corridor are incapable of being advanced outside the operative corridor, preventing inadvertent contact with the exiting nerve roots during the surgery. Once in the appropriate retracted state, the cephalad-most and caudal-most retractor blades may be locked in position and, thereafter, retractor extenders advanced therealong to prevent the ingress or egress of instruments or biological structures (e.g. nerves, vasculature, etc. . . .) into or out of the operative corridor. Optionally, the cephalad-most and/or caudal-most retractor blades may be pivoted in an outward direction to further expand the operative corridor. Once the operative corridor is established, any of a variety of surgical instruments, devices, or implants may be passed through and/or manipulated within the operative corridor depending upon the given surgical procedure.
The retractor blades 12, 16, 18 may be composed of any material suitable for introduction into the human body, including but not limited to aluminum, titanium, and/or clear polycarbonate, that would ensure rigidity during tissue distraction. The retractor blades 12, 16, 18 may be optionally coated with a carbon fiber reinforced coating to increase strength and durability. The blades 12, 16, 18 may be optionally constructed from partially or wholly radiolucent materials (e.g. aluminum, PEEK, carbon-fiber, and titanium) to improve the visibility of the surgeon during imaging (e.g. radiographic, MRI, CT, fluoroscope, etc. . . . ). The retractor blades 12, 14, 18 may also be composed of a material that would destruct when autoclaved (such as polymer containing a portion of glass particles), which may be advantageous in preventing the unauthorized re-use of the blades 12, 16, 18 (which would be provided to the user in a sterile state). The retractor blades 12, 16, 18 may be provided in any number of suitable lengths, depending upon the anatomical environment and surgical approach, such as (by way of example only) the range from 20 mm to 150 mm. Based on this range of sizes, the tissue retraction assembly 10 of the present invention is extremely versatile and may be employed in any of a variety of desired surgical approaches, including but not limited to lateral, posterior, postero-lateral, anterior, and antero-lateral, by simply selecting the desired size retractor blades 12, 16, 18 and attaching them to the handle assembly 20 as will be described herein.
The retractor blades 12, 16, 18 may be equipped with various additional features or components. By way of example only, one or more of the retractor blades 12, 16, 18 may be equipped with a retractor extender, such as a wide retractor extender 22 as shown in
Retractor extenders 22, 24, 60 and/or shim element 25 may be made out any material suitable for use in the human body, including but not limited to biologically compatible plastic and/or metal, preferably partially or wholly radiolucent in nature material (such as aluminum, PEEK, carbon-fibers and titanium). Construction from plastic or thin metal provides the additional benefit of allowing the shim 25 and/or retractor extenders 22, 24, 60 to be collapsed into a compressed or low profile configuration at the skin level as the element is inserted, and then expanded once it is below skin level and within the operative corridor 15. Retractor extenders 22, 24, 60 may have symmetric narrow configurations (
Each of the retractor extenders 22, 24, 60 and/or the shim element 25 may be equipped with a mechanism to selectively and releasably engage with the respective retractor blades 12, 16, 18. By way of example only, this may be accomplished by configuring the retractor extenders 22, 24, 60 and/or the shim element 25 with a tab element 27 capable of engaging with corresponding ratchet-like grooves (shown at 29 in
According to the present invention, any or all of the retractor blades 12, 16, 18, the retractor extenders 22, 24, 60, and/or the shim element 25 may be provided with one or more electrodes 23 (preferably at or near their distal regions) equipped for use with a nerve surveillance system, such as, by way of example, the type shown and described in the NeuroVision PCT Applications. Such a nerve surveillance system is capable of detecting the existence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures during the retraction of tissue by detecting the presence of nerves by applying a stimulation signal to electrodes 23 and monitoring the evoked EMG signals from the myotomes associated with the nerves in the vicinity of the retraction system 10 of the present invention. In so doing, the system as a whole (including the surgical retraction system 10 of the present invention) may be used to form an operative corridor through (or near) any of a variety of tissues having such neural structures, particularly those which, if contacted or impinged, may otherwise result in neural impairment for the patient. In this fashion, the access system of the present invention may be used to traverse tissue that would ordinarily be deemed unsafe or undesirable, thereby broadening the number of manners in which a given surgical target site may be accessed.
With reference to
Through the use of handle extenders 31, 33, the arms 26, 28 may be simultaneously opened such that the second and third retractor blades 16, 18 move away from one another. In this fashion, the dimension and/or shape of the operative corridor 15 may be tailored depending upon the degree to which the translating member 17 is manipulated relative to the arms 26, 28. That is, the operative corridor 15 may be tailored to provide any number of suitable cross-sectional shapes, including but not limited to a generally circular cross-section, a generally ellipsoidal cross-section, and/or an oval cross-section. Optional light emitting devices (not shown) may be coupled to one or more of the retractor blades 12, 16, 18 to direct light down the operative corridor 15.
The variable-stop lock 88 allows the user to control the degree of expansion of the operative corridor 15. Variable-stop lock 88 includes a variable-stop region 90 and a user engagement region 92, and is dimensioned to slidably engage locking bar 94. The variable-stop region 90 may include any number of sequential step-wise cutout regions corresponding to the angulation desired for the retractor blades 16, 18. By way of example only, the variable-stop locking mechanism includes four sequential step-wise cutout regions 96, 98, 100, 102. Each sequential step-wise cutout region 96, 98, 100, 102 may correspond to a distinct degree of angulation of the retractor blades 16, 18 (relative to the “closed” position shown in
Initially, the retractor assembly 10 of the present invention is introduced to the surgical target site with the retractor blades 12, 16, 18 in a first, closed position (shown generally in
Although described with reference to first arm member 26, it will be appreciated that the detailed features and operation of the present invention as embodied within first arm member 26 are generally applicable (though in a mirror-image orientation) to the second arm member 28. Furthermore, the blade 18 may be pivoted independently of blade 16 such that different angles for each blade 16, 18 are achieved. Thus, it may be desirable to use blades of differing lengths and still maintain a symmetrical operating corridor wherein the distal ends of blades 16, 18 are oriented along the same general plane. Before removing the tissue retraction system 10 from the operative corridor, the variable-stop lock 88 should be disengaged by sliding it in a proximal direction along locking bar 94, allowing retractor blades 16, 18 to return to an initial alignment to facilitate removal.
