1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to medical methods and apparatus. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and apparatus used to restrict flexion of a spinal segment. The methods and apparatus disclosed herein may be used alone or in combination with other orthopedic procedures such as those intended to treat patients with spinal disorders. Exemplary spinal disorders include but are not limited to back pain as well as joint problems, vertebral fractures, intervertebral disc, nucleus and annulus problems.
A host of spinal conditions exist which often result in mobility issues and/or back pain. A major source of chronic low back pain is discogenic pain, also known as internal disc disruption. Discogenic pain can be quite disabling, and for some patients, can dramatically affect their ability to work and otherwise enjoy their lives. Patients suffering from discogenic pain tend to be young, otherwise healthy individuals who present with pain localized to the back. Discogenic pain usually occurs at the discs located at the L4-L5 or L5-S1 junctions of the spine. Pain tends to be exacerbated when patients put their lumbar spines into flexion (i.e. by sitting or bending forward) and relieved when they put their lumbar spines into extension (i.e. by standing or arching backwards). Flexion and extension are known to change the mechanical loading pattern of a lumbar segment. When the segment is in extension, the axial loads borne by the segment are shared by the disc and facet joints (approximately 30% of the load is borne by the facet joints). In flexion, the segmental load is borne almost entirely by the disc. Furthermore, in flexion the nucleus shifts posteriorly, changing the loads on the posterior portion of the annulus (which is innervated), likely causing its fibers to be subject to tension and shear forces. Segmental flexion, then, increases both the loads borne by the disc and causes them to be borne in a more painful way. It would therefore be desirable to provide methods and apparatus that reduce or modulate loading on the disc and adjacent tissue.
A number of treatments exist for addressing back pain and spinal mobility. Some of these include the use of artificial discs, artificial nucleus replacement, annulus repair, kyphoplasty treatment of vertebral fractures, instrumentation of the spinal segment with or without concomitant fusion, and facet joint replacement. Many of these treatments are promising, yet in some cases they also have potential drawbacks. For example, when spinal fusion is performed, excessive motion or loading of spinal segments may result. Often, the excessive motion or loading and consequent effects occur at a level adjacent the fusion (referred to as adjacent segment degeneration or junctional syndrome). This can result in further degeneration of the motion segments. Therefore, it would be desirable if flexion at adjacent level(s) of the spinal segment were restricted, thereby reducing or eliminating the excessive motion and any further degeneration.
Other treatments such as disc replacement, nucleus replacement, annulus repair, facet joint repair, and vertebral fracture repair could also benefit from restricted flexion in the vicinity of treatment area. For example, excessive flexion may loosen the purchase of a prosthesis to the anatomical structures, such as by toggling the pedicle screws that anchor a prosthetic facet joint device. Restricting flexion in the vicinity of the treatment area modulates loads borne by these implants or by surrounding tissue thus reducing, eliminating, or mitigating iatrogenic damage to tissue as well as reducing loads borne by any prostheses and adjacent tissue and further providing additional flexion stability.
For the aforementioned reasons, it would therefore be advantageous to provide methods and apparatus that modulate loads borne by implants used in spinal surgery. It would also be desirable if such methods and apparatus would also modulate loads borne by tissue in the vicinity of the surgically treated region and also provide additional flexion stability. It would further be desirable if the apparatus and methods providing the flexion stability preserved the natural motion and physiology of the patient so as to allow the patient to maintain mobility and minimize or avoid detrimental clinical effects caused by forces resulting from non-physiological loading. It would be further desirable if such methods and apparatus were minimally invasive to the patient, cost effective, and easy to use. It would further be desirable if such methods and apparatus were resistant to damage or failure over repetitive loading conditions in the body.
