This application generally relates to systems and methods for implanting electrode leads for neuromuscular electrical stimulation, including stimulation of tissue associated with control of the lumbar spine for treatment of back pain.
The human back is a complicated structure including bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons, nerves and other structures. The spinal column has interleaved vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs, and permits motion in several planes including flexion-extension, lateral bending, axial rotation, longitudinal axial distraction-compression, anterior-posterior sagittal translation, and left-right horizontal translation. The spine provides connection points for a complex collection of muscles that are subject to both voluntary and involuntary control.
Back pain in the lower or lumbar region of the back is common. In many cases, the cause of back pain is unknown. It is believed that some cases of back pain are caused by abnormal mechanics of the spinal column. Degenerative changes, injury of the ligaments, acute trauma, or repetitive microtrauma may lead to back pain via inflammation, biochemical and nutritional changes, immunological factors, changes in the structure or material of the endplates or discs, and pathology of neural structures.
The spinal stabilization system may be conceptualized to include three subsystems: 1) the spinal column, which provides intrinsic mechanical stability; 2) the spinal muscles, which surround the spinal column and provide dynamic stability; and 3) the neuromotor control unit, which evaluates and determines requirements for stability via a coordinated muscle response. In patients with a functional stabilization system, these three subsystems work together to provide mechanical stability. It is applicant's realization that low back pain results from dysfunction of these subsystems.
The spinal column consists of vertebrae and ligaments, e.g. spinal ligaments, disc annulus, and facet capsules. There has been an abundance of in-vitro work in explanted cadaver spines and models evaluating the relative contribution of various spinal column structures to stability, and how compromise of a specific column structure will lead to changes in the range of motion of spinal motion segments.
The spinal column also has a transducer function, to generate signals describing spinal posture, motions, and loads via mechanoreceptors present in the ligaments, facet capsules, disc annulus, and other connective tissues. These mechanoreceptors provide information to the neuromuscular control unit, which generates muscle response patterns to activate and coordinate the spinal muscles to provide muscle mechanical stability. Ligament injury, fatigue, and viscoelastic creep may corrupt signal transduction. If spinal column structure is compromised, due to injury, degeneration, or viscoelastic creep, then muscular stability must be increased to compensate and maintain stability.
Muscles provide mechanical stability to the spinal column. This is apparent by viewing cross section images of the spine, as the total area of the cross sections of the muscles surrounding the spinal column is larger than the spinal column itself. Additionally, the muscles have much larger lever arms than those of the intervertebral disc and ligaments.
Under normal circumstances, the mechanoreceptors exchange signals with the neuromuscular control unit for interpretation and action. The neuromuscular control unit produces a muscle response pattern based upon several factors, including the need for spinal stability, postural control, balance, and stress reduction on various spinal components.
It is believed that in some patients with back pain, the spinal stabilization system is dysfunctional. With soft tissue injury, mechanoreceptors may produce corrupted signals about vertebral position, motion, or loads, leading to an inappropriate muscle response. In addition, muscles themselves may be injured, fatigued, atrophied, or lose their strength, thus aggravating dysfunction of the spinal stabilization system. Conversely, muscles can disrupt the spinal stabilization system by going into spasm, contracting when they should remain inactive, or contracting out of sequence with other muscles. As muscles participate in the feedback loop via mechanoreceptors in the form of muscle spindles and golgi tendon organs, muscle dysfunction may further compromise normal muscle activation patterns via the feedback loops.
Trunk muscles may be categorized into local and global muscles. The local muscle system includes deep muscles, and portions of some muscles that have their origin or insertion on the vertebrae. These local muscles control the stiffness and intervertebral relationship of the spinal segments. They provide an efficient mechanism to fine-tune the control of intervertebral motion. The lumbar multifidus, with its vertebra-to-vertebra attachments is an example of a muscle of the local system. Another example is the transverse abdominus, with its direct attachments to the lumbar vertebrae through the thoracolumbar fascia. The thoracolumbar fascia is a deep investing membrane which covers the deep muscles of the back of the trunk. The thoracolumbar fascia includes superficial fascia and deep fascia. The superficial fascia is traditionally regarded as a layer of areolar connective or adipose tissue immediately beneath the skin, whereas deep fascia is a tougher, dense connective tissue continuous with it. Deep fascia is commonly arranged as sheets and typically forms a stocking around the muscles and tendons beneath it. Superficial fascia fibers run in the transverse direction, whereas deep fascia fibers run in a cranial-caudal direction.
The multifidus is the largest and most medial of the lumbar back muscles. It has a repeating series of fascicles which stem from the laminae and spinous processes of the vertebrae, and exhibit a constant pattern of attachments caudally. These fascicles are arranged in five overlapping groups such that each of the five lumbar vertebrae gives rise to one of these groups. At each segmental level, a fascicle arises from the base and caudolateral edge of the spinous process, and several fascicles arise, by way of a common tendon, from the caudal tip of the spinous process. Although confluent with one another at their origin, the fascicles in each group diverge caudally to assume separate attachments to the mamillary processes, the iliac crest, and the sacrum. Some of the deep fibers of the fascicles that attach to the mamillary processes attach to the capsules of the facet joints next to the mamillary processes. The fascicles arriving from the spinous process of a given vertebra are innervated by the medial branch of the dorsal ramus that issues from below that vertebra. The dorsal ramus is part of spinal nerve roots formed by the union of dorsal root fibers distal to the dorsal root ganglion and ventral root fibers. The dorsal root ganglion is a collection of sensory neurons that relay sensory information from the body to the central nervous system.
The global muscle system encompasses the large, superficial muscles of the trunk that cross multiple motion segments, and do not have direct attachment to the vertebrae. These muscles are the torque generators for spinal motion, and control spinal orientation, balance the external loads applied to the trunk, and transfer load from the thorax to the pelvis. Global muscles include the oblique internus abdominus, the obliquus externus abdmonimus, the rectus abdominus, the lateral fibers of the quadratus lumborum, and portions of the erector spinae.
Normally, load transmission is painless. Over time, dysfunction of the spinal stabilization system is believed to lead to instability, resulting in overloading of structures when the spine moves beyond its neutral zone. The neutral zone is a range of intervertebral motion, measured from a neutral position, within which the spinal motion is produced with a minimal internal resistance. High loads can lead to inflammation, disc degeneration, facet joint degeneration, and muscle fatigue. Since the endplates and annulus have a rich nerve supply, it is believed that abnormally high loads may be a cause of pain. Load transmission to the facets also may change with degenerative disc disease, leading to facet arthritis and facet pain.