As an alternative to the pivot wrench 106, a blade expander 112, such as shown by way of example only in
With the retractor blades 16, 18 in an initial alignment (i.e. generally perpendicular to the handle 20) and the first and second arm members 26, 28 in an “open” position, the blade expander 112 may be inserted into the operative corridor in a first “closed” position, as shown by way of example in
In use, once the retractor extender 60 is attached to the inserter 140 (
As shown in
Various improvements and modifications may be made to the surgical access system disclosed herein without deviating from the scope of the present invention. For example, as exemplified in
Once the tissue retraction system 10 is fully in place and the sequential dilation system 50 has been removed as described above, the handle assembly 20 may be operated to move the first and second arm members 26, 28 into a second position shown generally in
As mentioned above, any number of distraction components and/or retraction components (including but not limited to those described herein) may he equipped to detect the presence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures during tissue distraction and/or retraction. This is accomplished by employing the following steps: (1) one or more stimulation electrodes are provided on the various distraction and/or retraction components; (2) a stimulation source (e.g. voltage or current) is coupled to the stimulation electrodes; (3) a stimulation signal is emitted from the stimulation electrodes as the various components are advanced towards or maintained at or near the surgical target site; and (4) the patient is monitored to determine if the stimulation signal causes muscles associated with nerves or neural structures within the tissue to innervate. If the nerves innervate, this may indicate that neural structures may be in close proximity to the distraction and/or retraction components.
Neural monitoring may be accomplished via any number of suitable fashions, including but not limited to observing visual twitches in muscle groups associated with the neural structures likely to found in the tissue, as well as any number of monitoring systems, including but not limited to any commercially available “traditional” electromyography (EMC) system (that is, typically operated by a neurophysiologist). Such monitoring may also be carried out via the surgeon-driven EMG monitoring system shown and described in the commonly owned and co-pending NeuroVision PCT Applications referenced above. In any case (visual monitoring, traditional EMG and/or surgeon-driven EMG monitoring), the access system of the present invention may advantageously be used to traverse tissue that would ordinarily be deemed unsafe or undesirable, thereby broadening the number of manners in which a given surgical target site may be accessed.
In order to use the monitoring system 170, then, these surgical access instruments must be connected to at least one of coupling devices 202, 204 (or their equivalent), at which point the user may selectively initiate a stimulation signal (preferably, a current signal) from the control unit 172 to a particular surgical access instruments. Stimulating the electrode(s) on these surgical access instruments before, during and/or after establishing operative corridor will cause nerves that come into close or relative proximity to the surgical access instruments to depolarize, producing a response in a myotome associated with the innervated nerve.
The control unit 172 includes a touch screen display 190 and a base 192, which collectively contain the essential processing capabilities (software and/or hardware) for controlling the monitoring system 170. The control unit 172 may include an audio unit 168 that emits sounds according to a location of a surgical element with respect to a nerve. The patient module 174 is connected to the control unit 172 via a data cable 194, which establishes the electrical connections and communications (digital and/or analog) between the control unit 172 and patient module 174. The main functions of the control unit 172 include receiving user commands via the touch screen display 190, activating stimulation electrodes on the surgical access instruments, processing signal data according to defined algorithms, displaying received parameters and processed data, and monitoring system status and report fault conditions. The touch screen display 190 is preferably equipped with a graphical user interface (GUI) capable of communicating information to the user and receiving instructions from the user. The display 190 and/or base 192 may contain patient module interface circuitry (hardware and/or software) that commands the stimulation sources, receives digitized signals and other information from the patient module 174, processes the EMG responses to extract characteristic information for each muscle group, and displays the processed data to the operator via the display 190.
In one embodiment, the monitoring system 170 is capable of determining nerve direction relative to one or more of the K-wire 42, the dilators 44, 52, 54, the retractor blades 12, 16, 18 and/or the shim elements 22, 24, 25, 60 before, during and/or following the creation of an operative corridor to a surgical target site. Monitoring system 170 accomplishes this by having the control unit 172 and patient module 174 cooperate to send electrical stimulation signals to one or more of the stimulation electrodes provided on these instruments. Depending upon the location of the surgical access system 10 within a patient (and more particularly, to any neural structures), the stimulation signals may cause nerves adjacent to or in the general proximity of the surgical access system 10 to depolarize. This causes muscle groups to innervate and generate EMG responses, which can be sensed via the EMG harness 176. The nerve direction feature of the system 170 is based on assessing the evoked response of the various muscle myotomes monitored by the system 170 via the EMG harness 176.
By monitoring the myotomes associated with the nerves (via the EMG harness 176 and recording electrode 177) and assessing the resulting EMG responses (via the control unit 172), the surgical access system 10 is capable of detecting the presence of (and optionally the distant and/or direction to) such nerves. This provides the ability to actively negotiate around or past such nerves to safely and reproducibly form the operative corridor to a particular surgical target site, as well as monitor to ensure that no neural structures migrate into contact with the surgical access system 10 after the operative corridor has been established. In spinal surgery, for example, this is particularly advantageous in that the surgical access system 10 may be particularly suited for establishing an operative corridor to an intervertebral target site in a postero-lateral, trans-psoas fashion so as to avoid the bony posterior elements of the spinal column.
As evident from the above discussion and drawings, the present invention accomplishes the goal of gaining access a surgical target site in a fashion less invasive than traditional “open” surgeries and, moreover, does so in a manner that provides the ability to access such a surgical target site regardless of the neural structures required to be passed through (or near) in order to establish an operative corridor to the surgical target site. The present invention furthermore provides the ability to perform neural monitoring in the tissue or regions adjacent the surgical target site during any procedures performed after the operative corridor has been established. The surgical access system of the present invention can be used in any of a wide variety of surgical or medical applications, above and beyond the spinal applications discussed herein. Such spinal applications may include any procedure wherein instruments, devices, implants and/or compounds are to be introduced into or adjacent the surgical target site, including but not limited to discectomy, fusion (including PDF, ALIF, TLIF and any fusion effectuated via a lateral or far-lateral approach and involving, by way of example, the introduction and/or removal of bone products (such as allograft or autograft) and/or devices having ceramic, metal and/or plastic construction (such as mesh) and/or compounds such as bone morphogenic protein), total disc replacement, etc. . . . ).