2. Description of the Background Art
Patents and published applications of interest include: U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,648,691; 4,643,178; 4,743,260; 4,966,600; 5,011,494; 5,092,866; 5,116,340; 5,180,393; 5,282,863; 5,395,374; 5,415,658; 5,415,661; 5,449,361; 5,456,722; 5,462,542; 5,496,318; 5,540,698; 5,562,737; 5,609,634; 5,628,756; 5,645,599; 5,725,582; 5,902,305; Re. 36,221; U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,928,232; 5,935,133; 5,964,769; 5,989,256; 6,053,921; 6,248,106; 6,312,431; 6,364,883; 6,378,289; 6,391,030; 6,468,309; 6,436,099; 6,451,019; 6,582,433; 6,605,091; 6,626,944; 6,629,975; 6,652,527; 6,652,585; 6,656,185; 6,669,729; 6,682,533; 6,689,140; 6,712,819; 6,689,168; 6,695,852; 6,716,245; 6,761,720; 6,835,205; 7,029,475; 7,163,558; Published U.S. Patent Application Nos. US 2002/0151978; US 2004/0024458; US 2004/0106995; US 2004/0116927; US 2004/0117017; US 2004/0127989; US 2004/0172132; US 2004/0243239; US 2005/0033435; US 2005/0049708; 2005/0192581; 2005/0216017; US 2006/0069447; US 2006/0136060; US 2006/0240533; US 2007/0213829; US 2007/0233096; 2008/0009866; 2008/0108993; Published PCT Application Nos. WO 01/28442 A1; WO 02/03882 A2; WO 02/051326 A1; WO 02/071960 A1; WO 03/045262 A1; WO2004/052246 A1; WO 2004/073532 A1; WO2008/051806; WO2008/051423; WO2008/051801; WO2008/051802; and Published Foreign Application Nos. EP0322334 A1; and FR 2 681 525 A1. The mechanical properties of flexible constraints applied to spinal segments are described in Papp et al. (1997) Spine 22:151-155; Dickman et al. (1997) Spine 22:596-604; and Garner et al. (2002) Eur. Spine J. S186-S191; Al Baz et al. (1995) Spine 20, No. 11, 1241-1244; Heller, (1997) Arch. Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, 117, No. 1-2:96-99; Leahy et al. (2000) Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H: J. Eng. Med. 214, No. 5: 489-495; Minns et al., (1997) Spine 22 No. 16:1819-1825; Miyasaka et al. (2000) Spine 25, No. 6: 732-737; Shepherd et al. (2000) Spine 25, No. 3: 319-323; Shepherd (2001) Medical Eng. Phys. 23, No. 2: 135-141; and Voydeville et al (1992) Orthop Traumatol 2:259-264.
The present invention generally relates to medical methods and apparatus. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and apparatus used to restrict flexion of a spinal segment. The methods and apparatus disclosed herein may be used alone or in combination with other orthopedic procedures such as those intended to treat patients with spinal disorders. Exemplary spinal disorders include but are not limited to back pain as well as joint problems, vertebral fractures, intervertebral disc, annulus and nucleus problems.
In a first aspect of the present invention, a surgical method comprises implanting a first prosthesis into the patient where the first prosthesis is engaged with at least a portion of a spinal segment in the patient. The method also includes the step of implanting a constraint device into the patient, with the constraint device having an upper tether portion, a lower tether portion and a compliance member coupled therebetween. An upper portion of the constraint device is engaged with a superior spinous process and a lower portion of the constraint device is engaged with an inferior spinous process or a sacrum. The length or tension in the constraint device is adjusted so that the construct of the tethers and compliance member provides a force resistant to flexion of the spinal segment. The length or tension may be adjusted to a desired value. Also the constraint device modulates loads borne by the first prosthesis or tissue adjacent thereto. The constraint device may indirectly modulate these loads. The first prosthesis may comprise bone graft.
In another aspect of the present invention, a spinal treatment system comprises a constraint device having an upper tether portion, a lower tether portion and a compliance member coupled therebetween. The upper tether portion is coupled with a superior spinous process of a spinal segment in a patient and the lower tether portion is coupled with an inferior spinous process or sacrum of the spinal segment. Length or tension in the constraint device is adjustable so that the construct of the compliance member and tethers provides a force resistant to flexion of the spinal segment. The system also includes a first prosthesis coupled with the spinal segment, wherein the constraint device modulates loads borne by the prosthesis or by tissue adjacent thereto.
In yet another aspect of the present invention, a spinal treatment system comprises a first prosthesis comprising a plurality of pedicle screws and at least one spinal stabilization rod. The first prosthesis is adapted to instrument a pair of vertebrae to be fused. The pair of vertebrae is disposed in a spinal segment of a patient, and at least one pedicle screw is threadably engaged with at least one each of the vertebrae to be fused. The stabilization rod is coupled with the at least one pedicle screw and also the stabilization rod is disposed across the pair of vertebrae to be fused. A constraint device comprises a compliance member, with the constraint device being superior to at least a portion of the pair of vertebrae to be fused. A lower portion of the constraint device is operatively coupled with at least one of the pedicle screws, and the constraint device length or tension is adjustable to so as to provide a force resistant to flexion of the spinal segment superior to the vertebrae to be fused. Alternatively, a lower portion of the constraint device may be operatively coupled directly with one of the fused vertebra, such as by encircling the spinous process of the fused vertebra. The constraint device length or tension may be adjusted to a desired value. The constraint device also modulates loads borne by the first prosthesis and tissue adjacent thereto. The constraint device may comprise an upper tether portion that is disposed at least partially around a superior spinous process or an upper portion of the compliance member may be operatively coupled with a pedicle screw that is threadably engaged with a pedicle superior to the instrumented region of the spinal segment. In alternative embodiments, the embodiment described above may be inverted so that the constraint device may be inferior to at least a portion of the pair of vertebrae to be fused.