For patients believed to have back pain due to instability, clinicians offer treatments intended to reduce intervertebral motion. Common methods of attempting to improve muscle strength and control include core abdominal exercises, use of a stability ball, and Pilates. Spinal fusion is the standard surgical treatment for chronic back pain. Following fusion, motion is reduced across the vertebral motion segment. Dynamic stabilization implants are intended to reduce abnormal motion and load transmission of a spinal motion segment, without fusion. Categories of dynamic stabilizers include interspinous process devices, interspinous ligament devices, and pedicle screw-based structures. Total disc replacement and artificial nucleus prostheses also aim to improve spine stability and load transmission while preserving motion.
There are a number of problems associated with current implants that aim to restore spine stabilization. First, it is difficult to achieve uniform load sharing during the entire range of motion if the location of the optimum instant axis of rotation is not close to that of the motion segment during the entire range of motion. Second, cyclic loading of dynamic stabilization implants may cause fatigue failure of the implant, or the implant-bone junction, e.g. screw loosening. Third, implantation of these systems requires surgery, which may cause new pain from adhesions, or neuroma formation. Moreover, surgery typically involves cutting or stripping ligaments, capsules, muscles, and nerve loops, which may interfere with the spinal stabilization system.
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is the application of electrical stimulation to cause muscle contraction to re-animate limbs following damage to the nervous system such as with stroke or spine injury. FES has been the subject of much prior art and scientific publications. In FES, the goal generally is to bypass the damaged nervous system and provide electrical stimulation to nerves or muscles directly which simulates the action of the nervous system. One lofty goal of FES is to enable paralyzed people to walk again, and that requires the coordinated action of several muscles activating several joints. The challenges of FES relate to graduation of force generated by the stimulated muscles, and the control system for each muscle as well as the system as a whole to produce the desired action such as standing and walking.
With normal physiology, sensors in the muscle, ligaments, tendons and other anatomical structures provide information such as the force a muscle is exerting or the position of a joint, and that information may be used in the normal physiological control system for limb position and muscle force. This sense is referred to as proprioception. In patients with spinal cord injury, the sensory nervous system is usually damaged as well as the motor system, and thus the afflicted person loses proprioception of what the muscle and limbs are doing. FES systems often seek to reproduce or simulate the damaged proprioceptive system with other sensors attached to a joint or muscle.
For example, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,839,594 to Cohen, a plurality of electrodes are used to activate selected groups of axons in a motor nerve supplying a skeletal muscle in a spinal cord patient (thereby achieving graduated control of muscle force) and one or more sensors such as an accelerometer are used to sense the position of limbs along with electrodes attached to muscles to generate an electromyogram (EMG) signal indicative of muscle activity. In another example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,119,516 to Hock, describes a biofeedback system, optionally including a piezoelectric element, which measures the motions of joints in the body. Similarly a piezoelectric crystal may be used as a muscle activity sensor as described by U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,680 to Grandjean.
FES has also been used to treat spasticity, characterized by continuous increased muscle tone, involuntary muscle contractions, and altered spinal reflexes which leads to muscle tightness, awkward movements, and is often accompanied by muscle weakness. Spasticity results from many causes including cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury, trauma, and neurodegenerative diseases. U.S. Pat. No. 7,324,853 to Ayal describes apparatus and method for electrically stimulating nerves that supply muscles to modify the muscle contractions that lead to spasticity. The apparatus includes a control system configured to analyze electrical activity of one or more muscles, limb motion and position, and mechanical strain in an anatomical structure.
Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) is a subset of the general field of electrical stimulation for muscle contraction, as it is generally applied to nerves and muscles which are anatomically intact, but malfunctioning in a different way. NMES may be delivered via an external system or, in some applications, via an implanted system.
NMES via externally applied skin electrodes has been used to rehabilitate skeletal muscles after injury or surgery in the associated joint. This approach is commonly used to aid in the rehabilitation of the quadriceps muscle of the leg after knee surgery. Electrical stimulation is known to not only improve the strength and endurance of the muscle, but also to restore malfunctioning motor control to a muscle. See, e.g., Gondin et al., “Electromyostimulation Training Effects on Neural Drive and Muscle Architecture”, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 37, No. 8, pp. 1291-99 (August 2005).
An implanted NMES system has been used to treat incontinence by stimulating nerves that supply the urinary or anal sphincter muscles. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,199,430 to Fang describes implantable electronic apparatus for assisting the urinary sphincter to relax.
The goals and challenges of rehabilitation of anatomically intact (i.e., non-pathological) neuromuscular systems are fundamentally different from the goals and challenges of FES for treating spinal injury patients or people suffering from spasticity. In muscle rehabilitation, the primary goal is to restore normal functioning of the anatomically intact neuromuscular system, whereas in spinal injury and spasticity, the primary goal is to simulate normal activity of a pathologically damaged neuromuscular system.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,428,728 and 8,606,358 to Sachs, both assigned to the assignee of the present disclosure, and both incorporated herein in their entireties by reference, describe implanted electrical stimulation devices that are designed to restore neural drive and rehabilitate the multifidus muscle to improve stability of the spine. Rather than masking pain signals while the patient's spinal stability potentially undergoes further deterioration, the stimulator systems described in those applications are designed to reactivate the motor control system and/or strengthen the muscles that stabilize the spinal column, which in turn is expected to reduce persistent or recurrent pain.
While the stimulator systems described in the Sachs patents seek to rehabilitate the multifidus and restore neural drive, use of those systems necessitates the implantation of one or more electrode leads in the vicinity of a predetermined anatomical site, such as the medial branch of the dorsal ramus of the spinal nerve to elicit contraction of the lumbar multifidus muscle. For lead implantation using the Seldinger technique, it has been proposed to insert a needle in the patient's back, insert a guidewire through a lumen in the needle, remove the needle, insert a sheath over the guidewire, remove the guidewire, insert the electrode lead through a lumen of the sheath, and remove the sheath. Such a process can result in complications depending on the insertion site due to anatomical structures surrounding the target implantation site, impeding the insertion path. For example, as discussed above, the deep back muscles are covered by the thoracolumbar fascia which comprises superficial fascia running in the transverse direction and deep fascia running in a cranial-caudal direction. There is a risk that electrode lead conductors may experience a tight bend near the location where the lead enters the thoracolumbar fascia when the lead is inserted within the body near the lateral edge of the spine. Such a tight bend may lead to dislodgement of the electrode lead and/or fracture, thereby preventing proper therapy delivery. The difference in directions of the superficial and deep fascia near the insertion site at the lateral edge of the spine may increase the risk of a high stress location on the lead.
It would therefore be desirable to provide systems and methods for implanting an electrode lead to rehabilitate muscle associated with control of the lumbar spine to treat back pain with reduced risk of a high stress location on the lead and dislodgement of the electrode lead by surrounding anatomical structures.