Moreover, the surgical access system of the present invention opens the possibility of accessing an increased number of surgical target sites in a “less invasive” fashion by eliminating or greatly reducing the threat of contacting nerves or neural structures while establishing an operative corridor through or near tissues containing such nerves or neural structures. In so doing, the surgical access system of the present invention represents a significant advancement capable of improving patient care (via reduced pain due to “less-invasive” access and reduced or eliminated risk of neural contact before, during, and after the establishment of the operative corridor) and lowering health care costs (via reduced hospitalization based on “less-invasive” access and increased number of suitable surgical target sites based on neural monitoring). Collectively, these translate into major improvements to the overall standard of care available to the patient population, both domestically and overseas.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/400,978, filed May 1, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/484,871, filed Apr. 11, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/665,039, filed Apr. 9, 2007, which is a U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371 of international application PCT/US2005/036454, filed Oct. 11, 2005. International patent application PCT/US2005/036454 claims the benefit of priority from U.S. provisional patent application 60/617,498, filed Oct. 8, 2004, and U.S. provisional patent application 60/720,710, filed Sep. 26, 2005. The entire contents of these priority applications are hereby expressly incorporated by reference into this disclosure as if set forth fully herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
208227 | Dorr | Sep 1878 | A |
751475 | De Vilbiss | Feb 1904 | A |
972983 | Arthur | Oct 1910 | A |
1003232 | Cerbo | Oct 1910 | A |
1044348 | Cerbo | Jun 1912 | A |
1328624 | Graham | Jan 1920 | A |
1548184 | Cameron | Aug 1925 | A |
1796072 | Baer | Mar 1931 | A |
2300040 | Betts | Oct 1942 | A |
2320709 | Arnesen | Jun 1943 | A |
2594086 | Smith | Apr 1952 | A |
2704064 | Fizzell et al. | Mar 1955 | A |
2736002 | Oriel | Feb 1956 | A |
2807259 | Guerriero | Sep 1957 | A |
2808826 | Reiner et al. | Oct 1957 | A |
3364929 | Ide et al. | Jan 1968 | A |
3664329 | Naylor | May 1972 | A |
3682162 | Colyer | Aug 1972 | A |
3747592 | Santos | Jul 1973 | A |
3752149 | Ungar | Aug 1973 | A |
3785368 | McCarthy et al. | Jan 1974 | A |
3789829 | Hasson | Feb 1974 | A |
3803716 | Garnier | Apr 1974 | A |
3830226 | Staub et al. | Aug 1974 | A |
3957036 | Normann | May 1976 | A |
3985125 | Rose | Oct 1976 | A |
D245789 | Shea et al. | Sep 1977 | S |
4099519 | Warren | Jul 1978 | A |
4164214 | Stark et al. | Aug 1979 | A |
4207897 | Lloyd et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4224949 | Scott et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4226228 | Shin et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
4226288 | Collins, Jr. | Oct 1980 | A |
4235242 | Howson et al. | Nov 1980 | A |
4263899 | Burgin | Apr 1981 | A |
4285347 | Hess | Aug 1981 | A |
4291705 | Severinghaus et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
4449532 | Storz | May 1984 | A |
4461300 | Christensen | Jul 1984 | A |
4512351 | Pohndorf | Apr 1985 | A |
4515168 | Chester et al. | May 1985 | A |
4519403 | Dickhudt | May 1985 | A |
4545374 | Jacobson | Oct 1985 | A |
4561445 | Berke et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
4562832 | Wilder et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
4573448 | Kambin | Mar 1986 | A |
4592369 | Davis et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4595013 | Jones et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4595018 | Rantala | Jun 1986 | A |
4611597 | Kraus | Sep 1986 | A |
4616635 | Caspar et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
4633889 | Talalla | Jan 1987 | A |
4658835 | Pohndorf | Apr 1987 | A |
4716901 | Jackson et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
D295445 | Freeman | Apr 1988 | S |
4744371 | Harris | May 1988 | A |
4753223 | Bremer | Jun 1988 | A |
4759377 | Dykstra | Jul 1988 | A |
4765311 | Kulik et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4784150 | Voorhies et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4807600 | Hayes | Feb 1989 | A |
4807642 | Brown | Feb 1989 | A |
D300561 | Asa et al. | Apr 1989 | S |
4817587 | Janese | Apr 1989 | A |
4836186 | Scholz | Jun 1989 | A |
4862891 | Smith | Sep 1989 | A |
4892105 | Prass | Jan 1990 | A |
4913134 | Luque | Apr 1990 | A |
4917274 | Asa et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4917704 | Frey et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4926865 | Oman | May 1990 | A |
4950257 | Hibbs et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4962766 | Herzon | Oct 1990 | A |
4964411 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4989587 | Farley | Feb 1991 | A |
5007902 | Witt | Apr 1991 | A |
5015247 | Michelson | May 1991 | A |
5045054 | Hood et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5052373 | Michelson | Oct 1991 | A |
5058602 | Brody | Oct 1991 | A |
5081990 | Deletis | Jan 1992 | A |
5088472 | Fakhrai | Feb 1992 | A |
5092344 | Lee | Mar 1992 | A |
5127403 | Brownlee | Jul 1992 | A |
5161533 | Prass et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5171279 | Mathews | Dec 1992 | A |
5192327 | Brantigan | Mar 1993 | A |
5195541 | Obenchain | Mar 1993 | A |
5196015 | Neubardt | Mar 1993 | A |
5215100 | Spitz et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
RE34390 | Culver | Sep 1993 | E |
D340521 | Heinzelman et al. | Oct 1993 | S |
5255691 | Otten | Oct 1993 | A |
5282468 | Klepinski | Feb 1994 | A |
5284153 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5284154 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5295994 | Bonutti | Mar 1994 | A |
5299563 | Seton | Apr 1994 | A |
5312417 | Wilk | May 1994 | A |
5313956 | Knutsson et al. | May 1994 | A |
5313962 | Obenchain | May 1994 | A |
5327902 | Lemmen | Jul 1994 | A |
5331975 | Bonutti | Jul 1994 | A |
5333618 | Lekhtman et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5342384 | Sugarbaker | Aug 1994 | A |
5357983 | Mathews | Oct 1994 | A |
5375067 | Berchin | Dec 1994 | A |
5375594 | Cueva | Dec 1994 | A |
5377667 | Patton et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5383876 | Nardella | Jan 1995 | A |
5395317 | Kambin | Mar 1995 | A |
5450845 | Alexgaard | Sep 1995 | A |
5472426 | Bonati et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5474057 | Makower et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5474558 | Neubardt | Dec 1995 | A |
5480440 | Kambin | Jan 1996 | A |
5482038 | Ruff | Jan 1996 | A |
5484437 | Michelson | Jan 1996 | A |
5487739 | Aebischer et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5509893 | Pracas | Apr 1996 | A |
5512038 | O'Neal et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5514153 | Bonutti | May 1996 | A |
5540235 | Wilson | Jul 1996 | A |
5549656 | Reiss | Aug 1996 | A |
5560372 | Cory | Oct 1996 | A |
5566678 | Cadwell | Oct 1996 | A |
5569290 | McAfee | Oct 1996 | A |
5571149 | Liss et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5579781 | Cooke | Dec 1996 | A |
5593429 | Ruff | Jan 1997 | A |
5599279 | Slotman et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5630813 | Kieturakis | May 1997 | A |
5667481 | Villalta et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5667508 | Errico et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5671752 | Sinderby et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5681265 | Maeda et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5688223 | Rosendahl | Nov 1997 | A |
5707359 | Bufalini | Jan 1998 | A |
5711307 | Smits | Jan 1998 | A |
5728046 | Mayer et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5741253 | Michelson | Apr 1998 | A |
5741261 | Moskovitz et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5759159 | Masreliez | Jun 1998 | A |
5762629 | Kambin | Jun 1998 | A |
5772661 | Michelson | Jun 1998 | A |
