This invention relates generally to devices for the treatment of spinal conditions, and more particularly, to the treatment of various spinal conditions that cause back pain. Even more particularly, this invention relates to devices that may be placed between adjacent spinous processes to treat various spinal conditions. For example, spinal conditions that may be treated with these devices may include spinal stenosis degenerative disc disease (DDD), disc herniations and spinal instability, among others.
The clinical syndrome of neurogenic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis is a frequent source of pain in the lower back and extremities, leading to impaired walking, and causing other forms of disability in the elderly. Although the incidence and prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis have not been established, this condition is the most frequent indication of spinal surgery in patients older than 65 years of age.
Lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition of the spine characterized by a narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. With spinal stenosis, the spinal canal narrows and pinches the spinal cord and nerves, causing pain in the back and legs. It is estimated that approximately 5 in 10000 people develop lumbar spinal stenosis each year. For patients who seek the aid of a physician for back pain, approximately 12%-15% are diagnosed as having lumbar spinal stenosis.
Common treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis include physical therapy (including changes in posture), medication, and occasionally surgery. Changes in posture and physical therapy may be effective in flexing the spine to decompress and enlarge the space available to the spinal cord and nerves—thus relieving pressure on pinched nerves. Medications such as NSAIDS and other anti-inflammatory medications are often used to alleviate pain, although they are not typically effective at addressing spinal compression, which is the cause of the pain.
Surgical treatments are more aggressive than medication or physical therapy, and in appropriate cases surgery may be the best way to achieve lessening of the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis and other spinal conditions. The principal goal of surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis is to decompress the central spinal canal and the neural foramina, creating more space and eliminating pressure on the spinal nerve roots. The most common surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis is direct decompression via a laminectomy and partial facetectomy. In this procedure, the patient is given a general anesthesia and an incision is made in the patient to access the spine. The lamina of one or more vertebrae may be partially or completely removed to create more space for the nerves. The success rate of decompressive laminectomy has been reported to be in excess of 65%. A significant reduction of the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis is also achieved in many of these cases.
The failures associated with a decompressive laminectomy may be related to postoperative iatrogenic spinal instability. To limit the effect of iatrogenic instability, fixation and fusion may also be performed in association with the decompression. In such a case, the intervertebral disc may be removed, and the adjacent vertebrae may be fused. A discectomy may also be performed to treat DDD and disc herniations. In such a case, a spinal fusion would be required to treat the resulting vertebral instability. Spinal fusion is also traditionally accepted as the standard surgical treatment for lumbar instability. However, spinal fusion sacrifices normal spinal motion and may result in increased surgical complications. It is also believed that fusion to treat various spinal conditions may increase the biomechanical stresses imposed on the adjacent segments. The resultant altered kinematics at the adjacent segments may lead to accelerated degeneration of these segments.
As an alternative or complement to the surgical treatments described above, an interspinous process device may be implanted between adjacent spinous processes of adjacent vertebrae. The purposes of these devices are to provide stabilization after decompression, to restore foraminal height, and to unload the facet joints. They also allow for the preservation of a range of motion in the adjacent vertebral segments, thus avoiding or limiting possible overloading and early degeneration of the adjacent segments as induced by fusion. The vertebrae may or may not be distracted before the device is implanted therebetween. An example of such a device is the interspinous prosthesis described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,626,944, the entire contents of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference. This device, commercially known as the DIAM® spinal stabilization system, is designed to restabilize the vertebral segments as a result of various surgical procedures or as a treatment of various spinal conditions. It limits extension and may act as a shock absorber, since it provides compressibility between the adjacent vertebrae, to decrease intradiscal pressure and reduce abnormal segmental motion and alignment. This device provides stability in all directions and maintains the desired separation between the vertebral segments all while allowing motion in the treated segment.
Although currently available interspinous process devices typically work for their intended purposes, they could be improved. For example, where the spacer portion of the implant is formed from a hard material to maintain distraction between adjacent vertebrae, point loading of the spinous process can occur due to the high concentration of stresses at the point where the hard material of the spacer contacts the spinous process. This may result in excessive subsidence of the spacer into the spinous process. In addition, if the spinous process is osteoporotic, there is a risk that the spinous process could fracture when the spine is in extension. In addition, because of the human anatomy and the complex biomechanics of the spine, some currently available interspinous process devices may not be easily implantable in certain locations in the spine.
The spine is divided into regions that include the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacrococcygeal regions. The cervical region includes the top seven vertebrae indentified as C1-C7. The thoracic region includes the next twelve vertebrae identified as T1-T12. The lumbar region includes five vertebrae L1-L5. The sacrococcygeal region includes five fused vertebrae comprising the sacrum. These five fused vertebrae are identified as the S1-S5 vertebrae. Four or five rudimentary members form the coccyx.