The present disclosure describes systems and methods for enhanced implantation of an electrode lead between tissue layers to reduce the risks of a high stress location on the lead or dislodgement. The lead may be configured to emit electrical energy from one or more electrodes disposed on the lead to stimulate target tissue to restore muscle function to the lumbar spine and treat, for example, low back pain. The systems and methods are expected to provide efficient implantation of the lead in a midline-to-lateral manner such that the implanted lead may be secured within the patient and used to restore muscle function of local segmental muscles associated with the lumbar spine stabilization system without disruption of the electrode lead post-implantation due to surrounding anatomical structures.
In accordance with one aspect of the present disclosure, a method for restoring muscle function to a lumbar spine is provided. The method includes selecting a guide needle having a longitudinal axis and a distal tip, a delivery needle having a distal tip, a lumen and a longitudinal axis, and a lead having a distal region including one or more electrodes.
First, a target vertebrae of the lumbar spine is located. For example, the target vertebrae may be the L3 vertebrae. Next, the distal tip of the guide needle is inserted percutaneously at a first insertion site a lateral distance from a midline of the target vertebrae to a depth. The first insertion site may be located at a cranial edge of a transverse process of the target vertebrae, proximately lateral to a base of a superior articular process of the target vertebrae. The method may also include measuring the depth attained by the distal tip of the guide needle.
A second insertion site along the midline of the target vertebrae is then located based on the depth. Accordingly, the second insertion site may be located along the midline of the target vertebrae at a distance from the first insertion site approximately equal to the depth measured. As such, the second insertion site may be located above an L4 spinous process.
Next, the method may include inserting the distal tip of a delivery needle percutaneously at the second insertion site such that the longitudinal axis of the delivery needle is angled relative to the longitudinal axis of the guide needle, e.g., about 45 degrees, so as to traverse naturally occurring fascicle planes. The method may also include visualizing the distal tip of the delivery needle within an outline of a neural foramen of the target vertebrae to confirm proper placement. The distal tip of the delivery needle may be advanced approximately 3-5 mm beyond the distal tip of the guide needle, thereby penetrating tissue for lead anchoring, e.g., muscle such as the intertransversarii.
Next, a guidewire is advanced through the lumen of the delivery needle. The guide needle may be removed after the distal tip of the delivery needle is inserted percutaneously at the second insertion site.
Next, the delivery needle is removed and an introducer assembly is advanced over the guidewire. The introducer assembly may include a dilator having a lumen extending therethrough configured to receive the guidewire, and an introducer sheath having a lumen extending therethrough configured to receive the dilator. The distal tip of the introducer assembly may be visualized within an outline of a neural foramen of the target vertebrae to confirm placement of the introducer assembly within a plane of the lead anchor site, e.g., a plane of muscle such as the intertransversarii. The guidewire is then removed, and if a dilator is used, the dilator may be removed after the guidewire is removed.
The lead is then advanced through the introducer assembly so that the one or more electrodes are disposed in or adjacent to the tissue associated with control of the lumbar spine, e.g., nervous tissue such as the dorsal ramus nerve or fascicles thereof. The lead may include one or more fixation elements disposed in proximity to at least one of the one or more electrodes. The one or more fixation elements may be configured to transition from a delivery state, wherein the one or more fixation elements are positioned adjacent to at least one of the one or more electrodes, to a deployed state, wherein the one or more fixation elements are spaced apart from at least one of the one or more electrodes and positioned to anchor the lead to the anchor site e.g., muscle such as the intertransversarii.
Next, the introducer assembly is retracted, which may cause the one or more fixation elements to transition from the delivery state to the deployed state. For example, the fixation elements may be formed of a flexible material, e.g., a polymer, and may be biased to self-expand to the deployed state when exposed from the introducer assembly.
Finally, an implantable pulse generator that is configured to be coupled to the lead may be implanted within the patient body. The proximal end of the lead may be subcutaneously tunneled to the IPG using a tunneler system.
In accordance with another aspect of the present disclosure, a kit for implanting a device for restoring muscle function to a lumbar spine is provided. The kit may include a guide needle having a distal tip and a longitudinal axis; a delivery needle having a distal tip and a lumen extending therethrough; a guidewire configured to be inserted through the lumen of the delivery needle; an introducer assembly having a distal tip and a lumen extending therethrough configured to receive the guidewire; and a lead having one or more electrodes disposed at a distal region of the lead, as described above.
The kit may further include an implantable pulse generator configured to be coupled to the one or more electrodes via the lead.
The systems and methods of the present disclosure may provide efficient implantation of an electrode lead in a midline-to-lateral manner such that the implanted lead may be secured within the patient and used to restore muscle function of local segmental muscles associated with the lumbar spine stabilization system without disruption of the electrode lead post-implantation due to surrounding anatomical structures. In accordance with the principles of the present disclosure, the systems and methods may be optimized for use in restoring muscle function to the lumbar spine to treat, for example, low back pain.
Referring to
As shown in
Referring now to
Kit 200 may include guide needle 202, delivery needle 204, a guidewire, introducer assembly 205, electrode lead 212, suture sleeve 210 and an implantable pulse generator (IPG). Guide needle 202 includes a distal tip and a longitudinal axis. The distal tip of guide needle 202 may be beveled to ease introduction through tissue. Delivery needle 204 includes a distal tip and a lumen extending therethrough shaped and sized to receive a guidewire. The distal tip of delivery needle 204 may be beveled to ease introduction through tissue. The guidewire is configured to be inserted through the lumen of delivery needle 204.
Introducer assembly 205 includes a distal tip and a lumen extending therethrough configured to receive the guidewire. The distal tip of introducer assembly 205 may be beveled to ease introduction through tissue. Introducer assembly 205 may include introducer sheath 208, which has a lumen extending therethrough configured to receive electrode lead 212. Introducer sheath 208 may include handle 209 sized and shaped to permit a clinician to comfortably hold introducer sheath 208. Introducer assembly 205 also may include dilator 206, which has a lumen extending therethrough configured to receive the guidewire. The lumen of introducer sheath 208 may be shaped and sized to permit dilator 206 to slide therethrough, and the lumen of dilator 206 also serves as the lumen of introducer assembly 205. Further in this embodiment, introducer sheath 208 has a coupling portion configured to be coupled to a portion of dilator 206. In addition, when dilator 206 is removed from within the lumen of introducer sheath 208, the lumen of introducer sheath 208 may receive electrode lead 212.
Electrode lead 212 may include a distal region having one or more electrodes disposed thereon that are configured to be implanted in or adjacent to tissue, such as nervous tissue, muscle, ligament, and/or joint capsule. Electrode lead 212 is a suitable length for positioning the electrodes in or adjacent to target tissue while the IPG is implanted in a suitable location, e.g., the lower back. For example, electrode lead 212 may be between about 30 and 80 cm in length, and preferably about 45 or about 65 cm in length. Electrode lead 212 is also of a suitable diameter for placement, for example, between about 1 and 2 mm in diameter and preferably about 1.3 mm.
