System and methods for determining nerve proximity, direction and pathology during surgery

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9456783
  • Patent Number
    9,456,783
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, April 15, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, October 4, 2016
    8 years ago
Abstract
The present invention involves systems and methods for determining nerve proximity, nerve direction, and pathology relative to a surgical instrument based on an identified relationship between neuromuscular responses and the stimulation signal that caused the neuromuscular responses.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

I. Field of the Invention


This invention relates to nerve monitoring systems and to nerve muscle monitoring systems, and more particularly to systems and methods for determining nerve proximity, nerve direction, and pathology during surgery.


II. Description of Related Art


Systems and methods exist for monitoring nerves and nerve muscles. One such system determines when a needle is approaching a nerve. The system applies a current to the needle to evoke a muscular response. The muscular response is visually monitored, typically as a shake or “twitch.” When such a muscular response is observed by the user, the needle is considered to be near the nerve coupled to the responsive muscle. These systems require the user to observe the muscular response (to determine that the needle has approached the nerve). This may be difficult depending on the competing tasks of the user. In addition, when general anesthesia is used during a procedure, muscular response may be suppressed, limiting the ability of a user to detect the response.


While generally effective (although crude) in determining nerve proximity, such existing systems are incapable of determining the direction of the nerve to the needle or instrument passing through tissue or passing by the nerves. This can be disadvantageous in that, while the surgeon may appreciate that a nerve is in the general proximity of the instrument, the inability to determine the direction of the nerve relative to the instrument can lead to guess work by the surgeon in advancing the instrument and thereby raise the specter of inadvertent contact with, and possible damage to, the nerve.


Another nerve-related issue in existing surgical applications involves the use of nerve retractors. A typical nerve retractor serves to pull or otherwise maintain the nerve outside the area of surgery, thereby protecting the nerve from inadvertent damage or contact by the “active” instrumentation used to perform the actual surgery. While generally advantageous in protecting the nerve, it has been observed that such retraction can cause nerve function to become impaired or otherwise pathologic over time due to the retraction. In certain surgical applications, such as spinal surgery, it is not possible to determine if such retraction is hurting or damaging the retracted nerve until after the surgery (generally referred to as a change in “nerve health” or “nerve status”). There are also no known techniques or systems for assessing whether a given procedure is having a beneficial effect on a nerve or nerve root known to be pathologic (that is, impaired or otherwise unhealthy).


Based on the foregoing, a need exists for a better system and method that can determine the proximity of a surgical instrument (including but not limited to a needle, catheter, cannula, probe, or any other device capable of traversing through tissue or passing near nerves or nerve structures) to a nerve or group of nerves during surgery. A need also exists for a system and method for determining the direction of the nerve relative to the surgical instrument. A still further need exists for a manner of monitoring nerve health or status during surgical procedures.


The present invention is directed at eliminating, or at least reducing the effects of, the above-described problems with the prior art, as well as addressing the above-identified needs.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention includes a system and related methods for determining nerve proximity and nerve direction to surgical instruments employed in accessing a surgical target site, as well as monitoring the status or health (pathology) of a nerve or nerve root during surgical procedures.


According to a broad aspect, the present invention includes a surgical system, comprising a control unit and a surgical instrument. The control unit has at least one of computer programming software, firmware and hardware capable of delivering a stimulation signal, receiving and processing neuromuscular responses due to the stimulation signal, and identifying a relationship between the neuromuscular response and the stimulation signal. The surgical instrument has at least one stimulation electrode electrically coupled to said control unit for transmitting the stimulation signal, wherein said control unit is capable of determining at least one of nerve proximity, nerve direction, and nerve pathology relative to the surgical instrument based on the identified relationship between the neuromuscular response and the stimulation signal.


In a further embodiment of the surgical system of the present invention, the control unit is further equipped to communicate at least one of alpha-numeric and graphical information to a user regarding at least one of nerve proximity, nerve direction, and nerve pathology.


In a further embodiment of the surgical system of the present invention, the surgical instrument may comprise at least one of a device for maintaining contact with a nerve during surgery, a device for accessing a surgical target site, and a device for testing screw placement integrity.


In a further embodiment of the surgical system of the present invention, the surgical instrument comprises a nerve root retractor and wherein the control unit determines nerve pathology based on the identified relationship between the neuromuscular response and the stimulation signal.


In a further embodiment of the surgical system of the present invention, the surgical instrument comprises a dilating instrument and wherein the control unit determines at least one of proximity and direction between a nerve and the instrument based on the identified relationship between the neuromuscular response and the stimulation signal.


In a further embodiment of the surgical system of the present invention, the dilating instrument comprises at least one of a K-wire, an obturator, a dilating cannula, and a working cannula.


In a further embodiment of the surgical system of the present invention, the surgical instrument comprises a screw test probe and wherein the control unit determines the proximity between the screw test probe and an exiting spinal nerve root to assess whether a medial wall of a pedicle has been breached by at least one of hole formation and screw placement.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a surgical system 10 capable of determining, among other things, nerve proximity, direction, and pathology according to one aspect of the present invention;



FIG. 2 is a block diagram of the surgical system 10 shown in FIG. 1;



FIG. 3 is a graph illustrating a plot of the neuromuscular response (EMG) of a given myotome over time based on a current stimulation pulse (similar to that shown in FIG. 4) applied to a nerve bundle coupled to the given myotome;



FIG. 4 is a graph illustrating a plot of a stimulation current pulse capable of producing a neuromuscular response (EMG) of the type shown in FIG. 3;



FIG. 5 is a graph illustrating a plot of peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) for each given stimulation current level (IStim) forming a stimulation current pulse train according to the present invention (otherwise known as a “recruitment curve”);



FIG. 6 is a graph illustrating a plot of a neuromuscular response (EMG) over time (in response to a stimulus current pulse) showing the manner in which maximum voltage (VMax) and minimum voltage (VMin) occur at times T1 and T2, respectively;



FIG. 7 is an exemplary touch-screen display according to the present invention, capable of communicating a host of alpha-numeric and/or graphical information to a user and receiving information and/or instructions from the user during the operation of the surgical system 10 of FIG. 1;



FIGS. 8A-8E are graphs illustrating a rapid current threshold-hunting algorithm according to one embodiment of the present invention;



FIG. 9 is a series of graphs illustrating a multi-channel rapid current threshold-hunting algorithm according to one embodiment of the present invention;



FIG. 10 is a graph illustrating a T1, T2 artifact rejection technique according to one embodiment of the present invention via the use of histograms;



FIG. 11 is a graph illustrating the proportion of stimulations versus the number of stimulations employed in the T1, T2 artifact rejection technique according to the present invention;



FIG. 12 is an illustrating (graphical and schematic) of a method of automatically determining the maximum frequency (FMax) of the stimulation current pulses according to one embodiment of the present invention;



FIG. 13 is a graph illustrating a method of determining the direction of a nerve (denoted as an “octagon”) relative to an instrument having four (4) orthogonally disposed stimulation electrodes (denoted by the “circles”) according to one embodiment of the present invention;



FIG. 14 is a graph illustrating recruitment curves for a generally healthy nerve (denoted “A”) and a generally unhealthy nerve (denoted “B”) according to the nerve pathology determination method of the present invention;



FIG. 15 is flow chart illustrating an alternate method of determining the hanging point of a recruitment curve according to an embodiment of the present invention; and



FIG. 16 is a graph illustrating a simulated recruitment curve generated by a “virtual patient” device and method according to the present invention.





DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS

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. The systems disclosed herein boast a variety of inventive features and components that warrant patent protection, both individually and in combination.



FIG. 1 illustrates, by way of example only, a surgical system 10 capable of employing the nerve proximity, nerve direction, and nerve pathology assessments according to the present invention. As will be explained in greater detail below, the surgical system 10 is capable of providing safe and reproducible access to any number of surgical target sites, and well as monitoring changes in nerve pathology (health or status) during surgical procedures. It is expressly noted that, although described herein largely in terms of use in spinal surgery, the surgical system 10 and related methods of the present invention are 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, or where neural structures are retracted.


The surgical system 10 includes a control unit 12, a patient module 14, an EMG harness 16 and return electrode 35 coupled to the patient module 14, and a host of surgical accessories 20 capable of being coupled to the patient module 14 via one or more accessory cables 22. The surgical accessories 20 may include, but are not necessarily limited to, surgical access components (such as a K-wire 24, one or more dilating cannula 26, and a working cannula 28), neural pathology monitoring devices (such as nerve root retractor 30), and devices for performing pedicle screw test (such as screw test probe 32). A block diagram of the surgical system 10 is shown in FIG. 2, the operation of which is readily apparent in view of the following description.


The control unit 12 includes a touch screen display 36 and a base 38. The touch screen display 36 is preferably equipped with a graphical user interface (GUI) capable of communicating information to the user and receiving instructions from the user. The base 38 contains computer hardware and software that commands the stimulation sources, receives digitized signals and other information from the patient module 14, and processes the EMG responses to extract characteristic information for each muscle group, and displays the processed data to the operator via the display 36. The primary functions of the software within the control unit 12 include receiving user commands via the touch screen display 36, activating stimulation in the requested mode (nerve proximity, nerve detection, nerve pathology, screw test), processing signal data according to defined algorithms (described below), displaying received parameters and processed data, and monitoring system status and report fault conditions.


The patient module 14 is connected via a serial cable 40 to the control unit 12, and contains the electrical connections to all electrodes, signal conditioning circuitry, stimulator drive and steering circuitry, and a digital communications interface to the control unit 12. In use, the control unit 12 is situated outside but close to the surgical field (such as on a cart adjacent the operating table) such that the display 36 is directed towards the surgeon for easy visualization. The patient module 14 should be located between the patient's legs, or may be affixed to the end of the operating table at mid-leg level using a bedrail clamp. The position selected should be such that the EMG leads can reach their farthest desired location without tension during the surgical procedure.


In a significant aspect of the present invention, the information displayed to the user on display 36 may include, but is not necessarily limited to, alpha-numeric and/or graphical information regarding nerve proximity, nerve direction, nerve pathology, stimulation level, myotome/EMG levels, screw testing, advance or hold instructions, and the instrument in use. In one embodiment (set forth by way of example only) the display includes the following components as set forth in Table 1:










TABLE 1





Screen Component
Description







Menu/Status Bar
The mode label may include the surgical accessory attached, such as the



surgical access components (K-Wire, Dilating Cannula, Working



Cannula), nerve pathology monitoring device (Nerve Root Retractor),



and/or screw test device (Screw Test Probe) depending on which is



attached.


Spine Image
An image of a human body/skeleton showing the electrode placement on



the body, with labeled channel number tabs on each side (1-4 on left and



right). Left and Right labels will show the patient orientation. The



Channel number tabs may be highlighted or colored depending on the



specific function being performed.


Display Area
Shows procedure-specific information.


Myotome & Level
A label to indicate the Myotome name and corresponding Spinal Level(s)


Names
associated with the channel of interest.


Advance/Hold
When in the Detection mode, an indication of “Advance” will show when



it is safe to move the cannula forward (such as when the minimum



stimulation current threshold IThresh (described below) is greater than a



predetermined value, indicating a safe distance to the nerve) and “Hold”



will show when it is unsafe to advance the cannula (such as when the



minimum stimulation current threshold IThresh (described below) is less



than a predetermined value, indicating that the nerve is relatively close to



the cannula) and during proximity calculations.


Function
Indicates which function is currently active (Direction, Detection,



Pathology Monitoring, Screw Test).


Dilator In Use
A colored circle to indicate the inner diameter of the cannula, with the



numeric size. If cannula is detached, no indicator is displayed.









The surgical system 10 accomplishes safe and reproducible access to a surgical target site by detecting the existence of (and optionally the distance and/or direction to) neural structures before, during, and after the establishment of an 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. The surgical system 10 does so by electrically stimulating nerves via one or more stimulation electrodes at the distal end of the surgical access components 24-28 while monitoring the EMG responses of the muscle groups innervated by the nerves. In a preferred embodiment, this is accomplished via 8 pairs of EMG electrodes 34 placed on the skin over the major muscle groups on the legs (four per side), an anode electrode 35 providing a return path for the stimulation current, and a common electrode 37 providing a ground reference to pre-amplifiers in the patient module 14. By way of example, the placement of EMG electrodes 34 may be undertaken according to the manner shown in Table 2 below for spinal surgery:













TABLE 2





Color
Channel ID
Myotome
Nerve
Spinal Level







Red
Right 1
Right Vastus Medialis
Femoral
L2, L3, L4


Orange
Right 2
Right TibialisAnterior
Peroneal
L4, L5


Yellow
Right 3
Right Biceps Femoris
Sciatic
L5, S1, S2


Green
Right 4
Right Gastroc. Medial
Post
S1, S2





Tibialis


Blue
Left 1
Left Vastus Medialis
Femoral
L2, L3, L4


Violet
Left 2
Left Tibialis Anterior
Peroneal
L4, L5


Gray
Left 3
Left Biceps Femoris
Sciatic
L5, S1, S2


White
Left 4
Left Gastroc. Medial
Post
S1, S2





Tibialis









Although not shown, it will be appreciated that any of a variety of electrodes can be employed, including but not limited to needle electrodes. The EMG responses provide a quantitative measure of the nerve depolarization caused by the electrical stimulus. Analysis of the EMG responses is then used to determine the proximity and direction of the nerve to the stimulation electrode, as will be described with particularity below.