5775331 | Raymond et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5776144 | Leysieffer et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5779642 | Nightengale | Jul 1998 | A |
5785648 | Min | Jul 1998 | A |
5785658 | Benaron | Jul 1998 | A |
5788630 | Furnish | Aug 1998 | A |
5792044 | Foley et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5795291 | Koros et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5797854 | Hedgecock | Aug 1998 | A |
5797909 | Michelson | Aug 1998 | A |
5814073 | Bonutti | Sep 1998 | A |
5830151 | Hadzic et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5851191 | Gozani | Dec 1998 | A |
5853373 | Griffith et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5860973 | Michelson | Jan 1999 | A |
5862314 | Jeddeloh | Jan 1999 | A |
5868668 | Weiss | Feb 1999 | A |
5872314 | Clinton | Feb 1999 | A |
5885210 | Cox | Mar 1999 | A |
5885219 | Nightengale | Mar 1999 | A |
5888196 | Bonutti | Mar 1999 | A |
5891147 | Moskovitz et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5902231 | Foley et al. | May 1999 | A |
5928139 | Koros et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5928158 | Aristides | Jul 1999 | A |
5931777 | Sava | Aug 1999 | A |
5935131 | Bonutti et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5938688 | Schiff | Aug 1999 | A |
5944658 | Koros et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5954635 | Foley et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5976094 | Gozani et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5993385 | Johnston et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6004262 | Putz et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6004312 | Finneran | Dec 1999 | A |
6004341 | Zhu et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6007487 | Foley et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6010520 | Pattison | Jan 2000 | A |
6024696 | Hoftman et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6024697 | Pisarik | Feb 2000 | A |
6027456 | Feler et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6038469 | Karlsson et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6038477 | Kayyali | Mar 2000 | A |
6042540 | Johnston et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6050992 | Nichols | Apr 2000 | A |
6074343 | Nathanson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6083154 | Liu et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6095987 | Schmulewitz | Aug 2000 | A |
6096046 | Weiss | Aug 2000 | A |
6099547 | Gellman et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6102853 | Scirica et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104957 | Alo et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104960 | Duysens et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6120436 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6120503 | Michelson | Sep 2000 | A |
6126660 | Dietz | Oct 2000 | A |
6132386 | Gozani et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6132387 | Gozani et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6135965 | Tumer et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6139493 | Koros et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6146335 | Gozani | Nov 2000 | A |
6152871 | Foley et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6159179 | Simonson | Dec 2000 | A |
6161047 | King et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6174311 | Branch et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6181961 | Prass | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6196969 | Bester et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6206826 | Mathews et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6217509 | Foley et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6224545 | Cocchia et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6224549 | Drongelen | May 2001 | B1 |
6245082 | Gellman et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6259945 | Epstein et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6264651 | Underwood et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266558 | Gozani et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6273905 | Streeter | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6287322 | Zhu et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292701 | Prass et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6302842 | Auerbach et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6306100 | Prass | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308712 | Shaw | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6309349 | Bertolero et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6312392 | Herzon | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6325764 | Griffith et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6334068 | Hacker | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6348058 | Melkent et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6360750 | Gerber et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6371968 | Kogasaka et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6395007 | Bhatnagar et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6425859 | Foley et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425887 | McGuckin et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425901 | Zhu et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6450952 | Rioux et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6451015 | Rittman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6466817 | Kaula et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6468205 | Mollenauer et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6468207 | Fowler, Jr. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6500116 | Knapp | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6500128 | Marino | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6520907 | Foley et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6524320 | DiPoto | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6535759 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6554768 | Leonard | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6564078 | Marino et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6579244 | Goodwin | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6599294 | Fuss et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6620157 | Dabney et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6645194 | Briscoe et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6679833 | Smith | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6712795 | Cohen | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6719692 | Kleffner et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6760616 | Hoey et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6770074 | Michelson | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6796985 | Bolger et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6810281 | Brock et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6819956 | DiLorenzo | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6829508 | Schulman et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6847849 | Mamo et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6849047 | Goodwin | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6851430 | Tsou | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6855105 | Jackson, III et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6860850 | Phillips et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6869398 | Obenchain | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6871099 | Whitehurst et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6902569 | Parmer et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6916330 | Simonson | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6926728 | Zucherman et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6929606 | Ritland | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6945933 | Branch | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6951538 | Ritland | Oct 2005 | B2 |