The one or more electrodes may be configured to stimulate the tissue at a stimulation frequency and at a level and duration sufficient to cause muscle to contract and may be ring electrodes, partial electrodes, segmented electrodes, nerve cuff electrodes placed around the nerve innervating the target muscle, or the like. For example, the one or more electrodes may be implanted in or adjacent to nervous tissue associated with a target muscle(s). The one or more electrodes may be implanted in or adjacent to the dorsal ramus nerve, or fascicles thereof, innervating the multifidus muscle. In such embodiments, the one or more electrodes are configured to emit electrical energy to stimulate the dorsal ramus nerve, or fascicles thereof, to cause the multifidus to contract to thereby rehabilitate the multifidus and increase stability of the lumbar spine to reduce back pain. The one or more electrodes are a suitable length(s) and spaced apart a suitable distance along the distal region of electrode lead 212. For example, the one or more electrodes may be about 2-5 mm in length, and preferably about 3 mm, and may be spaced apart about 2-6 mm, and preferably about 4 mm.
Electrode lead 212 may further include fixation elements 214 and 215 disposed in proximity to at least one of the one or more electrodes. As will also be understood by one of skill in the art, fixation elements 214 and 215 may be positioned along the electrode lead to secure any one of the other electrodes disposed thereon at a target implantation location. Electrode lead 212 also may be structurally similar to any of the electrode leads described in U.S. Ser. No. 15/202,435, U.S. Pat. No. 9,072,897 to Sachs, U.S. Pat. No. 9,079,019 to Crosby, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0338730 to Shiroff, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0350653 to Shiroff, and/or U.S. Pat. No. 9,186,501 to Rawat, each assigned to the assignee of the present disclosure, the entire contents of each of which are incorporated herein by reference. As such, fixation elements 214 and 215 may be positioned adjacent to at least one of the one or more electrodes of electrode lead 212 in a delivery state, or may be spaced apart from the one or more electrodes of electrode lead 212 in a deployed state. In the deployed state, fixation elements 214 and 215 may be positioned to anchor electrode lead 212 to an anchor site, e.g., muscle such as the intertransversarii. Fixation elements 214 and 215 may be formed of a flexible material, e.g., a polymer, and may be biased to self-expand to the deployed state when exposed from the introducer assembly. Fixation elements 214 and 215 may include any number of projections, generally between 1 and 8 each and preferably 3 or 4 each. The length of and spacing between fixation elements 214 and 215 are defined by the structure around which they are to be placed. In one embodiment, the length of the projections of fixation elements 214 and 215 is between about 1.5-4 mm and preferably about 2.5 mm and the spacing between fixation elements 214 and 215 is between about 2 mm and 10 mm and preferably about 6 mm.
In one embodiment, fixation elements 214 may be configured to be radially offset relative to fixation elements 215 by prefabricating at least one of fixation elements 214 and fixation elements 215 relative to electrode lead 212 such that the projections of fixation elements 214 are radially offset relative to the projections of fixation elements 215 as illustrated and described in further detail in U.S. Ser. No. 15/202,435. For example, the projections of fixation elements 214 may be radially offset relative to the projections of fixation elements 215 by a predetermined angle, e.g., approximately 60 degrees. However, as appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, the projections of fixation elements 214 may be radially offset relative to the projections of fixation elements 215 by other angles to achieve the benefits in accordance with the present disclosure.
While
In one embodiment, kit 200 may further include a stylet and electrode lead 212 may further include a stylet lumen extending therethrough. The stylet lumen is shaped and sized to permit a stylet to be inserted therein, for example, during delivery of electrode lead 212 to provide additional stiffness to electrode 212.
Suture sleeve 210 may optionally be provided to secure at least a portion of electrode lead 212 percutaneously under the skin of the patient body. Suture sleeve 210 illustratively includes a first end section, a middle section separated from first end section by a first groove, a second end section separated from the middle section by a second groove, and a sleeve lumen extending therethrough. The first and second end sections may have truncated conical portions as shown. The first and second grooves are sized and shaped to accept sutures such that suture sleeve 210 may be secured to tissue, e.g., superficial fascia, using the sutures. The lumen of suture sleeve 210 is sized such that electrode lead 212 may be inserted therethrough.
The IPG is configured to be coupled to a proximal end of electrode lead 212, e.g., using a tunneler system such as that described in U.S. Ser. No. 15/202,435, and to provide electrical stimulation via the one or more electrodes of electrode lead 212. The internal functional components of the IPG may be structurally similar to the IPG described in U.S. Pat. No. 9,072,897 to Sachs.
Referring now to
Referring back to
Referring back to
Referring back to
Referring back to
Preferably, delivery needle 204 is inserted with a consistent trajectory, such that the clinician may restart step 308 if necessary to avoid misalignment of the distal tip of delivery needle 204 to the distal tip of guide needle 202. Preferably, delivery needle 204 is advanced approximately 3-5 mm beyond the distal tip of guide needle 202, thereby penetrating the intertransversarii ITV of the target vertebrae. To ensure accuracy for proper positioning of delivery needle 204, using visualization techniques such as x-ray, fluoroscopy, acoustic, anatomic, or CT guidance, the clinician may monitor delivery needle 204 periodically via lateral and/or anterior/posterior images as delivery needle 204 is advanced to the target implantation location. For example, from a lateral image, a clinician may understand that delivery needle 204 is in the proper position when the distal tip of delivery needle 204 is visible at an edge of an outline of the neural foramen of the target vertebrae. In one embodiment, guide needle 202 may be removed from the patient body after delivery needle 204 is in the proper position.
Referring back to
In the event that guidewire 311 exits the lumen of delivery needle 204 at the distal end of delivery needle 204 such that guidewire 311 deflects cranially due to muscle tissue in proximity to the target implantation location, the clinician may remove guidewire 311 and reattempt step 310. In one embodiment, the clinician may remove both guidewire 311 and delivery needle 204, and reattempt both steps 308 and 310.
Referring back to
Referring back to
In one embodiment, introducer assembly 205 is advanced over guidewire 311 with dilator 206 disposed within introducer sheath 208. In this embodiment, introducer assembly 205 is advanced over guidewire 311 by receiving guidewire 311 through the lumen of dilator 206. Further in this embodiment, the clinician may remove dilator 206 from the lumen of introducer sheath 208 after the clinician removes guidewire 311 from the lumen of introducer assembly 205 as described in further detail below. For example, the clinician may rotate dilator 206 in a direction, e.g., counter-clockwise, to disengage it from the coupling portion of introducer sheath 208. In addition, the clinician may maintain slight forward pressure on introducer sheath 208 while removing dilator 206 from the lumen of introducer sheath 208.