Sometimes the first prosthesis may comprise an artificial disc that is implanted between adjacent vertebrae. The disc may be implanted from a posterior, anterior, lateral, or other approach and the adjacent tissue may comprise an intervertebral disc, vertebral body, endplate or facet joints which may be adjacent the artificial disc. In some embodiments, the first prosthesis may comprise an artificial facet joint.
Sometimes, at least one of the first prosthesis or the constraint device may comprise a therapeutic agent that is adapted to modify tissue in the spinal segment. The therapeutic agent may comprise a bone morphogenetic protein or one of its precursors, or another agent whose effect is to modify the load-bearing characteristics of the spinal segment.
The method may further comprise the steps of fusing two adjacent vertebrae together with bone grafting material and implanting the first prosthesis may comprise coupling a substantially inelastic tether to the superior vertebra of the two vertebrae that are fused or will be fused together, wherein the construct of the substantially inelastic tether and lower tether portion limits flexion between the two vertebra that are fused or that will be fused together. The construct of the constraint device also provides a force that is resistant to flexion of the supradjacent or the subjacent motion segment or pair of vertebrae. The substantially inelastic tether also may be disposed between the upper and lower tether portions. The substantially inelastic tether may be disposed at least partially around a superior surface of an intermediate spinous process. The inelastic tether may also be disposed through a notch or hole in intermediate spinous process. Additional disclosure on notching or creating an aperture in a spinous process is disclosed in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/149,224 filed Feb. 2, 2009, and International PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/022767, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference. The intermediate spinous process may be disposed between the superior spinous process and the inferior spinous process or the sacrum.
Sometimes implanting the first prosthesis comprises positioning a spacer between a pair of adjacent spinous processes. The pair of adjacent spinous processes between which the spacer is implanted may be disposed superior to at least one of the superior spinous process, the inferior spinous process, or the sacrum, and the spacer may inhibit extension of at least a portion of the spinal segment at which it is implanted. The force provided by the construct of the compliance member and tethers may resist flexion of a portion of the spinal segment inferior to the spacer. In other embodiments, implanting the first prosthesis may comprise positioning a spacer between a pair of adjacent spinous processes that are disposed inferior to at least one of the superior spinous process, or the inferior spinous process. The spacer inhibits extension of at least a portion of the spinal segment at which it is implanted and the force provided by the construct of the compliance member and tethers may resist flexion of a spinal segment that is superior to the spacer.
Implanting the first prosthesis may comprise inserting a prosthetic nucleus into a disc disposed between adjacent vertebrae. During segmental flexion, wedging of the vertebral endplates may force the prosthetic nucleus dorsally. Adjusting length or tension in the constraint device may inhibit migration or expulsion of the prosthetic nucleus away from the center of the disc. The tension of the constraint device may be modified or re-adjusted either transcutaneously or in a second surgical procedure. This allows the constraint device to initially be adjusted to a higher tension during an initial period of time after nucleus implantation when greater segmental stiffness is desirable. The higher initial stiffness facilitates soft tissue healing and also minimizes the risk of early nucleus migration from the disc. After the initial healing period, tension may be re-adjusted to a desired value, such as to a lower value in order to decrease segmental stiffness. The method may further comprise fully removing a disc or partially removing disc material between adjacent vertebrae of the spinal segment. The constraint device may modulate loading on the disc space, a prosthetic nucleus placed, or region and any remaining disc material. The constraint device may inhibit re-herniation of the disc after discectomy. The first prosthesis may comprise an annular repair device that is configured to repair or compensate for an injury or defect in an annulus fibrosus of the spinal segment. Implanting the first prosthesis may comprise implanting the annular repair device from a posterior approach. The constraint device may inhibit migration or expulsion of the annular repair device from the annulus fibrosus.
Implanting the first prosthesis may comprise injecting a filler material such as bone cement into a vertebra. Implanting the first prosthesis may comprise treating a fractured vertebra with kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty. The constraint device may modulate loading on the vertebra.
The step of implanting the constraint device may comprise piercing an interspinous ligament to form a penetration superior to superior surface of the superior spinous process and advancing the upper tether portion through the penetration. The step of implanting the constraint device may also comprise piercing an interspinous ligament to form a penetration inferior to an inferior surface of the inferior spinous process and advancing the lower tether portion through the penetration. In other embodiments, the constraint device may be advanced through a notch or aperture in either of the superior or inferior spinous processes, as disclosed in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/149,224, and International PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/022767 previously incorporated herein by reference. Alternatively, the constraint device may be advanced through a gap between the superior spinous process and an adjacent spinous process, or a gap between the inferior spinous process and an adjacent spinous process. The gap may be created by surgical removal of an interspinous ligament therefrom during a decompression or other procedure. Adjusting length or tension in the constraint device may comprise adjusting the length or tension a plurality of times during treatment of the spinal segment and during or after healing of the spinal segment. Adjusting length or tension may further comprise transcutaneous adjustment after the initial implantation procedure is completed. Sometimes, the region extending directly between an inferior surface of the superior spinous process and a superior surface of the inferior spinous process may remain free of prostheses.
