This subject invention relates to a surgical table extension.
Surgical table extensions are designed to attach to one end of a conventional surgical table in order to X-ray a patient, perform spine fixation procedures, and to perform other medical procedures. U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,067 shows a surgical table extension with a wheeled based and an extendable and retractable leg pivotably attached to one end of a patient support platform allowing it to tilt laterally with the surgical table. The applicant hereof has designed and offers for sale various different table extensions with an extendable and retractable leg.
For certain medical procedures, it is desirable that the table extension tilt laterally and also flex upwardly and downwardly (for Trendelenburg, reverse Trendelenburg, and flex positioning) all the while providing adequate support for the patient. An optimal design would allow the table extension to be stored compactly, easily transported to the surgical table and secured thereto, and then easily dismantled, folded, and transported back to storage.
It is therefore an object of this invention to provide a surgical table extension which provides adequate patient support irrespective of the lateral tilt or flex position of the table.
It is a further object of this invention to provide such a table extension designed so the base cannot be accidentally placed into a position wherein the table is no longer able to support a patient.
It is a further object of this invention to provide such a table extension designed so that the support leg does not suffer from moments or other loads which could lead to failure and/or the inability to adequately support a patient.
It is a further object of this invention to provide such a table extension which is designed to be compactly stored.
It is a further object of this invention to provide such a table extension which can be easily transported.
It is a further object of this invention to provide such a table extension which is easy to deploy and easy to attach to a surgical table.
It is a further object of this invention to provide such a table extension which is easy to dismantle from the surgical table and easy to fold for transport.
The subject invention, in one preferred embodiment, results from the realization that a large area base attached to the support leg of a surgical table extension and designed to limit the range of motion of the base with respect to the support leg while still providing lateral tilt and flexing ensures the table extension adequately supports the patient and further reduces moments and loads placed on the support leg. The subject invention results from the further realization that the extension table is easier to store and transport if it is designed to include an integral cart.
The subject invention, however, in other embodiments, need not achieve all these objectives and the claims hereof should not be limited to structures or methods capable of achieving these objectives.
In one example, a surgical table extension, in accordance with the subject invention, includes a patient support structure, a large area base, and a support leg. There is a first joint having at least two degrees of freedom located between the patient support structure and the support leg and a second joint having at least two degrees of freedom located between the base and the support leg. A stop limits the range of motion of the support leg such that a portion of the base area is constrained to be below the first joint irrespective of the position of the base.
In the preferred embodiment, the first and second joints are U-joints. There may be a first bracket attached to the patient support structure, a second bracket attached to the support leg, and the first joint is disposed between the first and second brackets. Typically, the large area base includes a U-shaped bottom. The base can include wheels offset upwardly on the base for transporting the table extension when the base is tilted. In the preferred embodiment, a plate is integral with the base and has an orifice through which the support leg extends. The stop is defined by the size and/or configuration of the orifice. The plate terminates in a shelf for supporting the patient support structure when folded proximate the support leg.
There is also typically a mechanism for attaching the patient support structure to the surgical table. One example is at least one post insertable into a rail of the surgical table. Another example of an attachment mechanism includes at least one clamp attachable to the surgical table.
The patient support structure may include a platform which can be in two sections joined together by an axle. Another patient support structure includes opposing beams joined via a bracket. In one example, each of the beams include two sections joined together by an axle.
Typically, the support leg includes a plurality of telescoping sections and a crank mechanism for extending and retracting the telescoping sections.
Another surgical table extension in accordance with this invention includes a patient support structure and a large area U-shaped based including at least one wheel offset upwardly and a plate including an orifice and a shelf for supporting the patient support structure for transport. There is an extendable and retractable support leg extending through the orifice in the plate. A first joint is between the patient support structure and the support leg and a second joint is between the base and the support leg. The orifice is configured to limit the motion of the base relative to the support leg.
Still another surgical table extension in accordance with this invention features a patient support structure, a base, a support leg extending between the patient support structure and the base, and an integral cart for transporting and storing the table extension. In one example, the integral cart includes wheels offset upwardly from the base and a shelf for supporting the patient support structure. There is a plate attached to the base including an orifice therethrough through which the support leg extends. The plate terminates in the shelf.
Still another a surgical table extension in accordance with the subject invention features a patient support structure formed in two sections articulatable with respect to each other. There is a base and a support leg extending between one section of the patient support structure and the base.
Other objects, features and advantages will occur to those skilled in the art from the following description of a preferred embodiment and the accompanying drawings, in which:
Aside from the preferred embodiment or embodiments disclosed below, this invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or being carried out in various ways. Thus, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction and the arrangements of components set forth in the following description or illustrated in the drawings. If only one embodiment is described herein, the claims hereof are not to be limited to that embodiment. Moreover, the claims hereof are not to be read restrictively unless there is clear and convincing evidence manifesting a certain exclusion, restriction, or disclaimer.