Referring back to
Referring back to
In one embodiment, a stylet is inserted within the stylet lumen of electrode lead 212 to provide additional stiffness to electrode lead 212 to ease passage of electrode lead 212 through introducer sheath 208. Electrode lead 212 with the stylet disposed therein then is advanced through the lumen of introducer sheath 208.
At 320, introducer assembly 205 is moved proximally off electrode lead 212, e.g., using handle 209 of introducer sheath 208, while maintaining the position of electrode lead 212 at the target implantation location, as shown in
To confirm that electrode lead 212 is properly positioned at the target implantation location such that electrode lead 212 is sufficiently anchored to the anchor site, the clinician may perform a push-pull test. The push-pull test may include gently pulling electrode lead 212 proximally until a predetermined resistance is felt. If fixation elements 214 and 215 successfully are in the deployed state, electrode lead 212 will experience approximately 2-3 mm of movement during the push-pull test administered by the clinician. In an embodiment comprising utilizing a stylet, the clinician may remove the stylet after determining that fixation elements 214 and 215 have successfully deployed and electrode lead 212 is properly anchored to the anchor site, prior to completely retracting introducer sheath 208.
In one embodiment, electrodes of electrode lead 212 are positioned to stimulate the medial branch of the dorsal ramus DR nerve, or fascicles thereof, that exits between the L2 and L3 lumbar segments and passes over the transverse process of the L3 vertebra, thereby eliciting contraction of fascicles of the lumbar multifidus at the L3, L4, L5 and S1 segments and in some patients also at the L2 segment.
In another embodiment, the electrodes are positioned to stimulate a peripheral nerve where the nerve enters skeletal muscle, which may be one or more of the multifidus, transverse abdominus, quadratus lumborum, psoas major, internus abdominus, obliquus externus abdominus, and erector spinae muscles. Such stimulation may induce contraction of the muscle to restore neural control and rehabilitate the muscle, thereby improving muscle function of local segmental muscles of the lumbar spine, improving lumbar spine stability, and reducing back pain.
Referring now to
In one embodiment, as shown in
Finally, the proximal end of the lead may be subcutaneously tunneled to the IPG using a tunneler system and coupled to the IPG such that the IPG is implanted in a suitable location, e.g., the lower back of the patient, and the electrode lead is fully implanted.
Referring now to
While various illustrative embodiments of the invention are described above, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that various changes and modifications may be made therein without departing from the invention. The appended claims are intended to cover all such changes and modifications that fall within the true scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3077884 | Batrow et al. | Feb 1963 | A |
3416534 | Quinn | Dec 1968 | A |
3710777 | Sparks | Jan 1973 | A |
3754555 | Schmitt | Aug 1973 | A |
3875947 | Jula et al. | Apr 1975 | A |
3893463 | Williams | Jul 1975 | A |
3902501 | Citron et al. | Sep 1975 | A |
3976082 | Schmitt | Aug 1976 | A |
3999551 | Spitz et al. | Dec 1976 | A |
4010757 | Jula et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
4026301 | Friedman et al. | May 1977 | A |
4031899 | Renirie | Jun 1977 | A |
4149528 | Murphy | Apr 1979 | A |
4235246 | Weiss | Nov 1980 | A |
4269198 | Stokes | May 1981 | A |
4342317 | Axelgaard | Aug 1982 | A |
4408609 | Axelgaard | Oct 1983 | A |
4418693 | Leveen et al. | Dec 1983 | A |
4528984 | Morawetz et al. | Jul 1985 | A |
4549556 | Tarjan et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
4574806 | McCarthy | Mar 1986 | A |
4658835 | Pohndorf | Apr 1987 | A |
4832687 | Smith | May 1989 | A |
4917093 | Dufresne et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
5069680 | Grandjean | Dec 1991 | A |
5199430 | Fang et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5215088 | Normann et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5300108 | Rebell et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5330515 | Rutecki et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5376108 | Collins et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5496345 | Kieturakis et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5501452 | Halvorson | Mar 1996 | A |
5507788 | Lieber | Apr 1996 | A |
5522854 | Ideker et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5569183 | Kieturakis | Oct 1996 | A |
5638825 | Yamazaki et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5733307 | Dinsdale | Mar 1998 | A |
5741321 | Brennen | Apr 1998 | A |
5782841 | Ritz et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5807234 | Bui et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5873900 | Maurer et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5916172 | Hodges et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5957968 | Belden et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6104957 | Alo et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119516 | Hock | Sep 2000 | A |
6314325 | Fitz | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6319241 | King et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324414 | Gibbons et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6366819 | Stokes | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381496 | Meadows et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6406421 | Grandjean et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6473654 | Chinn | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6516227 | Meadows et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6527787 | Fogarty et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6565594 | Herweck et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6600954 | Cohen et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6600956 | Maschino et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6605094 | Mann et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6671557 | Gliner | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6735474 | Loeb et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6839594 | Cohen et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6845271 | Fang et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6862479 | Whitehurst et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
7018384 | Skakoon | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7096070 | Jenkins et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7206641 | Ignagni et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7218970 | Ley et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7239918 | Strother et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7286879 | Wallace | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7317948 | King et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7324852 | Barolat et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7324853 | Ayal et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7337005 | Kim et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7337006 | Kim et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7369894 | Gerber | May 2008 | B2 |
7389149 | Rossing et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7444181 | Shi et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7447546 | Kim et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7450993 | Kim et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7489561 | Armstrong et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7493175 | Cates et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7499746 | Buhlmann et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7502651 | Kim et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7515971 | Doan | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7580753 | Kim et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7668598 | Herregraven et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7684866 | Fowler et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7708763 | Selover et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7761166 | Giftakis et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7792591 | Rooney et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7797053 | Atkinson et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7813803 | Heruth et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7908015 | Lazeroms et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7917230 | Bly | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7930039 | Olson | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7981144 | Geist et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8016846 | McFarlin et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8065020 | Ley et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8082039 | Kim et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8170690 | Morgan et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8229565 | Kim et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8229656 | Ikushima et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8249701 | Imran et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8249713 | Fang et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8380318 | Kishawi et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8391966 | Luo et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8409233 | Chinn et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8428728 | Sachs | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8498697 | Yong et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8606358 | Sachs | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8798005 | Vargantwar et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8886337 | Bennett et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8965516 | Bennett et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9072897 | Sachs et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9079019 | Crosby et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9108053 | Crosby et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9320847 | Rooney et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9861811 | Crosby et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