The surgical access components 24-28 are designed to bluntly dissect the tissue between the patient's skin and the surgical target site. An initial dilating cannula 26 is advanced towards the target site, preferably after having been aligned using any number of commercially available surgical guide frames. An obturator (not shown) may be included inside the initial dilator 26 and may similarly be equipped with one or more stimulating electrodes. Once the proper location is achieved, the obturator (not shown) may be removed and the K-wire 24 inserted down the center of the initial dilating cannula 26 and docked to the given surgical target site, such as the annulus of an intervertebral disc. Cannulae of increasing diameter are then guided over the previously installed cannula 26 until the desired lumen is installed. By way of example only, the dilating cannulae 26 may range in diameter from 6 mm to 30 mm. In one embodiment, each cannula 26 has four orthogonal stimulating electrodes at the tip to allow detection and direction evaluation, as will be described below. The working cannula 28 is installed over the last dilating cannula 26 and then all the dilating cannulae 26 are removed from inside the inner lumen of the working cannula 28 to establish the operative corridor therethrough. A stimulator driver 42 is provided to electrically couple the particular surgical access component 24-28 to the patient module 14 (via accessory cable 22). In a preferred embodiment, the stimulator driver 42 includes one or more buttons for selectively activating the stimulation current and/or directing it to a particular surgical access component.


The surgical system 10 accomplishes neural pathology monitoring by electrically stimulating a retracted nerve root via one or more stimulation electrodes at the distal end of the nerve root retractor 30 while monitoring the EMG responses of the muscle group innervated by the particular nerve. The EMG responses provide a quantitative measure of the nerve depolarization caused by the electrical stimulus. Analysis of the EMG responses may then be used to assess the degree to which retraction of a nerve or neural structure affects the nerve function over time, as will be described with greater particularity below. One advantage of such monitoring, by way of example only, is that the conduction of the nerve may be monitored during the procedure to determine whether the neurophysiology and/or function of the nerve changes (for the better or worse) as the result of the particular surgical procedure. For example, it may be observed that the nerve conduction increases as the result of the operation, indicating that the previously inhibited nerve has been positively affected by the operation. The nerve root retractor 30 may comprise any number of suitable devices capable of maintaining contact with a nerve or nerve root. The nerve root retractor 30 may be dimensioned in any number of different fashions, including having a generally curved distal region (shown as a side view in FIG. 1 to illustrate the concave region where the nerve will be positioned while retracted), and of sufficient dimension (width and/or length) and rigidity to maintain the retracted nerve in a desired position during surgery. The nerve root retractor 30 may also be equipped with a handle 31 having one or more buttons for selectively applying the electrical stimulation to the stimulation electrode(s) at the end of the nerve root retractor 30. In one embodiment, the nerve root retractor 30 is disposable and the handle 31 is reusable and autoclavable.


The surgical system 10 can also be employed to perform screw test assessments via the use of screw test probe 32. The screw test probe 32 is used to test the integrity of pedicle holes (after formation) and/or screws (after introduction). The screw test probe 32 includes a handle 44 and a probe member 46 having a generally ball-tipped end 48. The handle 44 may be equipped with one or more buttons for selectively applying the electrical stimulation to the ball-tipped end 48 at the end of the probe member 46. The ball tip 48 of the screw test probe 32 is placed in the screw hole prior to screw insertion or placed on the installed screw head. If the pedicle wall has been breached by the screw or tap, the stimulation current will pass through to the adjacent nerve roots and they will depolarize at a lower stimulation current.


Upon pressing the button on the screw test handle 44, the software will execute an algorithm that results in all channel tabs being color-coded to indicate the detection status of the corresponding nerve. The channel with the “worst” (lowest) level will be highlighted (enlarged) and that myotome name will be displayed, as well as graphically depicted on the spine diagram. A vertical bar chart will also be shown, to depict the stimulation current required for nerve depolarization in mA for the selected channel. The screw test algorithm preferably determines the depolarization (threshold) current for all 8 EMG channels. The surgeon may also set a baseline threshold current by stimulating a nerve root directly with the screw test probe 32. The surgeon may choose to display the screw test threshold current relative to this baseline. The handle 44 may be equipped with a mechanism (via hardware and/or software) to identify itself to the system when it is attached. In one embodiment, the probe member 46 is disposable and the handle 44 is reusable and autoclavable.


An audio pick-up (not shown) may also be provided as an optional feature according to the present invention. In some cases, when a nerve is stretched or compressed, it will emit a burst or train of spontaneous nerve activity. The audio pick-up is capable of transmitting sounds representative of such activity such that the surgeon can monitor this response on audio to help him determine if there has been stress to the nerve.


Analysis of the EMG responses according to the present invention will now be described. The nerve proximity, nerve direction, and nerve pathology features of the present invention are based on assessing the evoked response of the various muscle myotomes monitored by the surgical system 10. This is best shown in FIGS. 3-4, wherein FIG. 3 illustrates the evoked response (EMG) of a monitored myotome to the stimulation current pulse shown in FIG. 4. The EMG response can be characterized by a peak to peak voltage of Vpp=Vmax−Vmin. The stimulation current is preferably DC coupled and comprised of monophasic pulses of 200 microsecond duration with frequency and amplitude that is adjusted by the software. For each nerve and myotome there is a characteristic delay from the stimulation current pulse to the EMG response.


As shown in FIG. 5, there is a threshold stimulation current required to depolarize the main nerve trunk. Below this threshold, current stimulation does not evoke a significant Vpp response. Once the stimulation threshold is reached, the evoked response is reproducible and increases with increasing stimulation, as shown in FIG. 5. This is known as a “recruitment curve.” In one embodiment, a significant Vpp is defined to be a minimum of 100 uV. The lowest stimulation current that evoked this threshold voltage is called Ithresh. Ithresh decreases as the stimulation electrode approaches the nerve. This value is useful to surgeons because it provides a relative indication of distance (proximity) from the electrode to the nerve.


As shown in FIG. 6, for each nerve/myotome combination there is a characteristic delay from the stimulation current pulse to the EMG response. For each stimulation current pulse, the time from the current pulse to the first max/min is T1 and to the second max/min is T2. The first phase of the pulse may be positive or negative. As will be described below, the values of T1, T2 are each compiled into a histogram with bins as wide as the sampling rate. New values of T1, T2 are acquired with each stimulation and the histograms are continuously updated. The value of T1 and T2 used is the center value of the largest bin in the histogram. The values of T1, T2 are continuously updated as the histograms change. Initially Vpp is acquired using a window that contains the entire EMG response. After 20 samples, the use of T1, T2 windows is phased in over a period of 200 samples. Vmax and Vmin are then acquired only during windows centered around T1, T2 with widths of, by way of example only, 5 msec. This method of acquiring Vpp is advantageous in that it automatically performs artifact rejection (as will be described in greater detail below).


