I. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a system and methods generally aimed at surgery. More particularly, the present invention is directed at a system and related methods for performing percutaneous pedicle integrity assessments involving the use of neurophysiology.
II. Description of Related Art
A trend in spinal surgery is toward performing surgery in a minimally invasive or minimal access fashion to avoid the trauma of so-called open or “direct access” procedures. A specific area of interest is in the percutaneous placement of pedicle screws, which are typically employed to effect posterior fixation in spinal fusion procedures. While great strides are being made in this area, a risk exists (as it does in open procedures) that the pedicle may become breached, cracked, or otherwise compromised due to the formation and/or preparation of the pilot hole (designed to receive a pedicle screw) and/or due to the introduction of the pedicle screw into the pilot hole. If the pedicle (or more specifically, the cortex of the medial wall, lateral wall, superior wall and/or inferior wall) is breached, cracked, or otherwise compromised, the patient may experience pain or neurologic deficit due to unwanted contact between the pedicle screw and exiting nerve roots. This oftentimes necessitates revision surgery, which is disadvantageously painful for the patient and costly, both in terms of recovery time and hospitalization.
Various attempts have been undertaken at performing pedicle integrity assessments. As used herein, the term “pedicle integrity assessment” is defined as detecting or otherwise determining whether a part of a pedicle has been breached, cracked, or otherwise compromised due to the formation and/or preparation of the pilot hole (designed to receive a pedicle screw) and/or due to the introduction of the pedicle screw into the pilot hole. “Formation” is defined as the act of creating an initial pilot hole in a pedicle, such as through the use of a drill or other hole-forming element. “Preparation” is defined as the act of refining or otherwise acting upon the interior of the pilot hole to further prepare it to receive a pedicle screw, such as by introducing a tap or reamer element into the initial pilot hole. “Introduction” is defined as the act of inserting or otherwise placing a pedicle screw into the initially formed and/or prepared pilot hole, such as by screwing the pedicle screw into the pilot hole via a screw driver or similar element.
Among the attempts, X-ray and other imaging systems have been employed, but these are typically quite expensive and are oftentimes limited in terms of resolution such that pedicle breaches may fail to be detected.
Still other attempts involve capitalizing on the insulating characteristics of bone (specifically, that of the medial wall of the pedicle) and the conductivity of the exiting nerve roots themselves. That is, if the medial wall of the pedicle is breached, a stimulation signal applied to the pedicle screw and/or the pilot hole (prior to screw introduction) will cause the various muscle groups coupled to the exiting nerve roots to contract. If the pedicle wall has not been breached, the insulating nature of the pedicle will prevent the stimulation signal from innervating the given nerve roots such that the associated muscle groups will not twitch. Traditional EMG monitoring systems may be employed to augment the ability to detect such innervation. A drawback with such prior art systems is that they do not lend themselves to assessing pedicle integrity in cases where pedicle screws are placed in a percutaneous fashion, such as may be accomplished by any number of commercially available percutaneous pedicle screw implantation systems. With the anticipated increase in the number of such percutaneous pedicle screw procedures, a significant number of patients will be at risk of having misplaced pedicle screws given the lack of a percutaneous manner of performing pedicle integrity assessments.
The present invention is directed at addressing this need and eliminating, or at least reducing, the effects of the shortcomings of the prior art as described above.
The present invention overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art by providing, according to a first broad aspect of the present invention, a system for performing percutaneous pedicle integrity assessments comprising the steps of: (a) percutaneously introducing an insulation member to a pedicle target site; (b) establishing electrical communication between a stimulation element and an interior of a pedicle screw pilot hole; (c) applying a stimulation signal to said stimulation element; and (d) monitoring to assess whether nerves adjacent said pedicle are innervating as a result of the step of applying said application of stimulation signal to said stimulation element.