20010053885 | Gielen et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020065543 | Gomperz et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020099419 | Cohen et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020115945 | Herman et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020147485 | Mamo | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156513 | Borkan | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161415 | Cohen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020183765 | Adams | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030100933 | Ayal et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030120328 | Jenkins et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030199938 | Smits et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040030360 | Eini et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040097986 | Adams | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111118 | Hill et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122482 | Tung et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040147969 | Mann et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040167580 | Mann et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040214790 | Borgens | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230281 | Heil et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040236383 | Yelizarov | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050070971 | Fowler et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050080472 | Atkinson et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050119713 | Whitehurst et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149154 | Cohen et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050154389 | Selover et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050165456 | Mann et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177211 | Leung et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050240243 | Barolat et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246006 | Daniels | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050283204 | Buhlmann et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060009810 | Mann et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060009827 | Kurth et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060032657 | Zarembo | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060052856 | Kim et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060106416 | Raymond et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060111746 | Foreman et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060111754 | Rezai et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060155341 | Tehrani et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060184222 | Camps et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206166 | Weiner | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060235484 | Jaax et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241716 | Finch et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259074 | Kelleher et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060293662 | Boyer et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070027501 | Jensen et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070049980 | Zielinski et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070060967 | Strother et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070073357 | Rooney et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070100377 | Armstrong et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100391 | Armstrong | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100408 | Gerber | May 2007 | A1 |
20070100411 | Bonde | May 2007 | A1 |
20070123954 | Gielen et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070129780 | Whitehurst et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070135768 | Carlsen | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070179557 | Maschino et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208392 | Kuschner et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070232936 | Mann et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080026981 | Muhrer et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080103573 | Gerber | May 2008 | A1 |
20080103579 | Gerber | May 2008 | A1 |
20080132961 | Jaax et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080167698 | Kim et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177351 | Fang et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183221 | Burdulis | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183257 | Imran et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080200972 | Rittman et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080228241 | Sachs | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080234791 | Arle et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080269716 | Bonde et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080269812 | Gerber et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090005833 | Cameron et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090018576 | Binmoeller | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090105700 | Anderson | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090112263 | Pool et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090192567 | Armstrong et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090210041 | Kim et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090254095 | Levine et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090259280 | Wilkin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090326613 | Knoblich | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100030227 | Kast et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100036280 | Ballegaard et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100036454 | Bennett et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100082086 | Zhu | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100137938 | Kishawi et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100152808 | Boggs, II | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100152809 | Boggs, II | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100174240 | Wells et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100174326 | Selover et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100179562 | Linker et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100185161 | Pellegrino et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100211149 | Morgan et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100249875 | Kishawi et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100280576 | Gerber et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100292769 | Brounstein et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110004269 | Strother et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110021943 | Lacour et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110022114 | Navarro | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110022123 | Stancer et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110054565 | Wacnik et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110106207 | Cauller et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110160538 | Ravikumar et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110224665 | Crosby et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110224682 | Westlund et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110251662 | Griswold et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110270340 | Pellegrini et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120035953 | Armstrong | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120089153 | Christopherson et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120116477 | Crowe et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120192874 | Bolea et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120215218 | Lipani | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120283800 | Perryman et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120290055 | Boggs, II | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120310140 | Kramer et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120310301 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120310302 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120310314 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120323253 | Garai et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130023974 | Amrani | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130053926 | Hincapie et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130096641 | Strother et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130131766 | Crosby