7047082 | Schrom et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7050848 | Hoey et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7079883 | Marino et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7089059 | Pless | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7177677 | Kaula et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7198598 | Smith et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7207949 | Miles et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7226451 | Shluzas et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7261688 | Smith et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7435219 | Kim | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7470236 | Kelleher et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7473222 | Dewey et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7481766 | Lee et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7522953 | Kaula et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7556601 | Branch et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7582058 | Miles et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7643884 | Pond et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7691057 | Miles et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7693562 | Marino et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7717959 | William et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7819801 | Miles et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7935051 | Miles et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8000782 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8005535 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8021430 | Michelson | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8133173 | Miles et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8192356 | Miles et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8251997 | Michelson | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8303458 | Fukano et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8343046 | Miles et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8343224 | Lynn et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8388527 | Miles | Mar 2013 | B2 |
20010039949 | Loubser | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056280 | Underwood et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020007129 | Marino | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010392 | Desai | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020072686 | Hoey et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077632 | Tsou | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020111538 | Wright et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123744 | Reynard | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020123780 | Grill et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020161415 | Cohen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020193843 | Hill et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030032966 | Foley et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030070682 | Wilson et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030083688 | Simonson | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105503 | Marino | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030139648 | Foley et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149341 | Clifton | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030225405 | Weiner | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236544 | Lunsford et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040087833 | Bauer et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040199084 | Kelleher et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225228 | Ferree | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050004593 | Simonson | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050004623 | Miles et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033380 | Tanner et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050075578 | Gharib et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080320 | Lee et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050096508 | Valentini et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050113644 | Obenchain et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050149035 | Pimenta et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050159650 | Ramond et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050182454 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050192575 | Pacheco | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050215866 | Kim et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060025656 | Buckner et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060025703 | Miles et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060052672 | Landry et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060052828 | Kim et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069315 | Miles et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060224078 | Hoey et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070016097 | Farquhar et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070198062 | Miles et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070293782 | Marino | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080058606 | Miles et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080058838 | Steinberg | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080064976 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080064977 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065178 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071191 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080097164 | Miles et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080300465 | Feigenwinter et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090124860 | Miles et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138050 | Ferree | May 2009 | A1 |
20090192403 | Gharib et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090204016 | Gharib et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100069783 | Miles et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100130827 | Pimenta et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100152603 | Miles et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100160738 | Miles et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100174146 | Miles | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100174148 | Miles et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20120238822 | Miles et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
299 08 259 | Jul 1999 | DE |
20016971 | Jan 2001 | DE |
100 48 790 | Apr 2002 | DE |
0 334 116 | Sep 1989 | EP |
0 567 424 | Oct 1993 | EP |
0455282 | Dec 1994 | EP |
0 972 538 | Jan 2000 | EP |
1 002 500 | May 2000 | EP |
1192905 | Apr 2002 | EP |
613642 | Nov 1926 | FR |
2702364 | Mar 1993 | FR |
2 795 624 | Jan 2001 | FR |
793186 | May 1990 | JP |
10-14928 | Mar 1996 | JP |
3019990007098 | Nov 1999 | KR |
2019136 | Sep 1994 | RU |
2192177 | Jun 2000 | RU |
2157656 | Oct 2000 | RU |
9320741 | Oct 1993 | WO |
9428824 | Dec 1994 | WO |
9700702 | Jan 1997 | WO |
9823324 | Jun 1998 | WO |
9952446 | Oct 1999 | WO |
0027291 | May 2000 | WO |
0038574 | Jul 2000 | WO |
0044288 | Aug 2000 | WO |
0066217 | Nov 2000 | WO |
0067645 | Nov 2000 | WO |
0108563 | Feb 2001 | WO |
0137728 | May 2001 | WO |
0160263 | Aug 2001 | WO |
02054960 | Jul 2002 | WO |
02058780 | Aug 2002 | WO |
0271953 | Sep 2002 | WO |
0287678 | Nov 2002 | WO |
03005887 | Jan 2003 | WO |
03026482 | Apr 2003 | WO |
03037170 | May 2003 | WO |
05013805 | Feb 2005 | WO |
05030318 | Apr 2005 | WO |
06042241 | Apr 2006 | WO |
06066217 | Jun 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine in MED TM MicroEndoscopic Discectomy (1997, Ludann Grand Rapids MI), 14 pgs. |
Dirksmeier et al., “Microendoscopic and Open Laminotomy and Discectomy in Lumbar Disc Disease” Seminars in Spine Surgery, 1999, 11(2): 138-146. |
METRx Delivered Order Form, 1999, 13 pages. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “METRx™ MicroDiscectomy System,” Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, 21 pgs. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “METRx System Surgical Technique,” 2004, 22 pages. |