The present invention overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art by providing, according to a second broad aspect of the present invention, a method for performing percutaneous pedicle integrity assessments comprising the steps of: (a) percutaneously introducing an insulated K-wire into contact with at least one of a pedicle screw and a pedicle screw pilot hole; (b) applying a stimulation signal to said K-wire; and (c) monitoring to assess whether nerves adjacent said pedicle are innervating as a result of the step of applying said stimulation signal to said K-wire.
The present invention overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art by providing, according to a third broad aspect of the present invention, a method for performing percutaneous pedicle integrity assessments comprising the steps of: (a) percutaneously introducing an insulated member to the approximate opening of a pedicle screw pilot hole; (b) introducing a pedicle screw pilot hole preparation tool through said insulated member to prepare said pedicle screw pilot hole; (c) applying a stimulation signal to said pedicle screw pilot hole preparation tool; and (d) monitoring to assess whether nerves adjacent said pedicle are innervating as a result of the step of applying said stimulation signal to said pedicle screw pilot hole preparation tool.
The present invention overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art by providing, according to a fourth broad aspect of the present invention, a method for performing percutaneous pedicle integrity assessments comprising the steps of: (a) percutaneously introducing an insulated K-wire into contact with a pedicle screw pilot hole; (b) applying a stimulation signal to said K-wire; (c) monitoring to assess whether nerves adjacent said pedicle are innervating as a result of the step of applying said stimulation signal to said K-wire; (d) percutaneously introducing an insulated member to the approximate opening of a pedicle screw pilot hole; (e) introducing a tap member through said insulated member to prepare said pedicle screw pilot hole; (f) applying a stimulation signal to said tap member; and (g) monitoring to assess whether nerves adjacent said pedicle are innervating as a result of the step of applying said stimulation signal to said tap member.
The present invention overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art by providing, according to a fifth broad aspect of the present invention, a system for performing percutaneous pedicle integrity assessments including a body and a stimulation source. The body having an aperture dimensioned to receive a stimulation element therethrough and an insulation region capable of being percutaneously introduced to a pedicle target site within a patient. The stimulation source in electrical communication with said stimulation element for selectively applying a stimulation signal to said stimulation element to assess whether nerves adjacent said pedicle target site innervate as a result of applying said stimulation signal to said stimulation element.
But for the systems and methods of the present invention, patients may be released and subsequently experience pain and/or neurologic deficit due to unwanted contact between the exiting nerve root and misplaced pedicle screws, which oftentimes requires another costly and painful surgery.
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.
The present invention is directed at performing percutaneous pedicle integrity assessments.
The step of percutaneously introducing an insulation member to a pedicle target site may be accomplished in any of a variety of suitable fashions, including but not limited to providing the insulation member as a tubular insulation member dimensioned to receive and pass through at least one of a K-wire and a pedicle screw pilot hole preparation tool, such as a tap member. It may also be accomplished by providing a K-wire having an insulated coating with an exposed, electrically conductive distal end, as well as a tap member having an insulated coating with an exposed, electrically conductive threaded region. The pedicle target site may, by way of example only, comprise at least one of a fully inserted pedicle screw and the opening of at least one of an initially formed pedicle screw pilot hole and a prepared pedicle screw pilot hole, depending upon the insulation member employed.
The step of establishing electrical communication between a stimulation element and an interior of a pedicle screw pilot hole may be accomplished in any of a variety of suitable fashions, including but not limited to disposing a K-wire through a K-wire insulator such that a distal tip of the K-wire contacts a fully inserted pedicle screw, which itself is in electrical communication with the interior of the pedicle screw pilot hole. It may also be accomplished by disposing a K-wire through a K-wire insulator such that the distal tip of the K-wire contacts the interior of the pedicle screw pilot hole. In yet another exemplary embodiment, it may be accomplished by bringing a stimulation element (such as a K-wire and/or electrical coupling device) into contact with a tap member disposed through the insulation member. When a K-wire constitutes the stimulation element, it may be useful to provide the tap member with a longitudinal lumen for receiving and passing the K-wire therethrough to establish electrical communication therebetween.