As will be explained in greater detail below, the use of the “recruitment curve” according to the present invention is advantageous in that it provides a great amount of useful data from which to make various assessments (including, but not limited to, nerve detection, nerve direction, and nerve pathology monitoring). Moreover, it provides the ability to present simplified yet meaningful data to the user, as opposed to the actual EMG waveforms that are displayed to the users in traditional EMG systems. Due to the complexity in interpreting EMG waveforms, such prior art systems typically require an additional person specifically trained in such matters. This, in turn, can be disadvantageous in that it translates into extra expense (having yet another highly trained person in attendance) and oftentimes presents scheduling challenges because most hospitals do not retain such personnel. To account for the possibility that certain individuals will want to see the actual EMG waveforms, the surgical system 10 includes an Evoked Potentials display that shows the voltage waveform for all 8 EMG channels in real time. It shows the response of each monitored myotome to a current stimulation pulse. The display is updated each time there is a stimulation pulse. The Evoked Potentials display may be accessed during Detection, Direction, or Nerve Pathology Monitoring.


Nerve Detection (Proximity)


The Nerve Detection function of the present invention is used to detect a nerve with a stimulation electrode (i.e. those found on the surgical access components 24-28) and to give the user a relative indication of the proximity of the nerve to the electrode are advanced toward the surgical target site. A method of nerve proximity detection according one embodiment of the present invention is summarized as follows: (1) stimulation current pulses are emitted from the electrode with a fixed pulse width of 200 μs and a variable amplitude; (2) the EMG response of the associated muscle group is measured; (3) the Vpp of the EMG response is determined using T1, T2, and Fmax (NB: before T2 is determined, a constant Fsafe is used for Fmax); (4) a rapid hunting detection algorithm is used to determine IThresh for a known Vthresh minimum; (5) the value of It is displayed to the user as a relative indication of the proximity of the nerve, wherein the IThresh is expected to decrease as the probe gets closer to the nerve. A detailed description of the algorithms associated with the foregoing steps will follow after a general description of the manner in which this proximity information is communicated to the user.


The Detection Function displays the value of Ithresh to the surgeon along with a color code so that the surgeon may use this information to avoid contact with neural tissues. This is shown generally in FIG. 7, which illustrates an exemplary screen display according to the present invention. Detection display is based on the amplitude of the current (Ithresh) required to evoke an EMG Vpp response greater than Vthresh (nominally 100 uV). According to one embodiment, if Ithresh is <=4 mA red is displayed, the absolute value of Ithresh is displayed. If 4 mA<Ithresh<10 mA yellow is displayed. If Ithresh>=10 mA green is displayed. Normally, Ithresh is only displayed when it is in the red range. However, the surgeon has the option of displaying Ithresh for all three ranges (red, yellow, green). The maximum stimulation current is preferably set by the user and is preferably within the range of between 0-100 mA. Detection is performed on all 4 channels of the selected side. EMG channels on the opposite side are not used. The first dilator 26 may use an obturator having an electrode for stimulation. In one embodiment, all subsequent dilators 26 and the working cannula 28 use four electrodes for stimulation. The lowest value of Ithresh from the 4 electrodes is used for display. There is an “Advance/Hold” display that tells the surgeon when the calculations are finished and he may continue to advance the instrument.


The threshold-hunting algorithm employs a series of monopolar stimulations to determine the stimulation current threshold for each EMG channel that is in scope. The nerve is stimulated using current pulses with amplitude of Istim. The muscle groups respond with an evoked potential that has a peak to peak voltage of Vpp. The object of this algorithm is to quickly find IThresh. This is the minimum Istim that results in a Vpp that is greater than a known threshold voltage Vthresh. The value of Istim is adjusted by a bracketing method as follows. The first bracket is 0.2 mA and 0.3 mA. If the Vpp corresponding to both of these stimulation currents is lower than Vthresh, then the bracket size is doubled to 0.2 mA and 0.4 mA. This exponential doubling of the bracket size continues until the upper end of the bracket results in a Vpp that is above Vthresh. The size of the brackets is then reduced by a bisection method. A current stimulation value at the midpoint of the bracket is used and if this results in a Vpp that is above Vthresh, then the lower half becomes the new bracket. Likewise, if the midpoint Vpp is below Vthresh then the upper half becomes the new bracket. This bisection method is used until the bracket size has been reduced to Ires mA. IThresh is the value of Istim that is the higher end of the bracket.


More specifically, with reference to FIGS. 8A-8E, the threshold hunting will support three states: bracketing, bisection, and monitoring. A stimulation current bracket is a range of stimulation currents that bracket the stimulation current threshold IThresh. The upper and/or lower boundaries of a bracket may be indeterminate. The width of a bracket is the upper boundary value minus the lower boundary value. If the stimulation current threshold IThresh of a channel exceeds the maximum stimulation current, that threshold is considered out-of-range. During the bracketing state, threshold hunting will employ the method below to select stimulation currents and identify stimulation current brackets for each EMG channel in scope.


The method for finding the minimum stimulation current uses the methods of bracketing and bisection. The “root” is identified for a function that has the value −1 for stimulation currents that do not evoke adequate response; the function has the value +1 for stimulation currents that evoke a response. The root occurs when the function jumps from −1 to +1 as stimulation current is increased: the function never has the value of precisely zero. The root will not be known precisely, but only with some level of accuracy. The root is found by identifying a range that must contain the root. The upper bound of this range is the lowest stimulation current IThresh where the function returns the value +1, i.e. the minimum stimulation current that evokes response.


The proximity function begins by adjusting the stimulation current until the root is bracketed (FIG. 8B). The initial bracketing range may be provided in any number of suitable ranges. In one embodiment, the initial bracketing range is 0.2 to 0.3 mA. If the upper stimulation current does not evoke a response, the upper end of the range should be increased. The range scale factor is 2. The stimulation current should never be increased by more than 10 mA in one iteration. The stimulation current should never exceed the programmed maximum stimulation current. For each stimulation, the algorithm will examine the response of each active channel to determine whether it falls within that bracket. Once the stimulation current threshold of each channel has been bracketed, the algorithm transitions to the bisection state.


During the bisection state (FIGS. 8C and 8D), threshold hunting will employ the method described below to select stimulation currents and narrow the bracket to a width of 0.1 mA for each EMG channel with an in-range threshold. After the minimum stimulation current has been bracketed (FIG. 8B), the range containing the root is refined until the root is known with a specified accuracy. The bisection method is used to refine the range containing the root. In one embodiment, the root should be found to a precision of 0.1 mA. During the bisection method, the stimulation current at the midpoint of the bracket is used. If the stimulation evokes a response, the bracket shrinks to the lower half of the previous range. If the stimulation fails to evoke a response, the bracket shrinks to the upper half of the previous range. The proximity algorithm is locked on the electrode position when the response threshold is bracketed by stimulation currents separated by 0.1 mA. The process is repeated for each of the active channels until all thresholds are precisely known. At that time, the algorithm enters the monitoring state.