In some embodiments, the method may further comprise fusing a pair of adjacent vertebrae of a spinal segment in a patient. Fusing the pair of adjacent vertebrae may further comprise instrumenting the pair of adjacent vertebrae with a plurality of pedicle screws and at least one stabilization rod disposed therebetween. The method may also comprise implanting a constraint device into the patient, the constraint device engaging a vertebra adjacent to the fused pair of vertebrae, typically immediately superior to but potentially immediately inferior to the fused pair of vertebrae. The constraint device may comprise a compliance member with a portion of the constraint device operatively coupled with a pedicle screw system or coupled directly to one of the fused vertebrae. The method also may include the step of adjusting length or tension in the constraint device, thereby providing a force resistant to flexion of the spinal segment and modulating loads borne by the instrumented adjacent vertebrae and tissue adjacent thereto. The length or tension may be adjusted to a desired a value.
The constraint device may comprise an upper tether portion that is disposed at least partially around or through a superior spinous process. Alternatively, an upper portion of the compliance member may be operatively coupled with a fastener that is coupled with a pedicle superior to the instrumented region of the spinal segment. The fastener may comprise a pedicle screw. In alternative embodiments, the constraint device may also be attached to the inferior adjacent segment. Thus, the constraint device may comprise a lower tether portion that is disposed at least partially around or through an inferior spinous process or sacrum. Alternatively, the lower portion of the compliance member may be operatively coupled with a fastener such as a pedicle screw, that is coupled with a pedicle inferior to the instrumented region of the spinal segment or directly coupled to the spinal segment, inferior of the fused vertebrae.
These and other embodiments are described in further detail in the following description related to the appended drawing figures.
As used herein, “neutral position” refers to the position in which the patient's spine rests in a relaxed standing position. The “neutral position” will vary from patient to patient. Usually, such a neutral position will be characterized by a slight curvature or lordosis of the lumbar spine where the spine has a slight anterior convexity and slight posterior concavity. In some cases, the presence of the constraint of the present invention may modify the neutral position, e.g. the device may apply an initial force which defines a “new” neutral position having some extension of the untreated spine. As such, the use of the term “neutral position” is to be taken in context of the presence or absence of the device. As used herein, “neutral position of the spinal segment” refers to the position of a spinal segment when the spine is in the neutral position.
Furthermore, as used herein, “flexion” refers to the motion between adjacent vertebrae of a spinal segment as the patient bends forward. Referring to
Additionally, as used herein, “extension” refers to the motion of the individual vertebrae L as the patient bends backward and the spine extends from the neutral position illustrated in
Back pain may be caused by a number of conditions associated with the spinal segment, and many different types of spinal interventions and prostheses have been developed to address such conditions. Examples of treatments administered in an effort to alleviate back pain and related problems include replacement or modification of a disc or disc nucleus, repair of an annulus fibrosus, repair of vertebral fractures with kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty, facet joint replacement, and spinal fusion. These treatments are promising but in some circumstances may have drawbacks. For example, spinal prostheses or surgical procedures may adversely modify loading in the spinal column, causing excessive or otherwise detrimental loads to be borne by the prostheses or by treated or adjacent tissue. Such loads may result in loosening, migration or expulsion of a prosthesis, a significant risk for a prosthetic disc, facet, nucleus, or annular repair device, and a risk also for traditional fusion hardware. In addition, such loads may injure a treated site while it is still healing and vulnerable to mechanical damage and result in iatrogenically damaged tissue; this is particularly true for kyphoplasty. Over time, such loads may lead to degeneration of tissue adjoining a treatment site, as has been observed for segments adjacent to a spinal fusion. Furthermore, such loads may result in increased wear and tear on prostheses, decreasing such prostheses' useful lifetimes and potentially leading to device failures. For example, in the case of artificial discs, the disc edges often impinge on one another thereby causing cracking, wear, tissue inflammation as well as other device failure modes. Often, these detrimental loads are greatest or significantly exacerbated in segmental flexion. Flexion is the largest component of the intervertebral range of motion and is the most frequently exercised; as described previously, flexion increases loading on the intervertebral disc space and is associated with common spinal pathologies. It would therefore be desirable to provide methods and apparatus that can be used alone or in conjunction with other spinal treatments to help reduce the excessive loading and to provide additional flexion stability.