et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130155117 | Bang | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130197607 | Wilder et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130197615 | Rundle et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130211487 | Fang et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130245715 | Peterson | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130261696 | Thacker et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130296966 | Wongsarnpigoon et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130310901 | Perryman et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130338730 | Shiroff et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140031837 | Perryman | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140046398 | Sachs et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140058476 | Crosby et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140114385 | Nijhuis et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140288616 | Rawat | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140350653 | Shiroff et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150105840 | Boggs, II | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20160045746 | Jiang et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160045747 | Jiang et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20170100408 | Bertolini et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1211930 | Jul 2005 | CN |
101678203 | Mar 2010 | CN |
0 587 269 | Mar 1994 | EP |
0 587 269 | Dec 1998 | EP |
1 255 583 | Nov 2002 | EP |
1 053 762 | Aug 2005 | EP |
2 125 100 | Dec 2009 | EP |
2 273 931 | Jan 2011 | EP |
WO-200158520 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO-2004066820 | Aug 2004 | WO |
WO-2006091611 | Aug 2006 | WO |
WO-2006133445 | Dec 2006 | WO |
WO-2006133445 | Dec 2006 | WO |
WO-2006135791 | Dec 2006 | WO |
WO-2007051146 | May 2007 | WO |
WO-2007138598 | Dec 2007 | WO |
WO-2008048471 | Apr 2008 | WO |
WO-2008070807 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO-2008094952 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO-2008112178 | Sep 2008 | WO |
WO-2009020764 | Feb 2009 | WO |
WO-2009134475 | Nov 2009 | WO |
WO-2010062600 | Jun 2010 | WO |
WO-2010062622 | Jun 2010 | WO |
WO-2011079866 | Jul 2011 | WO |
WO-2011112773 | Sep 2011 | WO |
WO-2012057916 | May 2012 | WO |
WO-2012091747 | Jul 2012 | WO |
WO-2013016268 | Jan 2013 | WO |
WO-2013019853 | Feb 2013 | WO |
WO-2013036630 | Mar 2013 | WO |
WO-2013096260 | Jun 2013 | WO |
WO-2013138786 | Sep 2013 | WO |
WO-2013155117 | Oct 2013 | WO |
WO-2014099423 | Jun 2014 | WO |
WO-2015059570 | Apr 2015 | WO |
WO-2015187426 | Dec 2015 | WO |
WO-2018007914 | Jan 2018 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Deckers, et al., Chronic Low Back Pain: Restoration of Dynamic Stability, Neuromodulation, 18:478-486 (2015). |
MicroProbes for Life Science, Nerve Cuff electrodes,2018, available at https://microprobes.com/products/peripheral-electrodes/nerve-cuff, accessed Mar. 5, 2018. |
Unit III—The Spine, “Motions of the Spine,” available at https://courses.vcu.edu/DANC291-003/unit_3.htm, accessed Mar. 5, 2018. |
Wikipedia, “Anterior superior iliac spine,” Updated Feb. 12, 2018, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_superior_iliac_spine. |
Wikipedia, “Blunt Dissection,” Updated Feb. 14, 2018, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_dissection. |
Wikipedia, “Cavernous nerves,” Updated Feb. 26, 2018, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavernous_nerves. |
Wikipedia, “Dorsal ramus of spinal nerve,” Updated Feb. 12, 2018, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsal_ramus_of spinal_nerve. |
Wikipedia, “Ventral ramus of spinal nerve,” Updated Feb 12, 2018, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventral_ramus_of spinal_nerve. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion dated Sep. 28, 2017 in Int'l PCT Patent Appl. Serial No. PCT/IB2017/053945. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion dated Oct. 20, 2017 in Int'l PCT Patent Appl. Serial No. PCT/IB2017/053946. |
Airaksinen et al., “Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain,” European spine journal [I: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society 15 Suppl 2 (2006):S192-300. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16550448. |
Baker et al., “Clinical Uses of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation,” NeuroMuscular Electrical Stimulation—A Practical Guide, 4th ed. Rancho Los Amigos Research and Education Institute Inc., pp. 47-66 (2000). |
Bhadra et al., “Peripheral nerve stimulation for restoration of motor function,” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society, 14(5):378-33 (Sep. 1997). |
Bogie et al., “Effects of regular use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on tissue health,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40(6):469-475 (2003) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15077659 (Accessed Jan. 18, 2011). |
Bowman et al., “Effects of Waveform Parameters on Comfort during Transcutaneous Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 13:59-74 (1985). |
Bradford et al., “Surface Electrical Stimulation in the Treatment of Idiopathic Scoliosis: Preliminary Results in 30 Patients,” Spine, 8(7):757-764 (1983). |
Brazier et al., “A Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D Across Seven Patient Groups,” Health Economics, 13:873-884 (2004). |
Coghlan et al., “Electrical muscle stimulation for deep stabilizing muscles in abdominal wall,” Conference proceedings: . . . Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Conference, pp. 2756-2759 (2008) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19163276. |
Coghlan et al., “Neuromuscular electrical stimulation training results in enhanced activation of spinal stabilizing muscles during spinal loading and improvements in pain ratings,” Conference proceedings: . . . Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Conference, pp. 7622-7625 (2011) available at: http://www.ncbi.n1m.nih.gov/pubmed/22256103. |
Crago et al., “The choice of pulse duration for chronic electrical stimulation via surface, nerve, and intramuscular electrodes,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2(3):252-264 (1974). |
Criterion Inc., “NMES Treatment Protocols,” 3 pages (accessed Jun. 7,2012) available at http://www.criterionmed.com/PDF/NMES%20Treatment%20Protocols.pdf. |
Durham et al., “Surface Electrical Stimulation Versus Brace in Treatment of Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Spine, 15(9):888-891 (1990). |
Empi, “Low Back Syndrome/Chronic Low Back Pain,” NMES Guidelines for Treatment, 2 pages (2003). |
Extended European Search Report dated Mar. 5, 2015 in EP Patent Application Serial No. 14189412.1. |
Extended European Search Report dated Jan. 7, 2013 in European Patent Application Serial No. 12176863. |
Ferreira et al., “Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial,” Pain, 131(1-2):31-37 (2007) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17250965. |
Freeman, et al., The Role of the Lumbar Multifidus in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Review, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2:142-146 (2010). |
Friedman et al., “Electrical stimulation for scoliosis,” American Family Physician, 25(4):155-160 (1982) available at: http://www.ncbi.n1m.nih.gov/pubmed/6978055 (Accessed Oct. 19, 2011). |
Garmirian, et al., Discriminating Neurogenic from Myopathic Disease via Measurement of Muscle Anisotrophy, Muscle Nerve, 39(1):16-24 (2009) (Abstract only). |
Gazelle et al., “Tumor Ablation with radio-frequency Energy,” Radiology, (2000), 217(3):633-646. |
Glaser et al., “Electrical Muscle Stimulation as an Adjunct to Exercise Therapy in the Treatment of Nonacute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial,” The Journal of Pain, 2(5):295-300 (2001). |
Gondin, et al., Electromyostimulation training effects on neural drive and muscle architecture, Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc., 37(8):1291-9 (2005). |
Gorman et al., “The effect of stimulus parameters on the recruitment characteristics of direct nerve stimulation,” IEEE Transactions on Bio-medical Engineering, 30(7):407-414 (1983). |
Haemmerich et al., “Thermal Tumor Ablation: Devices, Clinical Applications and Future Directions,” Int. J. Hyperthermia, (2005) 21(8):775-760 (Abstract only). |
Hagg et al., “The Clinical Importance of Changes in Outcome Scores After Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain,” Eur. Spine. J., 12:12-20 (2003). |
Herbert et al., “Scoliosis Treatment in Children Using a Programmable, Totally Implantable Muscle Stimulator (ESI),” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 36(7):801 (Jul. 1989). |
Hodges et al., “Response of the deep paraspinal muscles to cortical but not transmastoid stimulation is increased at a single lumbar level following interverebral disc lesion,” Progress in Motor Control Vi—Brazil. 36:2-3 (2007). |
Hodges, et al., Intervetebral Stiffness of the Spine is Increased by Evoked Contraction of Transversus Abdominis and the Diaphragm: In Vivo Porcine Studies, Spine 28(23):2594-2601 (2003) (Abstract only). |
Hodges, Is There a Role for Transversus Abdominis in Lumbo-Pelvis Stability? Manual Therapy, 4(2):74-86 (1999). |
Holm, et al., Sensorimotor Control of the Spine, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 12(3):219-34 (2002) (Abstract only). |