During the monitoring state (FIG. 8E), threshold hunting will employ the method described below to select stimulation currents and identify whether stimulation current thresholds are changing. In the monitoring state, the stimulation current level is decremented or incremented by 0.1 mA, depending on the response of a specific channel. If the threshold has not changed then the lower end of the bracket should not evoke a response, while the upper end of the bracket should. If either of these conditions fail, the bracket is adjusted accordingly. The process is repeated for each of the active channels to continue to assure that each threshold is bracketed. If stimulations fail to evoke the expected response three times in a row, then the algorithm transitions back to the bracketing state in order to reestablish the bracket.


When it is necessary to determine the stimulation current thresholds (It) for more than one channel, they will be obtained by time-multiplexing the threshold-hunting algorithm as shown in FIG. 9. During the bracketing state, the algorithm will start with a stimulation current bracket of 0.2 mA and increase the size of the bracket exponentially. With each bracket, the algorithm will measure the Vpp of all channels to determine which bracket they fall into. After this first pass, the algorithm will know which exponential bracket contains the It for each channel. Next, during the bisection state, the algorithm will start with the lowest exponential bracket that contains an It and bisect it until It is found within 0.1 mA. If there are more than one It within an exponential bracket, they will be separated out during the bisection process, and the one with the lowest value will be found first. During the monitoring state, the algorithm will monitor the upper and lower boundaries of the brackets for each It, starting with the lowest. If the It for one or more channels is not found in it's bracket, then the algorithm goes back to the bracketing state to re-establish the bracket for those channels.


The method of performing automatic artifact rejection according to the present invention will now be described. As noted above, acquiring Vpp according to the present invention (based on T1, T2 shown in FIG. 6) is advantageous in that, among other reasons, it automatically performs artifact rejection. The nerve is stimulated using a series of current pulses above the stimulation threshold. The muscle groups respond with an evoked potential that has a peak to peak voltage of Vpp. For each EMG response pulse, T1 is the time is measured from the stimulus pulse to the first extremum (Vmax or Vmin) T2 is the time measured from the current pulse to the second extremum (Vmax or Vmin) The values of T1 and T2 are each compiled into a histogram with Tbin msec bin widths. The value of T1 and T2 used for artifact rejection is the center value of the largest bin in the histogram. To reject artifacts when acquiring the EMG response, Vmax and Vmin are acquired only during windows that are T1±Twin and T2±Twin. Again, with reference to FIG. 6, Vpp is Vmax−Vmin.


The method of automatic artifact rejection is further explained with reference to FIG. 10. While the threshold hunting algorithm is active, after each stimulation, the following steps are undertaken for each EMG sensor channel that is in scope: (1) the time sample values for the waveform maximum and minimum (after stimulus artifact rejection) will be placed into a histogram; (2) the histogram bin size will be the same granularity as the sampling period; (3) the histogram will be emptied each time the threshold hunting algorithm is activated; (4) the histogram will provide two peaks, or modes, defined as the two bins with the largest counts; (5) the first mode is defined as T1; the second mode is defined as T2; (6) a (possibly discontinuous) range of waveform samples will be identified; (7) for the first stimulation after the threshold hunting algorithm is activated, the range of samples will be the entire waveform; (8) after a specified number of stimulations, the range of samples will be limited to T1±0.5 ms and T2±0.5 ms; and (9) before the specified number of stimulations, either range may be used, subject to this restriction: the proportion of stimulations using the entire waveform will decrease from 100% to 0% (a sample of the curve governing this proportion is shown in FIG. 11). Peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) will be measured either over the identified range of waveform samples. The specified number of stimulations will preferably be between 220 and 240.


According to another aspect of the present invention, the maximum frequency of the stimulation pulses is automatically obtained with reference to FIG. 12. After each stimulation, Fmax will be computed as: Fmax=1/(T2+Safety Margin) for the largest value of T2 from each of the active EMG channels. In one embodiment, the Safety Margin is 5 ms, although it is contemplated that this could be varied according to any number of suitable durations. Before the specified number of stimulations, the stimulations will be performed at intervals of 100-120 ms during the bracketing state, intervals of 200-240 ms during the bisection state, and intervals of 400-480 ms during the monitoring state. After the specified number of stimulations, the stimulations will be performed at the fastest interval practical (but no faster than Fmax) during the bracketing state, the fastest interval practical (but no faster than Fmax/2) during the bisection state, and the fastest interval practical (but no faster than Fmax/4) during the monitoring state. The maximum frequency used until Fmax is calculated is preferably 10 Hz, although slower stimulation frequencies may be used during some acquisition algorithms. The value of Fmax used is periodically updated to ensure that it is still appropriate. This feature is represented graphically, by way of example only, in FIG. 12. For physiological reasons, the maximum frequency for stimulation will be set on a per-patient basis. Readings will be taken from all myotomes and the one with the slowest frequency (highest T2) will be recorded.


Nerve Direction


Once a nerve is detected using the working cannula 28 or dilating cannulae 26, the surgeon may use the Direction Function to determine the angular direction to the nerve relative to a reference mark on the access components 24-28. This is also shown in FIG. 7 as the arrow A pointing to the direction of the nerve. This information helps the surgeon avoid the nerve as he or she advances the cannula. The direction from the cannula to a selected nerve is estimated using the 4 orthogonal electrodes on the tip of the dilating cannula 26 and working cannulae 28. These electrodes are preferably scanned in a monopolar configuration (that is, using each of the 4 electrodes as the stimulation source). The nerve's threshold current (Ithresh) is found for each of the electrodes by measuring the muscle evoked potential response Vpp and comparing it to a known threshold Vthresh. This algorithm is used to determine the direction from a stimulation electrode to a nerve.


As shown in FIG. 13, the four (4) electrodes are placed on the x and y axes of a two dimensional coordinate system at radius R from the origin. A vector is drawn from the origin along the axis corresponding to each electrode that has a length equal to IThresh for that electrode. The vector from the origin to a direction pointing toward the nerve is then computed. This algorithm employs the T1/T2 algorithm discussed above with reference to FIG. 6. Using the geometry shown in FIG. 10, the (x,y) coordinates of the nerve, taken as a single point, can be determined as a function of the distance from the nerve to each of four electrodes. This can be expressly mathematically as follows:

    • Where the “circles” denote the position of the electrode respective to the origin or center of the cannula and the “octagon” denotes the position of a nerve, and d1, d2, d3, and d4 denote the distance between the nerve and electrodes 1-4 respectively, it can be shown that:






x
=





d
1
2

-

d
3
2




-
4






R







and





y

=



d
2
2

-

d
4
2




-
4






R









    • Where R is the cannula radius, standardized to 1, since angles and not absolute values are measured.