The sacrum is shaped like an inverted triangle with the base at the top. The sacrum acts as a wedge between the two iliac bones of the pelvis and transmits the axial loading forces of the spine to the pelvis and lower extremities. The sacrum is rotated anteriorly with the superior endplate of the first sacral vertebra angled from about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees in the horizontal plane. The S1 vertebra includes a spinous process aligned along a ridge called the medial sacral crest. However, the spinous process on the S1 vertebrae may not be well defined, or may be non-existent, and therefore may not be adequate for supporting an interspinous process device positioned between the L5 and S1 spinous processes.
Thus, a need exists for an interspinous process device that may be readily positioned between the L5 and S1 spinous processes. Moreover, there is a need to provide an interspinous process device that can provide dynamic stabilization to the instrumented motion segment and not affect adjacent segment kinematics.
A spinal implant is described herein that is particularly adapted for placement between the spinous processes of the L5 vertebra and the S1 vertebra to provide dynamic stabilization. The implant includes an upper saddle defined by a pair of sidewalls joined by a bottom wall. The upper saddle sidewalls may flare slightly outwardly away from the sagittal plane toward the top of the implant while the bottom wall of the upper saddle may be concavely curved. In addition, the surfaces forming the upper saddle sidewalls and the upper saddle bottom wall extend in a direction, from the front of the implant to the rear of the implant, which is generally parallel to the sagittal plane. The upper saddle is configured to receive and support the spinous process of the L5 vertebra therein. The implant also includes a lower saddle defined by a pair of sidewalls joined by a top wall. The lower saddle sidewalls flare outwardly away from the sagittal plane toward the bottom of the implant. In addition, the surfaces forming the lower saddle sidewalls extend in a direction, from the front of the implant to the rear of the implant, outwardly away from the sagittal plane. The lower saddle top wall may be concavely curved. In addition, the surface forming the lower saddle top wall extends in a direction, from the front of the implant to the rear of the implant, toward the top of the implant. The lower saddle is not intended to engage and is not supported by the spinous process of the S1 vertebra. Rather the lower saddle merely provides a space into which that spinous process may extend when the implant is properly located in place.
The spinal implant described herein has outer sidewalls that extend on either side of the implant from the upper portion of the implant to the lower portion of the implant. The outer sidewalls flare outwardly away from the sagittal plane from the upper portion of the implant to give the implant a generally triangular-like shape. The wider bottom portion of the implant allows two lower lobes to be defined along the bottom portion of the implant adjacent to either side of the lower saddle. The lower lobes each define a channel extending through the thickness of the implant. The channels allow a fixation device to extend therethrough to fix the implant in the desired location. These channels flare outwardly so the fixation device can extend to the pedicles of the S1 vertebra. For example, the channels may extend at an angle of about 60 degrees away from the sagittal plane toward the rear of the implant and at an angle of about 5 degrees toward the top of the implant in a direction from the front of the implant toward the rear of the implant.
The spinal implant described herein may also define a passage that extends completely through the implant from one side of the implant to the other side of the implant. The passage may have a concavely curved trajectory when viewed from the top of the implant such that the openings on either side of the implant are generally aligned with a bottom portion of the upper saddle and the nadir of the passage is below and generally aligned along the sagittal plane with the lowest portion of the upper saddle bottom wall and the highest portion of the lower saddle top wall. A tether may extend through this passage. The curve of the passage facilitates a tether being threaded through the passage.
The spinal implant described herein may be formed as a unitary body of a polymeric material having a gradual variation in modulus along and/or across its cross-section. For example, the modulus may vary along the height of the body such that the upper portion of the body is more flexible than the lower portion of the body. Alternatively, the modulus may vary along the width of the body such that the outer lateral portions of the body are stiffer than the central portion of the body. The modulus may also vary along the width and height of the body such that the outer lateral portions and the lower portion of the body are stiffer than the central and upper portion of the body.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an” and “the” include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, the term “a member” is intended to mean a single member or a combination of members, and “a material” is intended to mean one or more materials, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, the words “proximal” and “distal” refer to directions closer to and away from, respectively, an operator (e.g., surgeon, physician, nurse, technician, etc.) who would insert the medical device into the patient, with the tip-end (i.e., distal end) of the device inserted inside a patient's body first. Thus, for example, the device end first inserted inside the patient's body would be the distal end of the device, while the device end last to enter the patient's body would be the proximal end of the device.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the terms “upper”, “top”, “lower”, “bottom”, “front”, “back”, “rear”, “left”, “right”, “side”, “middle” and “center” refer to portions of or positions on the implant when the implant is oriented in its implanted position.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “axial plane” when used in connection with particular relationships between various parts of the implant means a plane that divides the implant into upper and lower parts. As shown in the FIGS., the axial plane is defined by the X axis and the Z axis. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “coronal plane” when used in connection with particular relationships between various parts of the implant means a plane that divides the implant into front and back parts. As shown in the FIGS., the coronal plane is defined by the X axis and the Y axis. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “sagittal plane” when used in connection with particular relationships between various parts of the implant means a plane that divides the implant into left and right parts. As show in the FIGS., the sagittal plane is defined by the Y axis and the Z axis.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “body” when used in connection with the location where the device of this invention is to be placed to treat spinal disorders, or to teach or practice implantation methods for the device, means a mammalian body. For example, a body can be a patient's body, or a cadaver, or a portion of a patient's body or a portion of a cadaver.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “parallel” describes a relationship, given normal manufacturing or measurement or similar tolerances, between two geometric constructions (e.g., two lines, two planes, a line and a plane, two curved surfaces, a line and a curved surface or the like) in which the two geometric constructions are substantially non-intersecting as they extend substantially to infinity. For example, as used herein, a line is said to be parallel to a curved surface when the line and the curved surface do not intersect as they extend to infinity. Similarly, when a planar surface (i.e. t a two-dimensional surface) is said to be parallel to a line, every point along the line is spaced apart from the nearest portion of the surface by a substantially equal distance. Two geometric constructions are described herein as being “parallel” or “substantially parallel” to each other when they are nominally parallel to each other, such as for example, when they are parallel to each other within a tolerance. Such tolerances can include, for example, manufacturing tolerances, measurement tolerances or the like.