As delineated in the Background section above, for certain medical procedures, it is desirable that table extension tilt laterally and also flex upwardly and downwardly all the while providing adequate support for the patient. An optimal design would allow the table extension to be stored compactly, easily transported to the surgical table and secured thereto, and easily dismantled, folded, and transported back to storage. The prior art table extensions shown in
Surgical table extension 30,
Upper joint 38 allows movement in the direction shown by arrows 50 and 52; lower joint 40 allows movement in the direction shown by arrows 54 and 56; and leg 36 is extendable and retractable up and down as shown by arrows 58 by virtue of three telescoping sections two of which are shown in
One feature of extension 30 as shown in
Base plate 80,
The various positions achievable by the table extension is shown in one example in
The result in any embodiment is a sturdy design wherein the extension table is capable of supporting a 400 lb patient irrespective of the lateral tilt angle of the patient support structure or the upward or downward tilt thereof. The wide area base with the limiting stop discussed above makes it highly unlikely that the base can be kicked out into a position where it would no longer adequately support a patient. Large moments or other loads are prevented from being imposed on the support leg. The patient support structure, typically 48 inches in length, provides good C-arm access during X-ray imaging. The integral cart allows for easy transportation and simple set up. Up to 20° of lateral tilt is provided for improved surgical site access. The patient can be lowered for improved surgical site access during spinal procedures and Trendelenburg, reverse Trendelenburg, and flex positions are easily attained. The surgical table extension of the subject invention is easy to transport, easy to affix to a surgical table, and also easy to dismantle therefrom.
Although specific features of the invention are shown in some drawings and not in others, this is for convenience only as each feature may be combined with any or all of the other features in accordance with the invention. The words “including”, “comprising”, “having”, and “with” as used herein are to be interpreted broadly and comprehensively and are not limited to any physical interconnection. Moreover, any embodiments disclosed in the subject application are not to be taken as the only possible embodiments. Other embodiments will occur to those skilled in the art and are within the following claims.
In addition, any amendment presented during the prosecution of the patent application for this patent is not a disclaimer of any claim element presented in the application as filed: those skilled in the art cannot reasonably be expected to draft a claim that would literally encompass all possible equivalents, many equivalents will be unforeseeable at the time of the amendment and are beyond a fair interpretation of what is to be surrendered (if anything), the rationale underlying the amendment may bear no more than a tangential relation to many equivalents, and/or there are many other reasons the applicant can not be expected to describe certain insubstantial substitutes for any claim element amended.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/229,759, filed Sep. 19, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,520,008, which claimed the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/626,627, filed Nov. 10, 2004, the disclosures of each of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2688142 | Jensen | Sep 1954 | A |
2872259 | Thorpe | Feb 1959 | A |
3042025 | Jackson | Jul 1962 | A |
3493225 | Ceraldi | Feb 1970 | A |
3947686 | Cooper et al. | Mar 1976 | A |
4033339 | Roberts et al. | Jul 1977 | A |
4054282 | Hamer | Oct 1977 | A |
4139917 | Fenwick | Feb 1979 | A |
4225125 | Lee | Sep 1980 | A |
4239200 | Sarrafian et al. | Dec 1980 | A |
4391438 | Heffington, Jr. | Jul 1983 | A |
D271834 | Huntsinger | Dec 1983 | S |
4474364 | Brendgord | Oct 1984 | A |
4506872 | Westerberg et al. | Mar 1985 | A |
4527555 | Ruf | Jul 1985 | A |
4527787 | Collis, Jr. | Jul 1985 | A |
4558857 | Heller | Dec 1985 | A |
4562588 | Ruf | Dec 1985 | A |
4616813 | McConnell | Oct 1986 | A |
4635914 | Kabanek | Jan 1987 | A |
4653482 | Kurland | Mar 1987 | A |
4662619 | Ray et al. | May 1987 | A |
4671728 | Clark et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4712781 | Watanabe | Dec 1987 | A |
4752064 | Voss | Jun 1988 | A |
4840363 | McConnell | Jun 1989 | A |
4872656 | Brendgord et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4989848 | Monroe | Feb 1991 | A |
4995067 | Royster et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
5088706 | Jackson | Feb 1992 | A |
5131106 | Jackson | Jul 1992 | A |
5444882 | Andrews et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5520623 | Williams | May 1996 | A |
5535466 | Snell | Jul 1996 | A |
5613254 | Clayman et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5628078 | Pennington et al. | May 1997 | A |
5655238 | Stickley et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5658315 | Lamb et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5675851 | Feathers | Oct 1997 | A |
5758374 | Ronci | Jun 1998 | A |
5926876 | Haigh et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
D414974 | Marrone, II et al. | Oct 1999 | S |
6001076 | Wilson et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6003174 | Kantrowitz et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6120397 | Julian | Sep 2000 | A |
6195820 | Heimbrock et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6199233 | Kantrowitz et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6199552 | Crespo | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6237172 | Morgan, Sr. | May 2001 | B1 |
6260220 | Lamb et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6295671 | Reesby et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6336412 | Heimbrock et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6526609 | Wong | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6557195 | Dinkler | May 2003 | B2 |
6584630 | Dinkler | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6637058 | Lamb | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6813788 | Dinkler et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
7017211 | Krywiczanin et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7520008 | Wong et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
20040133979 | Newkirk et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133983 | Newkirk et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050160533 | Boucher et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20060096033 | Wong et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090199340 A1 | Aug 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60626627 | Nov 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11229759 | Sep 2005 | US |
Child | 12417772 | US |