After conversion from (x,y) to polar coordinates (r,θ), then θ is the angular direction to the nerve. This angular direction is then displayed to the user as shown in FIG. 7, by way of example only, as arrow A pointing towards the nerve. In this fashion, the surgeon can actively avoid the nerve, thereby increasing patient safety while accessing the surgical target site. The surgeon may select any one of the 4 channels available to perform the Direction Function. The surgeon should preferably not move or rotate the instrument while using the Direction Function, but rather should return to the Detection Function to continue advancing the instrument.


Insertion and advancement of the access instruments 24-28 should be performed at a rate sufficiently slow to allow the surgical system 10 to provide real-time indication of the presence of nerves that may lie in the path of the tip. To facilitate this, the threshold current IThresh may be displayed such that it will indicate when the computation is finished and the data is accurate. For example, when the detection information is up to date and the instrument such that it is now ready to be advanced by the surgeon, it is contemplated to have the color display show up as saturated to communicate this fact to the surgeon. During advancement of the instrument, if a channel's color range changes from green to yellow, advancement should proceed more slowly, with careful observation of the detection level. If the channel color stays yellow or turns green after further advancement, it is a possible indication that the instrument tip has passed, and is moving farther away from the nerve. If after further advancement, however, the channel color turns red, then it is a possible indication that the instrument tip has moved closer to a nerve. At this point the display will show the value of the stimulation current threshold in mA. Further advancement should be attempted only with extreme caution, while observing the threshold values, and only if the clinician deems it safe. If the clinician decides to advance the instrument tip further, an increase in threshold value (e.g. from 3 mA to 4 mA) may indicate the Instrument tip has safely passed the nerve. It may also be an indication that the instrument tip has encountered and is compressing the nerve. The latter may be detected by listening for sporadic outbursts, or “pops”, of nerve activity on the free running EMG audio output (as mentioned above). If, upon further advancement of the instrument, the alarm level decreases (e.g., from 4 mA to 3 mA), then it is very likely that the instrument tip is extremely close to the spinal nerve, and to avoid neural damage, extreme caution should be exercised during further manipulation of the Instrument. Under such circumstances, the decision to withdraw, reposition, or otherwise maneuver the instrument is at the sole discretion of the clinician based upon available information and experience. Further radiographic imaging may be deemed appropriate to establish the best course of action.


Nerve Pathology


As noted above, the surgical system 10 accomplishes neural pathology monitoring by electrically stimulating a retracted nerve root via one or more stimulation electrodes at the distal end of the nerve root retractor 30 while monitoring the EMG responses of the muscle group innervated by the particular nerve. FIG. 14 shows the differences between a healthy nerve (A) and a pathologic or unhealthy nerve (B). The inventors have found through experimentation that information regarding nerve pathology (or “health” of “status”) can be extracted from the recruitment curves generated according to the present invention (see, e.g., discussion accompanying FIGS. 3-5). In particular, it has been found that a health nerve or nerve bundle will produce a recruitment curve having a generally low threshold or “hanging point” (in terms of both the y-axis or Vpp value and the x-axis or IStim value), a linear region having a relatively steep slope, and a relatively high saturation region (similar to those shown on recruitment curve “A” in FIG. 14). On the contrary, a nerve or nerve bundle that is unhealthy or whose function is otherwise compromised or impaired (such as being impinged by spinal structures or by prolonged retraction) will produce recruitment curve having a generally higher threshold (again, in terms of both the y-axis or Vpp value and the x-axis or Istim value), a linear region of reduced slope, and a relatively low saturation region (similar to those shown on recruitment curve “B” in FIG. 14). By recognizing these characteristics, one can monitor nerve root being retracted during a procedure to determine if its pathology or health is affected (i.e. negatively) by such retraction. Moreover, one can monitor a nerve root that has already been deemed pathologic or unhealthy before the procedure (such as may be caused by being impinged by bony structures or a bulging annulus) to determine if its pathology or health is affected (i.e. positively) by the procedure.


The surgical system 10 and related methods have been described above according to one embodiment of the present invention. It will be readily appreciated that various modifications may be undertaken, or certain steps or algorithms omitted or substituted, without departing from the scope of the present invention. By way of example only, certain of these alternate embodiments or methods will be described below.


a. Hanging Point Detection Via Linear Regression


As opposed to identifying the stimulation current threshold (IThresh) based on a predetermined VThresh (such as described above and shown in FIG. 5), it is also within the scope of the present invention to determine IThresh via linear regression. This may be accomplished via, by way of example only, the linear regression technique disclosed in commonly owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/877,713 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,500,128), filed Jun. 8, 2001 and entitled “Relative Nerve Movement and Status Detection System and Methods,” the entire contents of which is hereby expressly incorporated by reference as if set forth in this disclosure in its entirety.


b. Hanging Point Detection Via Dynamic Sweep Subtraction


With reference to FIG. 15, the hanging point or threshold may also be determined by the following dynamic sweep subtraction method. The nerve is stimulated in step 80 using current pulses that increase from IMin to IMax (as described above). The resulting the neuromuscular response (evoked EMG) for the associated muscles group is acquired in step 82. The peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) is then extracted in step 84 for each current pulse according to the T1, T2 algorithm described above with reference to FIGS. 3-6. A first recruitment curve (S1) is then generated by plotting Vpp vs. Istim in step 86. The same nerve is then stimulated such that, in step 88, the peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) may be extracted by subtracting the VMax from VMin of each EMG response without the T1, T2 filters employed in step 84. A second recruitment curve (S2) is then generated in step 90 by plotting Vpp vs. IStim. The generation of both recruitment curves S1, S2 continues until the maximum stimulation current (IMax) is reached (per the decision step 92). If IMax is not reached, the stimulation current IStim is incremented in step 94. If IMax is reached, then the first recruitment curve S1 is subtracted from the second recruitment curve S2 in step 96 to produce the curve “C” shown in step 98. By subtracting S1 from S2, the resulting curve “C” is actually the onset portion of the recruitment curve (that is, the portion before the threshold is reached) for that particular nerve. In this fashion, the last point in the curve “C” is the point with the greatest value of hum and hence the hanging point.


c. Peripheral Nerve Pathology Monitoring


Similar to the nerve pathology monitoring scheme described above, the present invention also contemplates the use of one or more electrodes disposed along a portion or portions of an instrument (including, but not limited to, the access components 24-28 described above) for the purpose of monitoring the change, if any, in peripheral nerves during the course of the procedure. In particular, this may be accomplished by disposing one or more stimulation electrodes a certain distance from the distal end of the instrument such that, in use, they will likely come in contact with a peripheral nerve. For example, a mid-shaft stimulation electrode could be used to stimulate a peripheral nerve during the procedure. In any such configuration, a recruitment curve may be generated for the given peripheral nerve such that it can be assessed in the same fashion as described above with regard to the nerve root retractor, providing the same benefits of being able to tell if the contact between the instrument and the nerve is causing pathology degradation or if the procedure itself is helping to restore or improve the health or status of the peripheral nerve.