Spinal stabilization is typically accomplished with instrumentation such as pedicle screws and stabilization rods. Placement of such traditional instrumentation in many cases requires major surgery with significant operative morbidities and a long healing period, can be painful, may limit patient mobility, and can result in undesirable wear and tear on the instrumentation itself as well as on adjacent bone and other tissue. Rather than relying on direct stabilization and direct load bearing instrumentation, the present approach disclosed herein utilizes indirect unloading and indirect stabilization of the affected spinal segment by constraining flexion, preferentially biasing the motion of the spinal segment into extension where it is inherently more stable. The spinal segment is biased into this position using an adjustable constraint device that provides a variable force resistant to flexion. Using an indirect approach to augment stability of the spine provides a unique way to improve the mechanical loading environment for implanted spinal devices, surgically treated tissue, and adjacent tissue.
Another major advantage of using the present devices and methods is that no loading other than tensile loading is transferred to the constraint device, and thus the constraint device is likely to experience fewer failure modes than traditional instrumentation in which significant, complex loading is transferred to the screws and rods. The present constraint device therefore, not only attempts to maximize therapeutic effectiveness, but also attempts to minimize failure, while most existing spinal instrumentation maximizes load-bearing and consequentially has a high rate of mechanical failure.
There are other advantages of the present methods and apparatus. For example, traditional instrumentation with pedicle screws and stabilization rods crowds the surgical field and can limit a surgeon's access to a targeted region. In addition, such instrumentation limits the space available for implantation of other devices, especially devices that must be coupled to the spinal segment with screws. The present stabilization methods preferably avoid the use of screws, although screws may be used, allowing implantation of other screw-based devices if necessary. Additionally, less tissue resection is required to implant the present devices and methods relative to traditional instrumentation, providing a less invasive procedure with multiple corresponding clinical and economic benefits including less blood loss, shorter procedure time, faster healing, and a lower treatment cost.
Additionally, when traditional instrumentation such as pedicle screws and rods is used, the spinal segment, once instrumented, is locked into a given position. Even with dynamic stabilization rods, only limited motion is permitted. A rod-and-screw approach thus relies on the skill of the surgeon to determine the optimal position of the spinal segment prior to instrumenting it. The present devices and methods are advantageous because they do not “lock” the spinal segment into a rigid position. The present devices and methods are adjustable in situ and allow some movement of the spinal segment after implantation, reducing the need to establish a single optimal position before the implantation occurs. If this adjustability contributes to more consistent fit between the device and surrounding tissues, healing around the device and in surrounding tissue may occur in a more natural manner. The present devices may also be adjusted in later procedures after initial implantation and are thus likely to be better at accommodating changes over time compared to rigid instrumentation systems.
Another major challenge associated with traditional instrumentation such as rods and screws is the possibility of the devices failing due to shearing, bending, rotation, loosening, etc. The present device is not rigid and can accommodate these types of motions and therefore is less likely to fail in service. Because of its potentially lower failure rate, the present device should generate fewer safety concerns and a lower complication rate.
The present devices and methods also preserve more natural motion of the spinal segment and have unique kinematic signatures compared with other rigid or “flexible” instrumentation devices. Unlike pedicle screw and rod instrumentation, the present devices and methods tend to encourage engagement of the facets. This results in some indirect restriction of axial rotation, which may provide additional spinal segment stability. The present device disclosed herein intentionally allows backward motion (extension) which helps avoid issues with extension loading and may help with balancing of the patient's vertebral column. Most other instrumentation devices or systems do not permit backward motion of the spinal segment.
Based on the challenges associated with many existing back pain treatments and stabilization methods, it would therefore be desirable to provide methods and apparatus that can be used alone or in conjunction with other spinal treatments to help reduce the excessive loading and to provide additional flexion stability.
Many of the prostheses and procedures which can benefit from the constraint described herein were designed to be self-sufficient, such that a specific pathology is directly treated by the intervention. Examples include the treatment of a defect in the annulus fibrosis with an annular repair device and the treatment of a vertebral compression fracture with a kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty. While these interventions directly address the pathology, they often do not address secondary or transitory effects that they precipitate, as described above; as such, a further need for improvement over many stand-alone interventions exists. It should be noted that the adjunctive stabilization may be implanted concurrently with the primary prosthesis or procedure; or may be implanted at a later date to address degenerative changes associated with the detrimental loading of the primary prosthesis or adjacent tissue.
A limited number of implants are known that combine motion-preservation approaches to address multiple pathologies simultaneously; for example, the PDS by Disc Motion Technologies, is a combination of facet replacement device and total disc replacement prosthesis. However, such combination devices are intended to address two independent primary pathologies occurring in combination—for example, the combined disc replacement and facet replacement device addresses combined pathology of the facet joint and the disc. It would be advantageous to provide a means with which improve the results of a primary treatment by augmenting and modulating the biomechanics of the primary treatment. It would further be advantageous for the adjunctive therapy or constraint to be minimally invasive, to avoid the use of pedicle screws due to the known associated complications and morbidities, and to allow for physiologic loading and motion in concert with the intention of the primary motion-preservation treatment.