The step of applying a stimulation signal to the stimulation element may be accomplished in any number of suitable fashions, including but not limited to applying voltage and/or current pulses of varying magnitude and/or frequency to the stimulation element. In a preferred embodiment, the stimulation signal may be applied to the stimulation element after the initial pilot hole has been formed, after the pilot hole has been prepared (such as with a tap member) and/or after the pedicle screw has been fully inserted into the pilot hole.
The step of monitoring to assess whether nerves adjacent the pedicle are innervating as a result of the step of applying the stimulation signal to the stimulation element may be accomplished in any number of suitable fashions, including but not limited to visual inspection of the muscle groups associated with a particular nerves, as well as the use of evoked muscle action potential (EMAP) monitoring techniques (that is, measuring the EMG responses of muscle groups associated with a particular nerve).
Although shown and described within the context of a particular exemplary system having a stimulation source and monitoring capacity, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that any number of systems for providing a stimulation signal and for monitoring to assess pedicle breach may be employed without departing from the scope of the present invention.
In a further aspect of the present invention, information relating to the step of assessing whether nerves adjacent the pedicle are innervating as a result of the step of applying the stimulation signal to the stimulation element may be communicated to the user. This information may include, but is not necessarily limited to, visual representations of the actual stimulation threshold of an exiting nerve root alone or in combination with the stimulation threshold of a bare nerve root (with or without the difference therebetween), as well as color coded graphics to indicate general ranges of pedicle integrity (i.e. “green” for a range of stimulation thresholds above a predetermined safe value—indicating “breach unlikely”, “red” for range of stimulation thresholds below a predetermined unsafe value—indicating “breach likely”, and “yellow” for the range of stimulation thresholds between the predetermined safe and unsafe values—indicating “possible breach”). This is a significant feature, and advantage over the prior art, in that it provides a straightforward and easy to interpret representation as to whether a pedicle has been breached, cracked, or otherwise compromised due to the formation and/or preparation of the pilot hole and/or due to the introduction of the pedicle screw into the pilot hole.
Identifying such a potential breach is helpful in that it prevents or minimizes the chance that a misplaced pedicle screw (that is, one breaching a wall of the pedicle) will be missed until after the surgery. Instead, any such misplaced pedicle screws, when stimulated according to the present invention, will produce an EMG response at a myotome level associated with the nerve in close proximity to the pedicle screw that is breaching the pedicle wall. This will indicate to the surgeon that the pedicle screw needs to be repositioned.
The control unit 22 includes a touch screen display 40 and a base 42, which collectively contain the essential processing capabilities for controlling the surgical system 20. The patient module 24 is connected to the control unit 22 via a data cable 44, which establishes the electrical connections and communications (digital and/or analog) between the control unit 22 and patient module 24. The main functions of the control unit 22 include receiving user commands via the touch screen display 40, activating stimulation, processing signal data according to defined algorithms (described below), displaying received parameters and processed data, and monitoring system status and reporting fault conditions. The touch screen display 40 is preferably equipped with a graphical user interface (GUI) capable of communicating information to the user and receiving instructions from the user. The display 40 and/or base 42 may contain patient module interface circuitry that commands the stimulation sources, receives digitized signals and other information from the patient module 24, processes the EMG responses to extract characteristic information for each muscle group, and displays the processed data to the operator via the display 40.
As will be described in greater detail below, the surgical system 20 is capable of performing pedicle integrity assessments after the formation of the pilot hole, after preparation of the pilot hole, and/or after pedicle screw placement. Surgical system 20 accomplishes this by having the control unit 22 and patient module 24 cooperate to send stimulation signals to one or more stimulation electrodes or electrode regions on the various pedicle screw test accessories 30. Depending upon effect of pilot hole formation, pilot hole preparation and/or pedicle screw introduction (namely, on the bone forming the pedicle), the stimulation signals may cause nerves adjacent to or in the general proximity of the K-wire 37 and/or tap member 39 to innervate, which, in turn, can be monitored via the EMG harness 26. The pedicle integrity assessment feature of the present invention are based on assessing the evoked response of the various muscle myotomes monitored by the surgical system 20 via EMG harness 26.