d. Virtual Patient for Evoked Potential Simulation


With reference to FIG. 16, the present invention also contemplates the use of a “virtual patient” device for simulating a naturally occurring recruitment curve. This is advantageous in that it provides the ability to test the various systems disclosed herein, which one would not be able to test without an animal and/or human subject. Based on the typically high costs of obtaining laboratory and/or surgical time (both in terms of human capital and overhead), eliminating the requirement of performing actual testing to obtain recruitment curves is a significant offering. According to the present invention, this can be accomplished by providing a device (not shown) having suitable software and/or hardware capable of producing the signal shown in FIG. 16. The device will preferably accept a sweeping current signal according to the present invention (that is, 200 microseconds width pulses sweeping in amplitude from 0-100 mA) and produce a voltage pulse having a peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) that varies with the amplitude of the current input pulse. The relationship of the output Vpp and the input stimulation current will produce a recruitment curve similar to that shown. In one embodiment, the device includes various adjustments such that the features of the recruitment curve may be selectively modified. For example, the features capable of being modified may include, but are not necessarily limited to, Vpp at onset, maximum stimulation current of onselt (hanging point), the slope of the linear region and/or the Vpp of the saturation region.


While this invention has been described in terms of a best mode for achieving this invention's objectives, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that variations may be accomplished in view of these teachings without deviating from the spirit or scope of the present invention. For example, the present invention may be implemented using any combination of computer programming software, firmware or hardware. As a preparatory step to practicing the invention or constructing an apparatus according to the invention, the computer programming code (whether software or firmware) according to the invention will typically be stored in one or more machine readable storage mediums such as fixed (hard) drives, diskettes, optical disks, magnetic tape, semiconductor memories such as ROMs, PROMs, etc., thereby making an article of manufacture in accordance with the invention. The article of manufacture containing the computer programming code is used by either executing the code directly from the storage device, by copying the code from the storage device into another storage device such as a hard disk, RAM, etc. or by transmitting the code on a network for remote execution. As can be envisioned by one of skill in the art, many different combinations of the above may be used and accordingly the present invention is not limited by the scope of the appended claims.

Claims
  • 1. A system for establishing an operative corridor for spinal surgery, comprising: a plurality of sequential dilator cannulas deliverable through bodily tissue having neural structures in a selected path toward a targeted intervertebral disc of a spine, the plurality of sequential dilator cannulas including at least an inner dilator cannula and an outer dilator cannula configured to be guided over the previously delivered inner dilator cannula, at least the inner dilator cannula of the plurality of sequential dilator cannulas having a stimulation electrode positioned along a distal tip region to deliver a stimulation signal to the bodily tissue when the inner dilator cannula is positioned in the selected path toward the targeted intervertebral disc of the spine;a nerve monitoring system comprising a control unit and a plurality of leg muscle sensor electrodes, the nerve monitoring system being configured to deliver an electrical stimulation signal to the stimulation electrode when said inner dilator cannula is positioned along the selected path toward the targeted intervertebral disc of the spine, the nerve monitoring system being configured to monitor electrical activity detected by the plurality of leg muscle sensor electrodes in response to the electrical stimulation signal output from the stimulation electrode of said inner dilator cannula, and the control unit of the nerve monitoring system comprising a display device that simultaneously displays both: a numeric stimulation current threshold in units of milliAmps that changes in response to the detected electrical activity at one or more of said leg muscle sensor electrodes, and one of a plurality of different color-coded indicators, wherein the plurality of different color-coded indicators include a first color corresponding to a first fixed intermediate current amplitude range, a second color corresponding to a second fixed current amplitude range that is greater than the first fixed intermediate current amplitude range, and a third color corresponding to a third fixed current amplitude range that is less than the first fixed intermediate current amplitude range; anda working corridor instrument deliverable over the outer dilator cannula of the plurality of sequential dilator cannulas toward the targeted intervertebral disc of the spine, wherein the working corridor instrument is configured to establish an operative corridor to the targeted intervertebral disc of the spine.
  • 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the color-coded indicators comprise red, yellow, and green.
  • 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the color-coded indicator on the display device corresponds with the range in which the determined threshold stimulation current amplitude is located so as to indicate nerve proximity between a surgical instrument and the spinal nerve.
  • 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the first color is yellow and is set to a predetermined current range, wherein the second color is red and is set to a second predetermined current range, and wherein the third color is green and is set to a third predetermined current range.
  • 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays neuromuscular response information indicative of nerve proximity that includes color associated with the stimulation current threshold.
  • 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays neuromuscular response information indicative of nerve proximity that includes color associated with the stimulation current threshold selected from the group of green, yellow, and red.
  • 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays neuromuscular response information indicative of nerve proximity that includes the color-coded indicator.
  • 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the nerve monitoring system contemporaneously displays: a graphic representation of locations of said leg muscle myotomes and an indication of nerve direction relative to inner dilator along with the numeric stimulation current threshold in units of milliAmps that changes in response to the detected electrical activity at one or more of said leg muscle sensor electrodes and the one of the plurality of different color-coded indicators.
  • 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays a color indicative of at least one of nerve proximity and pedicle integrity.
  • 10. The system of claim 1, wherein at least two of the first, second, and third ranges comprise a safe range and an unsafe range.
  • 11. The system of claim 1, wherein the color-coded indicators comprise red, yellow, and green, wherein the nerve monitoring system contemporaneously displays: a graphic representation of locations of said leg muscle myotomes and an indication of nerve direction relative to inner dilator along with the numeric stimulation current threshold in units of milliAmps that changes in response to the detected electrical activity at one or more of said leg muscle sensor electrodes and the one of the plurality of different color-coded indicators, wherein at least two of the first, second, and third ranges comprise a safe range and an unsafe range.
  • 12. The system of claim 1, wherein the nerve monitoring system is configured to display the numeric stimulation current threshold and one of the plurality of different color coded indicators to a surgeon so that the surgeon may use avoid contact with neural tissue.
  • 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the color-coded indicator on the display device corresponds with the range in which the determined threshold stimulation current amplitude is located so as to indicate nerve proximity between a surgical instrument and the spinal nerve.
  • 14. The system of claim 13, wherein the first color is yellow and is set to a predetermined current range, wherein the second color is red and is set to a second predetermined current range, and wherein the third color is green and is set to a third predetermined current range.
  • 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays neuromuscular response information indicative of nerve proximity that includes color associated with the stimulation current threshold.
  • 16. The system of claim 14, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays neuromuscular response information indicative of nerve proximity that includes color associated with the stimulation current threshold selected from the group of green, yellow, and red.
  • 17. The system of claim 14, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays neuromuscular response information indicative of nerve proximity that includes the color-coded indicator.
  • 18. The system of claim 17, wherein the nerve monitoring system contemporaneously displays: a graphic representation of locations of said leg muscle myotomes and an indication of nerve direction relative to inner dilator along with the numeric stimulation current threshold in units of milliAmps that changes in response to the detected electrical activity at one or more of said leg muscle sensor electrodes and the one of the plurality of different color-coded indicators.
  • 19. The system of claim 18, wherein the nerve monitoring system displays a color indicative of at least one of nerve proximity and pedicle integrity.
  • 20. The system of claim 19, wherein at least two of the first, second, and third ranges comprise a safe range and an unsafe range.
CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/767,355 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,037,250) filed on Feb. 14, 2013, (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/465,666 filed on May 7, 2012 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/292,065 filed on Nov. 8, 2011 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/080,493 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,055,349) filed on Apr. 5, 2011 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/711,937 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,920,922) filed on Feb. 24, 2010 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/754,899 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,068,912) filed on Jan. 9, 2004 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which is a continuation of PCT Patent Application Ser. No. PCT/US02/22247 filed on Jul. 11, 2002 and published as WO03/005887 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference), which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/305,041 filed Jul. 11, 2001 (the contents being incorporated herein by reference).