“MetRx System MicroEndoscopic Discectomy: An Evolution in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery,” Sofamor Danek, 1999, 6 pages. |
Smith and Foley “MetRx System MicroEndoscopic Discectomy: Surgical Technique” Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 2000, 24 pages. |
“Sofamor Danek MED Microendoscopic Discectomy System Brochure” including Rapp “New endoscopic lumbar technique improves access preserves tissue” Reprinted with permission from: Orthopedics Today, 1998, 18(1): 2 pages. |
Japanese Patent Office JP Patent Application No. 2006-528306 Office Action with English Translation, Jun. 10, 2009, 4 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions re U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,207,949; 7,470,236 and 7,582,058, Sep. 18, 2009, 19 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions—Appendices, Sep. 18, 2009, 191 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions re U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,207,949, 7,470,236, arid 7,582,058, Sep. 29, 2009, 21 pages. |
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions—Appendices, Sep. 29, 2009, 294 pages. |
Axon 501(k) Notification: Epoch 2000 Neurologica Workstation, Dec. 3, 1997, 464 pages. |
Foley and Smith, “Microendoscopic Discectomy,” Techniques in Neurosurgery, 1997, 3(4):301-307. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “UNION™ / UNION-L™ Anterior & Lateral Impacted Fusion Devices: Clear choice of stabilization,” Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 2000, 4 pages. |
NuVasive Vector™ Cannulae, 2000, 1 page. |
NuVasive Triad™ Tri-Columnar Spinal EndoArthrodesis™ via Minimally Invasive Guidance, 2000, 1 page (prior to Sep. 25, 2003). |
NuVasive Triad™ Cortical Bone Allografl, 2000, 1 page (prior to Sep. 25, 2003). |
NuVasive Vertebral Body Access System, 2000, 1 page. |
Marina, “New Technology for Guided Navigation with Real Time Nerve Surveillance for Minimally Invasive Spine Discectomy & Arthrodesis,” Spineline, 2000, p. 39. |
NuVasive “INS-1 Screw Test,” 2001, 10 pages. |
NuVasive letter re 510k Neuro Vision JJB System, Oct. 16, 2001, 5 pages. |
NuVasive letter re 510k Guided Arthroscopy System, Oct. 5, 1999, 6 pages. |
NuVasive letter re 510k INS-1 Intraoperative Nerve Surveillance System, Nov. 13, 2000, 7 pages. |
“NuVasiveTM Receives Clearance to Market Two Key Elem Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery System,” Nov. 27, 2001, 20 pages. |
Schick et al., “Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open surgery: an intraoperative EMG study,” Eur Spine J, 2002, 11: 20-26. |
NuVasive letter re: 510(k) for Neurovision JJB System (Summary), Sep. 25, 2001, 28 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Jul. 3, 2003, 18 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Mar. 1, 2004, 16 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), May 26, 2005, 17 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Jun. 24, 2005, 16 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: Special 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Sep. 14, 2006, 17 pages. |
NuVasive 510(k) Premarket Notification: Neurovision JJB System (Device Description), Aug. 20, 2007, 8 pages. |
NuVasive letter re: 510(k) Premarket Notification: Guided Spinal Arthroscopy System (Device Description), Feb. 1, 1999, 40 pages. |
NuVasive 510(k) Premarket Notification: Spinal System (Summary), Apr. 12, 2004, 10 pages. |
NuVasive 510(k) Summary NIM Monitor, Sep. 4, 1998, 4 pages. |
NuVasive correspondence re 510(k) Premarket Notification INS-1 Intraoperative Nerve Surveillance System: Section IV Device Description, pp. 12-51 (prior to Sep. 25, 2003). |
Isley et al., “Recent Advances in Intraoperative Neuromonitoring of Spinal Cord Function: Pedicle Screw Stimulation Techniques,” American Journal of Electroneurodiagnostic Technology, Jun. 1997, 37(2): 93-126. |
Mathews et al., “Laparoscopic Discectomy with Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Spine, 1995, 20(16): 1797-1802. |
Rose et al., “Persistently Electrified Pedicle Stimulation Instruments in Spinal Instrumentation: Techniques and Protocol Development,” Spine, 1997, 22(3): 334-343. |
“Electromyography System,” International Search report from International Application No. PCT/US00/32329, Apr. 27, 2001, 9 pages. |
“Nerve Proximity and Status Detection System and Method,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US01/18606, dated Oct. 18, 2001, 6 pages. |
“Relative Nerve Movement and Status Detection System and Method,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US01/18579, dated Jan. 15, 2002, 6 pages. |
“System and Method for Determining Nerve Proximity Direction and Pathology During Surgery,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/22247, dated Mar. 27, 2003, 4 pages. |
“System and Methods for Determining Nerve Direction to a Surgical Instrument,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US03/02056, dated Aug. 12, 2003, 5 pages. |
“Systems and Methods for Performing Percutaneous Pedicle Integrity Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/35047, dated Aug. 11, 2003, 5 pages. |
“Systems and Methods for Performing Surgery Procedures and Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/30617, dated Jun. 5, 2003, 4 pages. |
Lenke et al., “Triggered Electromyographic Threshold for Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement,” Spine, 1995, 20(4): 1585-1591. |
“Brackmann II EMG System,” Medical Electronics, 1999, 4 pages. |
“Neurovision SE Nerve Locator/Monitor”, RLN Systems Inc. Operators Manual, 1999, 22 pages. |
“The Brackmann II EMG Monitoring System,” Medical Electronics Co. Operator's Manual Version 1.1, 1995, 50 pages. |
“The Nicolet Viking IV,” Nicolet Biomedical Products, 1999, 6 pages. |
Anderson et al., “Pedicle screws with high electrical resistance: a potential source of error with stimulus-evoked EMG,” Spine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery University of Virginia, Jul. 15, 2002, 27(14): 1577-1581. |
Bose et al., “Neurophysiologic Monitoring of Spinal Nerve Root Function During Instrumented Posterior Lumber Spine Surgery,” Spine, 2002, 27(13):1444-1450. |
Calancie et al., “Stimulus-Evoked EMG Monitoring During Transpedicular Lumbosacral Spine Instrumentation” Spine, 1994, 19(24): 2780-2786. |
Clements et al., “Evoked and Spontaneous Electromyography to Evaluate Lumbosacral Pedicle Screw Placement,” Spine, 1996, 21(5): 600-604. |
Danesh-Clough et al. ,“The Use of Evoked EMG in Detecting Misplaced Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screws,” Spine, Orthopaedic Department Dunedin Hospital, Jun. 15, 2001, 26(12): 1313-1316. |
Darden et al., “A Comparison of Impedance and Electromyogram Measurements in Detecting the Presence of Pedicle Wall Breakthrough,” Spine, Charlotte Spine Center North Carolina, Jan. 15, 1998, 23(2): 256-262. |
Ebraheim et al., “Anatomic Relations Between the Lumbar Pedicle and the Adjacent Neural Structures,” Spine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical College of Ohio, Oct. 15, 1997, 22(20): 2338-2341. |
Ford et al. “Electrical Characteristics of Peripheral Nerve Stimulators Implications for Nerve Localization,” Regional Anesthesia, 1984, 9: 73-77. |
Glassman et al., “A Prospective Analysis of Intraoperative Electromyographic Monitoring of Pedicle Screw Placement With Computed Tomographic Scan Confirmation,” Spine, 1995, 20(12): 1375-1379. |
Greenblatt et al., “Needle Nerve Stimulator-Locator: Nerve Blocks with a New Instrument for Locating Nerves,” Anesthesia& Analgesia, 1962, 41(5): 599-602. |
Haig, “Point of view,” Spine, 2002, 27(24): 2819. |
Haig et al., “The Relation Among Spinal Geometry on MRI, Paraspinal Electromyographic Abnormalities, and Age in Persons Referred for Electrodiagnostic Testing of Low Back Symptoms,” Spine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation University of Michigan, Sep. 1, 2002, 27(17): 1918-1925. |