The accessory handle assembly 36 includes a cable 55 for establishing electrical communication with the patient module 24 (via the accessory cable 32). In a preferred embodiment, each pedicle screw test accessory 30 (namely, K-wire insulator 34, universal insulating assembly 38, and electrical coupler 35) includes a proximal electrical connector 56, a distal electrical connector (described below), and an electrical cable 57 extending therebetween. The proximal electrical connector 56 is preferably threaded and designed to engage with the distal end 59 of the handle assembly 36. In this fashion, the screw test accessories 30 may be quickly and easily coupled (electrically and mechanically) to the accessory handle assembly 36. The distal electrical connector of the K-wire insulator 34 and universal insulating assembly 38 may comprise any number of suitable mechanisms for establishing electrical communication with an instrument passing therethrough (such as a K-wire 37 passing through the K-wire insulator 34 and/or the universal insulating assembly 38, and such as a tap member 39 extending through the universal insulating assembly 38). In a preferred embodiment, the distal electrical connectors within the universal insulating assembly 38 will be capable of expanding, moving or otherwise accommodating instruments of varying diameters according to the present invention. The distal electrical connector of the coupler 35 may include any number of suitable electrode or electrode regions (including protrusions) on or about the distal (or pinching) ends of the clamp arms 61 forming the coupler 35. Corresponding regions (such as electrodes or electrode regions—including indentations) may be provided on the K-wire 37, the tap member 39, such as where such devices are to be directly coupled to the handle assembly 36 (i.e. where K-wire 37 and/or tap member 39 are disposed through insulating elements that do not include distal electrical connectors) according to the present invention.
In all situations, the user may operate one or more buttons of the handle assembly 36 to selectively initiate a stimulation signal (preferably, a current signal) from the patient module 24 to the pedicle probe 56. With the K-wire 37 and/or tap member 39 touching the interior wall of the fully formed pilot hole and/or the K-wire 37 touching the fully introduced pedicle screw, applying a stimulation signal in this fashion serves to test the integrity of the medial wall of the pedicle. That is, a breach or compromise in the integrity of the pedicle will allow the stimulation signal to pass through the pedicle and innervate an adjacent nerve root. By monitoring the myotomes associated with the nerve roots (via the EMG harness 26 and recording electrode 27) and assessing the resulting EMG responses (via the control unit 22), the surgical system 20 can assess whether a pedicle breach occurred during hole formation and/or screw introduction. If a breach or potential breach is detected, the user may simply withdraw the misplaced pedicle screw and redirect to ensure proper placement.
The insulating cannula 70 serves to isolate a portion of the instrument as it is passed through the handle assembly 68. In this fashion, the insulating cannula 70 may be advanced to a pedicle target site, such as to the opening of a pedicle pilot hole as shown in
As noted above, the system 20 described generally above is exemplary of a system including a stimulation source and monitoring capacity for use in performing pedicle integrity assessment according to the present invention. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, however, that any number of systems for providing a stimulation signal and for monitoring to assess pedicle breach may be employed without departing from the scope of the present invention. That said, the following discussion elaborates on the particular algorithms and principles behind the neurophysiology for performing pedicle integrity assessments according to the exemplary embodiment shown (system 20 of
A basic premise behind the neurophysiology employed in the present invention is that each nerve has a characteristic threshold current level (IThresh) at which it will depolarize. Below this threshold, current stimulation will not evoke a significant EMG response (Vpp). Once the stimulation threshold (IThresh) is reached, the evoked response is reproducible and increases with increasing stimulation until saturation is reached. This relationship between stimulation current and EMG response may be represented graphically via a so-called “recruitment curve,” such as shown in
In order to obtain this useful information, the present invention must first identify the peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) of each EMG response corresponding a given stimulation current (IStim). The existence stimulation and/or noise artifacts, however, can conspire to create an erroneous Vpp measurement of the electrically evoked EMG response. To overcome this challenge, the surgical system 20 of the present invention may employ any number of suitable artifact rejection techniques, including the traditional stimulation artifact rejection technique shown in
Having measured each Vpp EMG response (as facilitated by the stimulation and/or noise artifact rejection techniques described above), this Vpp information is then analyzed relative to the stimulation current in order to determine a relationship between the nerve and the given stimulation element transmitting the stimulation current. More specifically, the present invention determines these relationships (between nerve and the stimulation element) by identifying the minimum stimulation current (IThresh) capable of resulting in a predetermined Vpp EMG response. According to the present invention, the determination of IThresh may be accomplished via any of a variety of suitable algorithms or techniques.