As illustrated in
Neither artificial discs nor facet joint replacement devices typically provide an elastic resistance to flexion of the spinal segment. These prostheses have bearing surfaces that are designed to minimize friction and may comprise a “hard stop” that limits travel. Therefore, applying a constraint device 304 around adjacent spinous processes SP helps limit flexion in the spinal segment. Constraint device 304 generally takes the same form as the constraint device illustrated in
In many of the embodiments disclosed herein, no implant is placed in between the constraint device. Thus, when a constraint device is coupled with a superior surface of a superior spinous process and an inferior surface of an inferior spinous process, the region extending directly between an inferior surface of the superior spinous process and a superior surface of the inferior spinous process often remains free of any spacers or other implants.
Unlike previous embodiments in which nothing is placed between spinous processes, in
An artificial or prosthetic nucleus may be used instead of a total disc prosthesis when disc degeneration is at an early or intermediate stage and the disc annulus is still competent and provides adequate constraint. By replacing only the nucleus, remaining disc tissues such as the annulus and endplates are preserved along with their functions. The surgical procedure for replacing the nucleus may be simpler than a total disc replacement. In
In any of the embodiments disclosed above, tension and or length of the constraint device may be adjusted in order to control how much resistance to flexion is provided. The constraint devices may be adjusted before, during or after implantation including transcutaneously so that additional surgery is avoided. This also allows the device to be adjusted as healing occurs. For example, a tighter constraint device that provides greater resistance to flexion may be provided during the initial phase of healing and a less tight constraint device that provides less resistance to flexion may be required as healing progresses. Various adjustment and locking mechanisms are disclosed in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 61/059,543; and 61/059,538; previously incorporated herein by reference, as well as other patent applications incorporated herein. Furthermore, any of the embodiments disclosed herein may also be used to carry and deliver a therapeutic agent that facilitates the healing process. For example, antibiotics may be carried by the constraint device to help prevent infection and bone morphogenetic proteins may also used in order to help stimulate bone or other tissue growth. Additionally, many of the embodiments disclosed herein show the constraint device limiting flexion of a spinal segment at the level of or superior to the level of the implant or treatment. One of skill in the art will appreciate that the constraint device may be applied to the spinal segment so as to limit flexion below the level of the implant or treatment. In addition, in some situations a lower portion of the constraint device may be coupled with the sacrum instead of an inferior spinous process. Sacral attachment methods are disclosed in greater detail in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/149,224; International PCT Application No. PCTfUS2010/022767; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/827,980, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference. In the embodiments described above, the constraint structure may be implanted concurrently with the first prosthesis or procedure, or in a separate procedure performed at another time.
While the exemplary embodiments have been described in some detail for clarity of understanding and by way of example, a number of modifications, changes, and adaptations may be implemented and/or will be obvious to those as skilled in the art. Hence, the scope of the present invention is limited solely by the independent claims.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/053,688 filed Feb. 25, 2016, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/796,874 filed Jul. 10, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/024,456 now U.S. Pat. No. 9,107,706, filed Sep. 11, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/721,198 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,562,653 filed Mar. 10, 2010, which is a non-provisional of, and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/158,892 filed Mar. 10, 2009; the entire contents of which is incorporated herein by reference. The present application is also related to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/158,886, the entire contents of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3648691 | Lumb et al. | Mar 1972 | A |
4246660 | Wevers | Jan 1981 | A |
4643178 | Nastari et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
4708132 | Silvestrini | Nov 1987 | A |
4743260 | Burton | May 1988 | A |
4772286 | Goble et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
4776851 | Bruchman et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4794916 | Porterfield et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4870957 | Goble et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4955910 | Bolesky | Sep 1990 | A |
4966600 | Songer et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5002574 | May et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5011484 | Breard | Apr 1991 | A |
5092866 | Breard et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5108433 | May et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5116340 | Songer et al. | May 1992 | A |
5171280 | Baumgartner | Dec 1992 | A |
5180393 | Commarmond | Jan 1993 | A |
5282863 | Burton | Feb 1994 | A |
5395374 | Miller et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5415658 | Kilpela et al. | May 1995 | A |
5415661 | Holmes | May 1995 | A |
5449361 | Preissman | Sep 1995 | A |
5456722 | McLeod et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5458601 | Young, Jr. et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5462542 | Alesi, Jr. | Oct 1995 | A |
5496318 | Howland et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5540698 | Preissman | Jul 1996 | A |
5562737 | Graf | Oct 1996 | A |
5609634 | Voydeville | Mar 1997 | A |
5628756 | Barker, Jr. et al. | May 1997 | A |
5645084 | McKay | Jul 1997 | A |
5645599 | Samani | Jul 1997 | A |
5669917 | Sauer et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5672175 | Martin | Sep 1997 | A |
5707379 | Fleenor et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5725582 | Bevan et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5797915 | Pierson, III et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5902305 | Beger et al. | May 1999 | A |
RE36221 | Breard et al. | Jun 1999 | E |
5928232 | Howland et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933452 | Eun | Aug 1999 | A |