Holland et al., “Higher Electrical Stimulus Intensities are Required to Activate Chronically Compressed Nerve Roots: Implications for Intraoperative Electromyographic Pedicle Screw Testing,” Spine, Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Jan. 15, 1998, 23(2): 224-227. |
Holland, “Intraoperative Electromyography During Thoracolumbar Spinal Surgery,” Spine, 1998, 23(17): 1915-1922. |
Journee et al., “System for Intra-Operative Monitoring of the Cortical Integrity of the Pedicle During Pedicle Screw Placement in Low-Back Surgery: Design and Clinical Results,” Sensory and Neuromuscular Diagnostic Instrumentation and Data Analysis I, 18th Annual International Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 144-145. |
Maguire et al., “Evaluation of Intrapedicular Screw Position Using Intraoperative Evoked Electromyography,” Spine, 1995, 20(9): 1068-1074. |
Martin et al. “Initiation of Erection and Semen Release by Rectal Probe Electrostimulation (RPE),” The Journal of Urology, The Williams& Wilkins Co., 1983, 129: 637-642. |
Minahan et al., “The Effect of Neuromuscular Blockade on Pedicle Screw Stimulation Thresholds” Spine, Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Oct. 1, 2000, 25(19): 2526-2530. |
Pither et al., “The Use of Peripheral Nerve Stimulators for Regional Anesthesia: Review of Experimental Characteristics Technique and Clinical Applications,” Regional Anesthesia, 1985, 10:49-58. |
Raj et al., “Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block—A New Approach” Anesthesia and Analgesia, 1973, (52)6: 897-904. |
Raj et al., “The Use of Peripheral Nerve Stimulators for Regional Anesthesia,” Clinical Issues in Regional Anesthesia, 1985, 1(4):1-6. |
Raj et al., “Use of the Nerve Stimulator for Peripheral Blocks,” Regional Anesthesia, Apr.-Jun. 1980, pp. 14-21. |
Raymond et al., “The Nerve Seeker: A System for Automated Nerve Localization,” Regional Anesthesia, 1992, 17(3): 151-162. |
Shafik, “Cavernous Nerve Simulation through an Extrapelvic Subpubic Approach: Role in Penile Erection,” Eur. Urol, 1994, 26: 98-102. |
Toleikis et al., “The Usefulness of Electrical Stimulation for Assessing Pedicle Screw Replacements,” Journal of Spinal Disorder, 2000, 13(4): 283-289. |
Medtronic Sofamor Danek “UNION™ / UNION-L™ Anterior & Lateral Impacted Fusion Devices: Surgical Technique” Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 2001, 20 pages. |
Defendant's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions Regarding U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,207,949; 7,470,236 and 7,582,058, Aug. 31, 2009, 21 pages. |
Bergey et al., “Endoscopic Lateral Transpsoas Approach to the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, 2004, 29(15): 1681-1688. |
Dezawa et al., “Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine: A New Approach, Technique, and Clinical Trial,” Journal of Spinal Disorders, 2000, 13(2): 138-143. |
Gardocki, “Tubular diskectomy minimizes collateral damage: A logical progression moves spine surgery forward,” AAOS Now, 2009, 5 pages. |
Hovorka et al., “Five years' experience of retroperitoneal lumbar and thoracolumbar surgery,” Eur Spine J., 2000, 9(1): S30-S34. |
Kossmann et al., “The use of a retractor system (SynFrame) for open, minimal invasive reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic and lumbar spine,” Eur Spine J., 2001, 10: 396-402. |
Mayer, “A New Microsurgical Technique for Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Spine, 1997, 22(6): 691-699. |
Mayer, “The ALIF Concept,” Eur Spine J., 2000, 9(1): S35-S43. |
Mayer and Wiechert, “Microsurgical Anterior Approaches to the Lumbar Spine for Interbody Fusion and Total Disc Replacement,” Neurosurgery, 2002, 51(2): 159-165. |
McAfee et al., “Minimally Invasive Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach to the Lumbar Spine: Emphasis on the Lateral BAK,” Spine, 1998, 23(13): 1476-1484. |
Rao, et al. “Dynamic retraction of the psoas muscle to expose the lumbar spine using the retroperitoneal approach,” J. Neurosurg Spine, 2006, 5: 468-470. |
Wolfla et al., “Retroperitoneal lateral lumbar interbody fusion with titanium threaded fusion cages,” J. Neurosurg (Spine 1), 2002, 96: 50-55. |
Larson and Maiman, “Surgery of the Lumbar Spine,” Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 1999, pp. 305-319. |
Medtronic Xomed Surgical Products, Inc., NIM-Response Nerve Integrity Monitor Intraoperative EMG Monitor User's Guide, Revision B, 2000, 47pages. |
“NuVasive's spine surgery system cleared in the US,” Pharrn & Medical Industry Week, Dec. 10, 2001, 1 page. |
Pimenta, “Initial Clinical Results of Direct Lateral, Minimally Invasive Access to the Lumbar Spine for Disc Nucleus Replacement Using a Novel Neurophysiological Monitoring System.” The 9th IMAST, May 2002, 1 page. |
Pimenta et al., “The Lateral Endoscopic Transpsoas Retroperitoneal Approach (Letra) fbr Implants in the Lumbar Spine,” World Spine II—Second Interdisciplinary Congress on Spine Care, Aug. 2003, 2 pages. |
Crock, H.V. MD., “Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. One Hundred Sixty Five, 1982, pp. 157-163, 13 pages. |
Mayer and Brock, “Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy: surgical technique and preliminary results compared to microsurgical discectomy,” J. Neurosurg, 1993, 78: 216-225. |
Schaffer and Kambin, “Percutaneous Posterolateral Lumbar Discectomy and Decompression with a 6.9-Millimeter Cannula,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1991, 73A(6): 822-831. |
Friedman, “Percutaneous discectomy: An alternative to chemonucleolysis,” Neurosurgery, 1983, 13(5): 542-547. |
Request for Inter PartesReexamination in re U.S. Pat. No. 7,905,840, dated Feb. 8, 2012, 204 pages. |
Brau, “Chapter 22: Anterior Retroperitoneal Muscle-Sparing approach to L2-S1 of the Lumbar Spine,” Surgical Approaches to the Spine. Robert G. Watkins, MD. (ed) 2003. pp. 165-181. |
Kossrnann et al., “Minimally Invasive Vertebral Replacement with Cages in Thoracic and Lumbar Spine,” European Journal of Trauma, 2001, 27: 292-300. |
Mayer H. M. (ed.) Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Surgical Manual. 2000. 51 pages. |
Pimenta et al., “Implante de protese de nucleo pulposo: analise inicial,” Journal Brasileiro de Neurocirurgia, 2001, 12(2): 93-96. |
Traynelis, “Spinal Arthroplasty,” Neurological Focus, 2002, 13(2): 12 pages. |
Zdeblick, Thomas A. (ed.). Anterior Approaches to the Spine. 1999. 43 pages. |
Amended Complaint for NuVasive, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-0849 (D. Del., Oct. 5, 2010), 28 pages. |
Request for Inter PartesReexamination in re U.S. Pat. No. 7,819,801, dated Feb. 8, 2012, 89 pages. |
Kossman et al., “The use of a refractor system (SynFrame) for open, minimal invasive reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic and lumbar spine,” Eur Spine J, 2001, 10: 396-402. |
De Peretti et al., “New possibilities in L2-L5 lumbar arthrodesis using a lateral retroperitoneal approach assisted by laparoscopy: preliminary results,” Eur Spine J, 1996, 5: 210-216. |
Litwin et al., “Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with the handport system,” Annals of Surgery, 2000, 231(5): 715-723. |
Acland's Video Atlas of Human Anatomy, Section 3.1.7: Paravertebral Muscles. Available online: http://aclandanatomy.com/abstract/4010463. Accessed Jul. 11, 2012. |
MedlinePlus, a Service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. Available online: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/. Accessed Jul. 11, 2012. |
Baulot et al., Adjuvant Anterior Spinal Fusion via Thoracoscopy, Lyon Chirurgical, 1994, 90(5): 347-351 including English Translation and Certificate of Translation. |
Leu et al., “Percutaneous Fusion of the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, 1992, 6(3): 593-604. |
Rosenthal et al., “Removal of a Protruded Thoracic Disc Using Microsurgical Endoscopy,” Spine, 1994, 19(9): 1087-1091. |