Hortobagyi et al., “Neural adaptations to electrical stimulation strength training,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2439-2449 (2011) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21643920 (Accessed Jul. 19, 2011). |
Informal Response to Written Opinion dated Jan. 17, 2012 Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2011/027834. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion dated Jan. 19, 2016 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/IB2015/055926. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion dated Mar. 19, 2015 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/IB2014/002920. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion dated Apr. 5, 2013 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2012/070259. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion dated Jun. 25, 2008 in Int'l PCT Patent Appl No. PCT/US08/03126. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jan. 26, 2016 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/IB2015/057838. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 16, 2015 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2015/032732. |
International Search Report dated Oct. 19, 2011 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2011/027934. |
Keller, et al., Muscular Contributions to Dynamic Dorsoventral Lumber Spine Stiffness, Eur. Spine J., 16(2):245-54 (2007). |
Kiesel et al., “Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging,” Manual Therapy, 12(2):161-166 (2007) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16973400. |
Lauridsen et al., “Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Pain and Disability Instruments in Low Back Pain Patients,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 7(82):16 pages (2006). |
Lieber, Richard, Comparison between animal and human studies of skeletal muscle adaptation to chronic stimulation, Clinical Orthopaedics and related research, No. 233, pp. 19-24 (1988). |
Lieber, Richard, Skeletal muscle adaptability. II: Muscle properties following spinal-cord injury, Developmental medicine and Child Neurology 28(4):533-42 (1986). |
Lieber, Richard, Skeletal muscle adaptability. III: Muscle properties following chronic electrical stimulation, Developmental medicine and Child Neurology 28(5):662-70 (1986). |
Medtronic Extension Passer 3555 Accessory Kit—Technical Instructions, 2 pages (2001). |
Medtronic Interstim Therapy 3093 & 3889—Implant Manual, 38 pages (2010). |
Medtronic, Kinetra, Soletra, and Itrel II, 8870, Neurostimulators for Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS), Software Application Card, Programming Guide for Software A, Dec. 1, 2003, Published 2005, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: http:://www.boala-parkinson.ro/Carti%20tehnice/dbs-prog8870-gd.pdf [retrieved Aug. 23, 2018]. |
Medtronic Model 3464 Receiver/Extension Internalization Manual, SE-4 for Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS), 7 pages (1986). |
Medtronic Tunneling Rod Accessory Kit 8590-41—Technical Manual, 9 pages (No date available). |
Miyatani, et al., Validity of Estimating Limb Muscle Volume by Bioelectrical Impedance, J. Appl. Physiol., 91:386-394 (2001). |
Mortimer et al., “Intramuscular electrical stimulation: tissue damage,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 8(3):235-244 (1980). |
Mortimer et al., “Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Stimulation. In: Horch KW, Dhillon G, eds,” Neuroprosthetics: Theory and Practice (Series on Bioengineering & Biomedical Engineering—vol. (2), World Scientific Publishing Company, pp. 1-48 (2005). |
Nachemson et al., “Effectiveness of Treatment with a Brace in Girls Who Have Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 77-A(6):815-819 (Jun. 1995). |
Oaao Bock, “ActiGait Implantable Drop Foot Stimulator,” Surgeon Manual, 28 pages (2006). |
O'Donnell et al., “Electrical Stimulation in the Treatment of Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 229:107-112 (Apr. 1988). |
Paicius et al., “Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: Preliminary Results of Long-Term Follow-up: A Case Series,” Neuromodulation, 10(3):279-290 (2007) available at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/I0.IIII/j.1525-1403.2007.00116.x. |
Panjabi, Manohar, “A hypothesis of chronic back pain: ligament subfailure injuries lead to muscle control dysfunction,” European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society 15, No. 5 (May 2006): 668-676. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16047209. |
Panjabi, Manohar, “The stabilizing system of the spine. Part 1. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement,” Journal of Spinal Disorders, 5(4)383-389 (Dec. 1992), Discussion 397. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1490034. |
Panjabi, Manohar, “The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis,” Journal of Spinal Disorders, 5(4):390-396 (Dec. 1992), Discussion 397. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1490035. |
Partial International Search Report dated Aug. 4, 2015 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2015/032732. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 3, 2013 in Int'l PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2013/045223. |
PCT Written Opinion dated Aug. 23, 2013 in Int'l PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2010/049148. |
Peckham et al., “Functional electrical stimulation for neuromuscular applications,” Annual review of Biomedical Engineering, 7:327-360 (2005) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16004574. |
Peterson et al., “Long-term intramuscular electrical activation of the phrenic nerve: safety and reliability,” IEEE Transactions on Bio-medical Engineering, 41(12):1115-1126 (1994). |
Poitras et al., “Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, interferential current, electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, and thermotherapy,” The Spine Journal 8:226-233 (2008). |
Reed B., “The Physiology of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation, Pediatric Physical Therapy,” 9(3):96-102 (1997) available at: http://journals.lww.com/pedpt/pages/artic1eviewer.aspx?year=1997&issue=00930&article=00002&type=abstract. |
Rosatelli, et al., Three-dimensional study of the musculotendinous architecture of lumbar multifidus and its functional implications, Clinical Anatomy 21(6):539-44 (2008). |
RS Medical, “RS-4M Muscle Stimulator,” available at http://www.rsmedical.com/documents/fact_sheet_RS4m.pdf (last visited Jul. 19, 2012). |
Rutkove, “Electrical Impedance Myography: Background, Current State, and Future Directions,” Muscle Nerve, 40(6):936-946 (2009). |
Schwartz et al., “Therapeutic Electrical Stimulation of the Hypoglossal Nerve in Obstructive Sleep Apnea,” Arch Otolaryngal Head Neck Surg., 127:1216-1223 (2001). |
Sheffler et al., “Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Neurorehabilitation,” Muscle Nerve, 35: 562-590 (2007). |
Sippl, Charles J., “Computer Dictionary: Third Edition,” pp. 2257 and 340. |
Sluijter, “Radiofrequency Ablation in the Management of Spinal Pain,” C212, (2006), IV(1):10-15. |
Solomonow et al., “The Ligamento-Muscular Stabilizing System of the Spine,” Spine, (1998), 23(23):2552-2562. |
Spinal Fusion Guidelines, MD Guidelines, 2009. www.mdguidelines.com/spinal-fusion. |
Stokes, et al., “Surface EMG Electrodes Do Not Accurately Record from Lumbar Multifidus Muscles,” Clin. Biomech, (2003), 18(1):9-13 (Abstract Only). |
Van Dieen, et al., “Trunk Muscle Recruitment Patterns,” Spine, (2003), 28(8):834-841 (Abstract Only). |
Van et al., “The use of real-time ultrasound imaging for biofeedback of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction in healthy subjects,” The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 36(12):920-925 (2006) available at: http://www.ncbi.n1m.nih.gov/pubmed/17193869. |
Van Zundert et al., “Radiofrequency treatment for chronic pain syndromes,” CPD Anaesthesis, 6(1):13-17 (2004). |
Verrills et al., “Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome?,” Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, (2009), 12(1):68-75. |
Vrbova et al., Application of Muscle/Nerve Stimulation in Health and Disease, Springer Verlag (2008) available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&1r=&id=jb8fDGxkbqEC&oi=fnd&pg=PAl&dq=Application of Muscle/Nerve Stimulation in Health and Disease&ots=CMV5rXiDQD&sig=Wg8u1YOC4PgvVDzcjdwBub5U2To (Accessed Jun. 2, 2011). |
Wallwork et al., “The effect of chronic low back pain on size and contraction of the lumbar multifidus muscle,” Manual Therapy, 14(5):496-500 (2009) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19027343. |
Ward et al., “Architectural analysis and intraoperative measurements demonstrate the unique design of the multifidus for lumbar spine stability,” J. Bone Joint Surg. [Am.] 91:176-185, PMC2663324 (2009). |
Wikipedia, “Interference Fit,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_fit, accessed Dec. 4, 2014. |
Wikipedia, “Time-division multiplexing,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-division_multiplexing (accessed Nov. 12, 2015). |
Wright et al., “Morphologic and histochemical characteristics of skeletal muscle after long-term intramuscular electrical stimulation,” Spine, 17(7):767-770 (1992) available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1502640 (Accessed Aug. 2, 2011). |
Written Opinion dated Nov. 16, 2011 in Int'l PCT Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2011/027934. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180008311 A1 | Jan 2018 | US |