5935133 | Wagner et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5964769 | Wagner et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5989256 | Kuslich et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6053921 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6193721 | Michelson | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6224630 | Bao et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6248106 | Ferree | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6277120 | Lawson | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6283996 | Chervitz et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6296643 | Hopf et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6312431 | Asfora | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6322279 | Yamamoto et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6364883 | Santilli | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6378289 | Trudeau et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6391030 | Wagner et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6395018 | Castaneda | May 2002 | B1 |
6436099 | Drewry et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6451019 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6468309 | Lieberman | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6517578 | Hein | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6558389 | Clark et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6582433 | Yun | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6605091 | Iwanski | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6616669 | Ogilvie et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6626944 | Taylor | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6629975 | Kilpela et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6652527 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6652585 | Lange | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6656185 | Gleason et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6669729 | Chin | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6682533 | Dinsdale et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6689140 | Cohen | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6689168 | Lieberman | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6695852 | Gleason | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6712819 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6716245 | Pasquet et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6761720 | Senegas | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6828357 | Martin et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6835205 | Atkinson et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6835207 | Zacouto et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6899716 | Cragg | May 2005 | B2 |
6946000 | Senegas et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7029475 | Panjabi | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7087083 | Pasquet et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7101398 | Dooris et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7163558 | Senegas et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7201751 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7238204 | Le et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7413576 | Sybert et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7445637 | Taylor | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7452351 | Miller et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7458981 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7520887 | Maxy et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7524324 | Winslow et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7553320 | Molz et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7559951 | Disilvestro et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7591837 | Goldsmith | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7608094 | Falahee | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7837711 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
8403961 | Fielding et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8523904 | Alamin et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8562653 | Alamin et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
9107706 | Alamin et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
20020032483 | Nicholson et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020151978 | Zacouto et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020173796 | Cragg | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030088251 | Braun et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20040024458 | Senegas et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040106995 | Le et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040116927 | Graf | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117017 | Pasquet et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040127989 | Dooris et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040167520 | Zucherman et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040172132 | Ginn | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040243239 | Taylor | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050033435 | Belliard et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050049708 | Atkinson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050123581 | Ringeisen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131405 | Molz et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154390 | Biedermann et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050192581 | Molz et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216017 | Fielding et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050245929 | Winslow et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267470 | McBride | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050267518 | Wright et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036324 | Sachs et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041259 | Paul et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060064166 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069447 | Disilvestro et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060084976 | Borgstrom et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060106381 | Ferree et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106397 | Lins et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060136060 | Taylor | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060142760 | McDonnell | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149230 | Kwak et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060195102 | Malandain | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060217726 | Maxy et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060240533 | Sengupta et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241610 | Lim et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241613 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060271055 | Thramann | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070010822 | Zalenski et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070073293 | Martz et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070083200 | Gittings et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070213829 | Le et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070233096 | Garcia-Bengochea | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070270828 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070299445 | Shadduck et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080009866 | Alamin et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021466 | Shadduck et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080027435 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080033552 | Lee et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080045949 | Hunt et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080051784 | Gollogly | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080097431 | Vessa | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080108993 | Bennett et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114357 | Allard et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080125780 | Ferree | May 2008 | A1 |