US Referenced Citations (328)
Number Name Date Kind
208227 Dorr Sep 1878 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
1919120 O'Connor et al. Jul 1933 A
2594086 Smith Apr 1952 A
2704064 Fizzell et al. Mar 1955 A
2736002 Oriel Feb 1956 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
3785368 McCarthy et al. Jan 1974 A
3803716 Garnier Apr 1974 A
3830226 Staub et al. Aug 1974 A
3957036 Normann May 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
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
D295445 Freeman Apr 1988 S
4744371 Harris May 1988 A
4753223 Bremer Jun 1988 A
4759377 Dykstra Jul 1988 A
4784150 Voorhies et al. Nov 1988 A
4807642 Brown Feb 1989 A
D300561 Asa et al. Apr 1989 S
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
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
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
5383876 Nardella Jan 1995 A
5395317 Kambin Mar 1995 A
5450845 Axelgaard 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
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
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
5785658 Benaron Jul 1998 A
5792044 Foley 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
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
5976094 Gozani et al. Nov 1999 A
6004262 Putz et al. Dec 1999 A
6004312 Finneran 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
6050992 Nichols Apr 2000 A
6074343 Nathanson et al. Jun 2000 A
6080105 Spears Jun 2000 A
6083154 Liu et al. Jul 2000 A
6095987 Shmulewitz Aug 2000 A
6104957 Alo et al. Aug 2000 A
6104960 Duysens et al. Aug 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
6142931 Kaji Nov 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
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
6292701 Prass et al. Sep 2001 B1
6306100 Prass Oct 2001 B1
6308712 Shaw 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
6416465 Brau Jul 2002 B2
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, III 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
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 et al. Jan 2004 B2
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
6855105 Jackson, III et al. Feb 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
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
8182423 Miles et al. May 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
8740783 Gharib et al. Jun 2014 B2
9037250 Kaula May 2015 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
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
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
20050149035 Pimenta et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050182454 Gharib et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050192575 Pacheco Sep 2005 A1
20060025703 Miles et al. Feb 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
20080065144 Marino Mar 2008 A1
20080065178 Kelleher et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080071191 Kelleher 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
20110313530 Gharib et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120238822 Miles Sep 2012 A1
20120238893 Farquhar et al. Sep 2012 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (33)
Number Date Country
299 08 259 Jul 1999 DE
100 48 790 Apr 2002 DE
0 334 116 Sep 1989 EP
0 567 424 Oct 1993 EP
0 972 538 Jan 2000 EP
1 002 500 May 2000 EP
2 795 624 Jan 2001 FR
793186 May 1990 JP
10-14928 Mar 1996 JP
3019990007098 Nov 1999 KR
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
02071953 Sep 2002 WO
02087678 Nov 2002 WO
03005887 Jan 2003 WO
03026482 Apr 2003 WO
03037170 May 2003 WO
2005013805 Feb 2005 WO
2005030318 Apr 2005 WO
2006042241 Apr 2006 WO
2006066217 Jun 2006 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (185)
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, 2000, 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. No. 7,207,949; U.S. Pat. No. 7,470,236 and U.S. Pat. No. 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. No. 7,207,949, U.S. Pat. No. 7,470,236, and U.S. Pat. No. 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 Neurological 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 Allograft, 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, Oct. 18, 2001, 6 pages.
“Relative Nerve Movement and Status Detection System and Method,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US01/18579, 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, 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, Aug. 12, 2003, 5 pages.
“Systems and Methods for Performing Percutaneous Pedicle Integrity Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/35047, Aug. 11, 2003, 5 pages.
“Systems and Methods for Performing Surgery Procedures and Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/30617, 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. No. 7,207,949; U.S. Pat. No. 7,470,236 and U.S. Pat. No. 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, 47 pages.
“NuVasive's spine surgery system cleared in the US,” Pharm & 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) for 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.
Kossmann 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 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.
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. No. 8,000,782; U.S. Pat. No. 8,005,535; U.S. Pat. No. 8,016,767; U.S. Pat. No. 8,192,356; U.S. Pat. No. 8,187,334; U.S. Pat. No. 8,361,156, U.S. Pat. No. D. 652,922; U.S. Pat. No. 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. No. 8,000,782; U.S. Pat. No. 8,005,535; U.S. Pat. No. 8,016,767; U.S. Pat. No. 8,192,356; U.S. Pat. No. 8,187,334; U.S. Pat. No. 8,361,156; U.S. Pat. No. D. 652,922; and U.S. Pat. No. C2 5,676,146, 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.
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.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00034, dated Jan. 15, 2014, 66 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00034, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 35 pages.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00035, dated Jan. 15, 2014, 42 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00035, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 12 pages.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00073, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 64 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00073, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 34 pages.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00074, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 68 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00074, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 28 pages.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00075, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 54 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00075, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 23 pages.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00076, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 58 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00076, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 11 pages.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00081, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 47 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00081, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 31 pages.
Patent Owner NuVasive Inc's Preliminary Response from IPR2014-00087, dated Jan. 31, 2014, 51 pages.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision from IPR 2014-00087, dated Apr. 8, 2014, 31 pages.
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00034, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 48 pages.
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00073, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 36 pages.
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00074, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 31 pages.
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00075, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 39 pages.
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00081, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 44 pages.
Final Written Decision from IPR 2014-00087, dated Apr. 3, 2015, 36 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20150216478 A1 Aug 2015 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60305041 Jul 2001 US
Divisions (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 12711937 Feb 2010 US
Child 13080493 US
Continuations (6)
Number Date Country
Parent 13767355 Feb 2013 US
Child 14687745 US
Parent 13465666 May 2012 US
Child 13767355 US
Parent 13292065 Nov 2011 US
Child 13465666 US
Parent 13080493 Apr 2011 US
Child 13292065 US
Parent 10754899 Jan 2004 US
Child 12711937 US
Parent PCT/US02/22247 Jul 2002 US
Child 10754899 US