The threshold-hunting algorithm of this embodiment 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 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 range.
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 exactly, but only with a level of precision related to the minimum bracket width. 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 lower bound of this range is the highest stimulation current IThresh where the function returns the value−1, i.e. the maximum stimulation current that does not evoke a response.
The pedicle integrity assessment function may begin by adjusting the stimulation current until the root is bracketed (
During the bisection state (
After identifying the threshold current IThresh, this information may be employed to determine any of a variety of relationships between the screw test accessory and the nerve. For example, as will be described in greater detail below, when determining the current threshold IThresh of a nerve during pedicle integrity assessment, the relationship between the pedicle testing assembly 36 and the nerve is whether electrical communication is established therebetween. If electrical communication is established, this indicates that the medial wall of the pedicle has been cracked, stressed, or otherwise breached as a result of pilot hole formation, pilot hole preparation, and/or screw introduction. If not, this indicates that the integrity of the medial wall of the pedicle has remained intact. This characteristic is based on the insulating properties of bone.
In a significant aspect of the present invention, the relationships determined above based on the current threshold determination may be communicated to the user in an easy to use format, including but not limited to, alpha-numeric and/or graphical information regarding pedicle integrity assessments, stimulation level, EMG responses, instrument in use, set-up, and related instructions for the user. This advantageously 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 which, 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.
When employed in spinal procedures, for example, such EMG monitoring would preferably be accomplished by connecting the EMG harness 26 to the myotomes in the patient's legs corresponding to the exiting nerve roots associated with the particular spinal operation level. In a preferred embodiment, this is accomplished via 8 pairs of EMG electrodes 27 placed on the skin over the major muscle groups on the legs (four per side), an anode electrode 29 providing a return path for the stimulation current, and a common electrode 31 providing a ground reference to pre-amplifiers in the patient module 24. 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 measured via the EMG harness 26 provide a quantitative measure of the nerve depolarization caused by the electrical stimulus. By way of example, the placement of EMG electrodes 27 may be undertaken according to the manner shown in Table 1 below for spinal surgery:
With reference again to
Any number of the above-identified indicia (such as the baseline stimulation 93, actual stimulation 91, difference 92, and EMG channel tabs 82) may be color-coded to indicate general safety ranges (i.e. “green” for a range of stimulation thresholds above a predetermined safe value, “red” for range of stimulation thresholds below a predetermined unsafe value, and “yellow” for the range of stimulation thresholds in between the predetermined safe and unsafe values—designating caution). In one embodiment, “green” denotes a stimulation threshold range of 9 milliamps (mA) or greater, “yellow” denotes a stimulation threshold range of 6-8 mA, and “red” denotes a stimulation threshold range of 6 mA or below. By providing this information graphically, a surgeon may quickly and easily test to determine if the integrity of a pedicle has been breached or otherwise compromised, such as may result due to the formation of a pedicle screw hole and/or introduction of a pedicle screw. More specifically, if after stimulating the screw hole and/or pedicle screw itself the stimulation threshold is: (a) at or below 6 mA, the threshold display 40 will illuminate “red” and thus indicate to the surgeon that a breach is likely; (b) between 6 and 8 mA, the threshold display 40 will illuminate “yellow” and thus indicate to the surgeon that a breach is possible; and/or (c) at or above 8 mA, the threshold display 40 will illuminate “green” and thus indicate to the surgeon that a breach is unlikely. If a breach is possible or likely (that is, “yellow” or “red”), the surgeon may choose to withdraw the pedicle screw and redirect it along a different trajectory to ensure the pedicle screw no longer breaches (or comes close to breaching) the medial wall of the pedicle.