20080177264 | Alamin et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177298 | Zucherman et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183209 | Robinson et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080262549 | Bennett | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080281423 | Sheffer et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080312693 | Trautwein et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319487 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090030457 | Janowski et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090082820 | Fielding et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090118766 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090198282 | Fielding et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090264929 | Alamin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090264932 | Alamin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090270918 | Attia et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100004701 | Malandain et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100023060 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100036424 | Fielding et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100049251 | Kuslich | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100234890 | Alamin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100234894 | Alamin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100249839 | Alamin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20150313649 | Alamin et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20160199105 | Alamin et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0322334 | Jun 1989 | EP |
0743045 | Nov 1996 | EP |
0743045 | Dec 1996 | EP |
1994901 | Nov 2008 | EP |
2681525 | Mar 1993 | FR |
2714591 | Jul 1995 | FR |
2717675 | Sep 1995 | FR |
2828398 | Feb 2003 | FR |
2851154 | Aug 2004 | FR |
2874167 | Feb 2006 | FR |
2884136 | Oct 2006 | FR |
WO-0128442 | Apr 2001 | WO |
WO-0203882 | Jan 2002 | WO |
WO-0203882 | May 2002 | WO |
WO-02051326 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO-02071960 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO-03045262 | Jun 2003 | WO |
WO-03045262 | Jan 2004 | WO |
WO-2004052246 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO-2004073532 | Sep 2004 | WO |
WO-2004073533 | Sep 2004 | WO |
WO-2005110258 | Nov 2005 | WO |
WO-2008051423 | May 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051801 | May 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051802 | May 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051806 | May 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051802 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051806 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051801 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO-2009149407 | Dec 2009 | WO |
WO-2010028165 | Mar 2010 | WO |
WO-2010088621 | Aug 2010 | WO |
WO-2010028165 | Oct 2010 | WO |
WO-2009149407 | Feb 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Abbott Spine. Wallis surgical technique. Product brochure. Apr. 2006. 1-24. |
Al Baz et al., “Modified Technique of Tension Band Wiring in Flexion Injuries of the Middle and Lower Cervical Spine,” Spine, vol. 20, No. 11, 1995, p. 1241-1244. |
Brinckmann et al.; Mechanical aspects of the lumbar spine; Theime Stuttgart-New York; Chapter 11; pp. 105-128; 2002. |
Dickman et al., “Comparative Mechanical Properties of Spinal Cable and Wire Fixation Systems,” Spine, vol. 22, No. 6, Mar. 15, 1997, pp. 596-604. |
European search report and opinion dated Nov. 13, 2013 for EP Application No. 10751375.6. |
Frymoyer et al.; An overview of the incidences and costs of low back pain; Ortho. Clin. North Am.; vol. 22; No. 2; pp. 263-271; Apr. 1991. |
Garner et al., “Development and Preclinical Testing of a New Tension-Band Device for the Spine: the Loop system,” European Spine Journal, vol. 11 (Suppl 2), 2002 , pp. S186-S191. |
Heller, “Stability of Different Wiring Techniques in Segmental Spinal Instrumentation. An Experimental Study,” Archives of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, vol. 117, No. 1-2, Nov. 1997, pp. 96-99. |
International search report and written opinion dated May 10, 2010 for PCT/US2010/026859. |
Leahy et al., “Design of Spinous Process Hooks for Flexible Fixation of the Lumbar Spine,” roceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 214, No. 5, Sep. 27, 2000 , pp. 479-487. |
Leahy et al., “Mechanical Testing of a Flexible Fixation Device for the Lumbar Spine,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 214, No. 5, Sep. 27, 2000 , pp. 489-495. |
Medtronic Sofamor Dane USA, Inc. DIAM system implant. Product brochure. 2006. 1-20. spineinfo.ru/˜files/DIAMST.pdf. |
Minns et al., “Preliminary Design and Experimental Studies of a Novel Soft Implant for Correcting Sagittal Plane Instability in the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, vol. 22, No. 16, Aug. 15, 1997, pp. 1819-1825. |
Miyasaka et al., “Radiographic Analysis of Lumbar Motion in Relation to Lumbosacral Stability: Investigation of Moderate and Maximum Motion,” Spine, vol. 25, No. 6, Mar. 15, 2000, pp. 732-737. |
Notice of allowance dated Apr. 15, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/024,456. |
Notice of allowance dated Jun. 6, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/721,198. |
Office action dated Jan. 19, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/721,198. |
Office action dated Aug. 13, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/721,198. |
Office action dated Aug. 28, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/796,874. |
Office action dated Sep. 17, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/024,456. |
Office action dated Dec. 18, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/721,198. |
Office Action dated Jul. 7, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/053,688. |
Papp et al., “An In Vitro Study of the Biomechanical Effects of Flexible Stabilization on the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, vol. 22, No. 2, Jan. 15, 1997, pp. 151-155. |
Shepherd et al., “Spinous Process Strength,” Spine, vol. 25, No. 3, Feb. 1, 2000, pp. 319-323. |
Shepherd, “Slippage of a Spinous Process Hook During Flexion in a Flexible Fixation System for the Lumbar Spine,” Medical Engineering and Physics, vol. 23, No. 2, Mar. 2001, pp. 135-141. |
Voydeville, et al. Ligament intevertebral spacer with flexible lumbar instability. Ligamentoplastie intervertebrate avec cale souple dans les instabilities lombaries. Intervertebral ligamentoplasty with flexible wedge in lumber instability. Orthop Traumatol. 1992; 2:259-264. (in French with English translation). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170231668 A1 | Aug 2017 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61158892 | Mar 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15053688 | Feb 2016 | US |
Child | 15400745 | US | |
Parent | 14796874 | Jul 2015 | US |
Child | 15053688 | US | |
Parent | 14024456 | Sep 2013 | US |
Child | 14796874 | US | |
Parent | 12721198 | Mar 2010 | US |
Child | 14024456 | US |