Counterclaim Defendants' Corrected Amended Invalidity Contentions re U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,000,782; 8,005,535; 8,016,767; 8,192,356; 8,187,334; 8,361,156, D. 652,922; D. 666,294 re Case No. 3:12-cv-02738-CAB(MDD), dated Aug. 19, 2013, 30 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00034, filed Oct. 8, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00035, filed Oct. 8, 2013, 65 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00034, Oct. 7, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker from IPR2014-00034, Oct. 4, 2013, 64 pages. |
NuVasive, Inc's Opening Claim Construction Brief Regarding U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,000,782; 8,005,535; 8,016,767; 8,192,356; 8,187,334; 8,361,156; D. 652,922; and 5,676,146 C2, filed Sep. 3, 2013, in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02738-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.)., 34 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00073, filed Oct. 18, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00074, filed Oct. 18, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00075, filed Oct. 21, 2013, 66 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00076, filed Oct. 21, 2013, 65 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00081, filed Oct. 22, 2013, 64 pages. |
Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00087, filed Oct. 22, 2013, 64 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/392,214, filed Jun. 26, 2002, 97 pages. |
Amendment in reply to Feb. 15, 2012 Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,418, dated Mar. 16, 2012, 24 pages. |
Decision on Appeal in Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,247, dated Mar. 18, 2013, 49 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00075, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Amendment in reply to Action of Feb. 7, 2011 and Notice of May 12, 2011, in U.S. Appl. No. 11/789,284, dated May 17, 2011, 16 pages. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/789,284, dated Jul. 18, 2011, 8 pages. |
Office action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/789,284, dated Feb. 7, 2011, 10 pages. |
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 65 (10th ed. 1998). |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Moed et al., “Evaluation of Intraoperative Nerve-Monitoring During Insertion of an Iliosacral Implant in an Animal Model, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,” 1999, 81-A(11): 9. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-0081, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker from IPR2014-00081, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/325,424, filed Sep. 25, 2001, 346 pages. |
Declaration of Lee Grant, from IPR2014-0087, Oct. 9, 2013, 36 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker from IPR2014-00087, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination in re: U.S. Pat. No. 7,691,057, dated Feb. 8, 2012, 50 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, Ph.D. from IPR2014-00034, Oct. 7, 2013, 1056 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, Ph.D. from IPR2014-00035, Oct. 7, 2013, 661 pages. |
510(K) No. K002677, approved by the FDA on Nov. 13, 2000, 634 pages. |
510(K) No. K013215, approved by the FDA on Oct. 16, 2001, 376 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 18, 2013, 1101 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00073, Oct. 12, 2013, 1226 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 18, 2013, 548 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00074, Oct. 12, 2013, 565 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00075, Oct. 18, 2013, 674 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00075, Oct. 12, 2013, 1107 pages. |
Declaration of Robert G. Watkins, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 18, 2013, 543 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 12, 2013, 1247 pages. |
Declaration of David Hacker, from IPR2014-00076, Oct. 10, 2013, 64 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz, from IPR2014-0081, Oct. 21, 2013, 585 pages. |
Declaration of Daniel Schwartz from IPR2014-0087, Oct. 21, 2013, 585 pages. |
International Search Report from PCT/US2005/036454, dated Jul. 26, 2007, 2 pages; International Preliminary Report on Patentability from PCT/US2005/036454, dated Aug. 21, 2007, 8 pages. |
Wolfhard Caspar, Technique of Microsurgery, in Microsurgery of the Lumbar Spine, Ch. 12 (Dec. 1989 Williams et al. ed.) , pp. 105-122. |
Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and Appliances (Philip Harris & Co.) 1904, 7 pages. |
Riordan, T. “A business man invents a device to give laparoscopic surgeons a better view of their work,” The New York Times, Mar. 29, 2004, 1 page. |
Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments, Medical Appliances, Diagnostic Apparatus, Etc., by Hynson, Westcott & Co., 1895, 9 pages. |
Surgical & Dental Instruments, by Noyes Bros. & Cutler, St. Paul, MN US, 1895, 6 pages. |
Massey, Conservative Gynecology and Electro-Therapeutics (Philadelphia, F.A. Davis Company, 1909), 545 pages. |
Winckel F., Diseases of Women: a Handbook for Physicians and Students (Philadelphia, P. Biakiston, Son & Co., 1887), 713 pages. |
Ashton, W. A Text-Book on the Practice of Gynecology for Practitioners and Students, (Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Company, 1916), 1120 pages. |
Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical and Scientific Instruments and Appliances, The Surgical Manufacturing Co., London, 1920, 3 pages. |
Reid, “On the Vaginal Speculum.” in: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Diseases of Women and Children, vol. 16 (New York, W.A. Townsend & Adams, 1883), pp. 276-281. |
Reid, “New Bivalve Speculum.” in: The Transactions of the Edinburgh Obsterical Society (Edinburgh, Oliver & Boyd, 1883), pp. 57-59. |
Thorburn, A Practical Treatise on the Diseases of Women (Philadelphia, Miller, 1887), pp. 16-17. |
Ricci, The Vaginal Speculum and Its Modifications Throughout the Ages (New York Medical College, City Hospital Division, 1949), 29 pages. |
Clinical Gynecology, Medical and Surgical, for Students and Practitioners (Philadelphia, Keating & Coe ed,, 1894), 1067 pages. |
Miltex Surgical Instruments, Miltex Instrument Company, Inc., 1996, 656 pages. |
Standard Surgical Instruments, Medical Department, U.S. Army, 1920, 23 pages. |
Davenport, Diseases of Women: A Manual of Gynecology Designed Especially for the Use of Students and General Practitioners, (Philadelphia, Lea Brothers & Co., 1898), 437 pages. |
Montgomery, E. “Endometritis: Uterine Dilatation and Drainage.” in: The Medical News: A Weekly Medical Journal, vol. 60 (Jan.-Jun. 1892), pp. 404-407. |
The Surgical Armamentarium (V. Mueller 1973), 2 pages. |
Goodell's Speculum I, Dittrick Museum of Medical History, No later than Jun. 25, 2001, 6 pages. |
Goodell's Speculum II, Dittrick Museum of Medical History, No later than Jun. 25, 2001, 8 pages. |
De Vilbiss Speculum II, Dittrick Museum of Medical History, No later than Jun. 25, 2001, 2 pages. |
De Vilbiss Speculum III, Dittrick Museum of Medical History, No later than Jun. 25, 2001, 7 pages. |
De Vilbiss Speculum I, Dittrick Museum of Medical History, No later than Jun. 25, 2001, 8 pages. |
Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical and Scientific Instruments and Appliances (The Surgical Manufacturing Co.) 1920, 3 pages. |
McCulloch and Young, “Instrumentation for Spinal Microsurgery, Including Ancillary Equipment.” in: Essentials of Spinal Microsurgery, (Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven,1998), 24 pages. |
Caspar W., “The Microsurgical Technique for Herniated Lumbar Disk Operations.” in: Aesculap Scientific Information, Edition 4, No later than Jun. 25, 2001, 4 pages. |
Papavero and Caspar, “The Lumbar Microdiscectorny,” Acts Orthop Scand (Suppl. 251), 1993, 64:34-37. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210290216 A1 | Sep 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60720710 | Sep 2005 | US | |
60617498 | Oct 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16400978 | May 2019 | US |
Child | 17162292 | US | |
Parent | 15484871 | Apr 2017 | US |
Child | 16400978 | US | |
Parent | 11665039 | US | |
Child | 15484871 | US |