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.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/836,105 filed on Apr. 30, 2004 by Miles et al., which is a continuation of PCT Application No. PCT/US02/35047 filed on Oct. 30, 2002 and published on May 8, 2003 as PCT Pub. No. WO03/037170, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/336,501 entitled “Spinal Surgery Systems and Methods” filed Oct. 30, 2001, the entire contents of which are hereby expressly incorporated by reference into this disclosure as if set forth fully herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
208227 | Dorr | Sep 1878 | A |
1548184 | Cameron | Aug 1925 | 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 |
3830226 | Staud et al. | Aug 1974 | A |
3851641 | Toole et al. | Dec 1974 | A |
3957036 | Normann | May 1976 | A |
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 |
4235242 | Howson et al. | Nov 1980 | A |
4252130 | Pivery et al. | Feb 1981 | A |
4285347 | Hess | Aug 1981 | A |
4291705 | Severinghaus et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
4461300 | Christensen | Jul 1984 | A |
4515168 | Chester et al. | May 1985 | A |
4519403 | Dickhudy | 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 |
4595018 | Rantala | Jun 1986 | A |
4633889 | Talalla | Jan 1987 | A |
4658835 | Pohndorf | Apr 1987 | A |
4744371 | Harris | May 1988 | A |
4759377 | Dykstra | Jul 1988 | A |
4807642 | Brown | Feb 1989 | A |
4892105 | Prass | Jan 1990 | A |
4926865 | Oman | May 1990 | A |
4962766 | Herzon | Oct 1990 | A |
4964411 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5007902 | Will | Apr 1991 | A |
5058602 | Brody | Oct 1991 | A |
5081990 | Deletis | Jan 1992 | A |
5092344 | Lee | Mar 1992 | A |
5127403 | Brownie | Jul 1992 | A |
5161533 | Prass et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5196015 | Neubardt | Mar 1993 | A |
RE34390 | Culver | Sep 1993 | E |
5255691 | Otten | Oct 1993 | A |
5282468 | Klepinski | Feb 1994 | A |
5284153 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5284154 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5299563 | Seton | Apr 1994 | A |
5312417 | Wilk | May 1994 | A |
5313956 | Knuttson et al. | May 1994 | A |
5327902 | Lemmen | Jul 1994 | A |
5333618 | Lekhtman et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5375067 | Berchin | Dec 1994 | A |
5383876 | Nardella | Jan 1995 | A |
5388587 | Knutsson | Feb 1995 | A |
5450845 | Axelgaard | Sep 1995 | A |
5474558 | Neubardt | Dec 1995 | A |
5480440 | Kambin | Jan 1996 | A |
5482038 | Ruff | Jan 1996 | A |
5484437 | Michelson | Jan 1996 | A |
5540235 | Wilson | Jul 1996 | A |
5549656 | Reiss | Aug 1996 | A |
5560372 | Cory | Oct 1996 | A |
5566678 | Cadwell | Oct 1996 | A |
5579781 | Cooke | Dec 1996 | A |
5593429 | Ruff | Jan 1997 | A |
5599279 | Slotman | Feb 1997 | A |
5630813 | Kieturakis | May 1997 | A |
5671752 | Sinderby et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5707359 | Bufalini | Jan 1998 | A |
5711307 | Smits | Jan 1998 | A |
5741253 | Michelson | Apr 1998 | A |
5779642 | Nightengale | Apr 1998 | A |
5759159 | Masreliez | Jun 1998 | A |
5772661 | Michelson | Jun 1998 | A |
5775331 | Raymond et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5785658 | Benaron | Jul 1998 | A |
5797854 | Hedgecock | Aug 1998 | A |
5806522 | Katims | Sep 1998 | A |
5807272 | Kun et al. | Sep 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 |
5885219 | Nightengale | Mar 1999 | A |
5888196 | Bonutti | Mar 1999 | A |
5902231 | Foley et al. | May 1999 | A |
5928139 | Koros | Jul 1999 | A |
5928158 | Aristides | Jul 1999 | A |
5928159 | Eggers et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5938688 | Schiff | Aug 1999 | A |
5947964 | Eggers et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5976094 | Gozani et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6004262 | Putz et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6026323 | Skladnev et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6027456 | Feler et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6038469 | Karisson et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6038477 | Kayyali | Mar 2000 | A |
6050992 | Nichols | Apr 2000 | A |
6074343 | Nathanson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6104957 | Alo et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104960 | Duysens et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119068 | Kannonji | Sep 2000 | A |
6120503 | Michelson | Sep 2000 | A |
6122547 | Benja-Athon | Sep 2000 | A |
6128576 | Nichimoto et al. | 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 | Oct 2000 | A |
6146335 | Gozani | Nov 2000 | A |
6161047 | King et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6181961 | Prass | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6206826 | Mathews et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6224549 | Drongelen | May 2001 | B1 |
6259945 | Epstein et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266558 | Gozani et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6292701 | Prass et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6306100 | Prass | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6312392 | Herzon | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6325764 | Griffith et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6334068 | Hacker | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6337994 | Stoianovici et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6425859 | Foley et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425901 | Zhu et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6451015 | Rittman, III et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6466817 | Kaula | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6478793 | Cosman | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493588 | Malaney et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6500128 | Marino | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6535759 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6564078 | Marino et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6579244 | Goodwin | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6719692 | Kleffner et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6760616 | Hoey et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6796985 | Bolger et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6819956 | DiLorenzo | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6829508 | Schulman et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6849047 | Goodwin | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6855105 | Jackson, III et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6902569 | Parmer et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6926728 | Zucherman et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6929606 | Ritland | Aug 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 |
7207949 | Miles et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7470236 | Kelleher | Dec 2008 | B1 |
20010039949 | Loubser | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056280 | Underwood et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020007129 | Marino | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020072686 | Hoey et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020123780 | Grill et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020161415 | Cohen | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020193843 | Hill et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030105503 | Marino | Jun 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 |
20050149035 | Pimentra 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 |
20080064976 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080064977 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065178 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071191 | Kelleher et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
4445593 | Jun 1996 | DE |
29908259 | Jul 1999 | DE |
0607688 | Jul 1994 | EP |
0972538 | Jan 2000 | EP |
1146816 | Oct 2001 | EP |
2795624 | Jan 2001 | FR |
2001170190 | Jun 2001 | JP |
2001299718 | Oct 2001 | JP |
11076430 | Mar 2009 | JP |
WO 9711638 | Apr 1997 | WO |
WO 0019894 | Apr 2000 | WO |
WO 0066217 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO 0067645 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO 0103604 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO 0137728 | May 2001 | WO |
WO 03026482 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO 03037170 | May 2003 | WO |
WO 05013805 | Feb 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 10th ed, 860. |
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. |
Brackmann II EMG System, Medical Electronics, 1999, 4 pages. |
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. |
“Electromyography System,” International Search report from International Application No. PCT/US00/32329, Apr. 27, 2001, 9 pages. |
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 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. |
Haig, “Point of view,” Spine, 2002, 27(24): 2819. |
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, 23/92): 224-227. |
Holland, “Intraoperative Electromyography During Thoracolumbar Spinal Surgery,” Spine, 1998, 23(17): 1915-1922. |
Journee, H.L. et al., “System for Intra-Operative Monitoring of the Cortical Integrity of the Pedicle During Screw Placement in Low-Back Surgery: Design and Clinical Results,” Sensory and neuromuscular diagnostic instrumentation and data analysis, 18th Annual International Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society,1 (31), Oct. 1996, 144-145. |
Lenke et al., “Triggered Electromyographic Threshold for Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement,” Spine, 1995, 20(4): 1585-1591. |
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. |
“Nerve Proximity and Status Detection System and Method,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US01/18606, Oct. 18, 2001, 6 pages. |
“Neurovision SE Nerve Locator/Monitor”, RLN Systems Inc. Operators Manual, 1999, 22 pages. |
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. |
“Relative Nerve Movement and Status Detection System and Method,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US01/18579, dated Jan. 15, 2002, 6 pages. |
Shafik, “Cavernous Nerve Simulation through an Extrapelvic Subpubic Approach: Role in Penile Erection,” Eur. Urol, 1994, 26: 98-102. |
“System and Method for Determining Nerve Proximity Direction and Pathology During Surgery,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/22247, dated Mar. 27, 2003, 4 pages. |
“System and Methods for Determining Nerve Direction to a Surgical Instrument,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US03/02056, dated Aug. 12, 2003, 5 pages. |
“Systems and Methods for Performing Percutaneous Pedicle Integrity Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/35047, dated Aug. 11, 2003, 5 pages. |
“Systems and Methods for Performing Surgery Procedures and Assessments,” International Search Report from International Application No. PCT/US02/30617, dated Jun. 5, 2003, 4 pages. |
“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. |
Toleikis et al., “The Usefulness of Electrical Stimulation for Assessing Pedicle Screw Replacements,” Journal of Spinal Disorder, 2000, 13(4): 283-289. |
Welch et al., “Evaluation with evoked and spontaneous electromyography during lumbar instrumentation: a prospective study,” J. Neurosurg. 87, 1997, pp. 397-402. |
Australian Application No. AU 2002353954, Official Examination Letter dated Nov. 27, 2006. |
Australian Application No. AU 2002353954, Response to Official Examination Letter dated Jan. 25, 2008. |
Australian Application No. AU 2002353954, Official Examination Letter dated Feb. 1, 2008. |
European Application No. EP 02789358.5, Official Examination Letter dated Nov. 27, 2007. |
European Application No. EP 02789358.5, Response to Official Examination Letter dated May 23, 2008. |
Kim, et al., “Comparison of Multifidus Muscle Atrophy and Trunk Extension Muscle Strength: Percutaneous Versus Open Pedicle Screw Fixation,” Spine 30(1): 123-129, 2005. |
Preminger, et al., “Percutaneous Nephrostolithotomy vs. Open Surgery for Renal Calculi: a Comparative Study,” JAMA 254(8): 1054-1058, 1985. |
Gilberts, et al., “Prospective Randomized Trial of Open Versus Percutaneous Surgery for Trigger Digits,” The Journal of Hand Surgery 26A(3): 497-499, 2001. |
Cardoso, et al., “Comparison Between Percutaneous Balloon Valvuloplasty and Open Commissurotomy for Mitral Stenosis,” Cardiology 98: 186-190, 2002. |
Wiesner, et al., “Clinical Evaluation and Computed Tomography Scan Analysis of Screw Tracts after Percutaneous Insertion of Pedicle Screw in the Lumbar Spine,” Spine 25(5): 615-621, 2000. |
Foley, et al., “Percutaneous Pedicle Fixation of the Lumbar Spine,” Neurosurg Focus 10(4): Article 10, 2001. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090204176 A1 | Aug 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60336501 | Oct 2001 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10836105 | Apr 2004 | US |
Child | 12427612 | US | |
Parent | PCT/US02/35047 | Oct 2002 | US |
Child | 10836105 | US |