As used in this specification and the appended claims, the terms “normal”, “perpendicular” and “orthogonal” describe a relationship between two geometric constructions (e.g., two lines, two planes, a line and a plane, two curved surfaces, a line and a curved surface or the like) in which the two geometric constructions intersect at an angle of approximately 90 degrees within at least one plane. For example, as used herein, a line is said to be normal, perpendicular or orthogonal to a curved surface when the line and the curved surface intersect at an angle of approximately 90 degrees within a plane. Two geometric constructions are described herein as being “normal”, “perpendicular”, “orthogonal” or “substantially normal”, “substantially perpendicular”, “substantially orthogonal” to each other when they are nominally 90 degrees to each other, such as for example, when they are 90 degrees to each other within a tolerance. Such tolerances can include, for example, manufacturing tolerances, measurement tolerances or the like.
A spinal implant 10 is described herein that is particularly adapted for placement between the spinous processes of the L5 vertebra and the S1 vertebra. However, it is to be understood that even though the following description of implant 10 is provided with reference to the L5 spinous process and the S1 spinous process, implant 10 may be used between other adjacent spinous process and the discussion of the L5 spinous process may be interpreted to include any superior spinous process and the S1 spinous process may be interpreted to include the adjacent inferior spinous process.
Implant 10 includes an upper saddle 20 defined by a pair of sidewalls 21a and 21b joined by a bottom wall 22. Upper saddle 20 receives and supports the spinous process of the L5 vertebra therein. Upper saddle sidewalls 21a and 21b may flare slightly outwardly away from the sagittal plane toward the top of implant 10 while upper saddle bottom wall 22 may be concavely curved. Implant 10 may have a variable radius (from about 3.0 mm on the ventral face 12 to about 2.0 mm on the dorsal face 45. This allows implant 10 to engage the L5 spinous process, which is usually thicker at the base. As shown in
Upper saddle sidewalls 21a and 21b flare out and have a variable angle. The angle starts at about 40 degrees at the upper portion of upper saddle 20 and varies so that the angle is about 25 degrees at about the lowermost portion of upper saddle 20. Lower saddle sidewalls 31a and 31b flare out and have a constant angle between about 25 degrees and about 35 degrees. Lower saddle top wall 32 may be concavely curved or may have another configuration that allows the lower portion of implant 10 to be fixed to the S1 pedicles and minimizes any interference between the S1 spinous process and the rear of implant 10. Lower saddle top wall 32 is inclined between about 30 degrees and about 35 degrees in the sagittal plane.
Implant 10 has outer sidewalls 11a and 11b that extend on either side of implant 10 from the upper portion of implant 10 to the lower portion of implant 10. Outer sidewalls 11a and 11b flare outwardly away from the sagittal plane from the upper portion of implant 10 to give implant 10 a generally triangular shape. In addition, the overall shape of implant 10 transfers load from the L5 spinous process to the S1 pedicles instead of to the S1 spinous process or the S1 laminae. This is especially helpful where implant 10 is used in the L5-S1 level since the small size and shape of the S1 spinous process may not provide adequate support for an implant.
The front face 12 of implant 10 may have a curved profile that tapers from about 0 degrees along the middle of front face 12 to about 35 degrees adjacent to sidewalls 11a, 11b. Implant 10 may have a curvature radius of between about 20 mm and about 30 mm. The generally triangular shape, where the base is larger than the top results in a constant pressure applied along the cross-sectional area of implant 10. The shape of implant 10 also provides a better fit in the L5/S1 space and therefore offers stability for implant 10. The rear of implant 10 has a stepped configuration and includes a shelf 40 separating the rear of implant 10 into an upper portion and a lower portion. Shelf 40 may be curved and is located so it is generally aligned with or above channels 34a and 34b. Shelf 40 acts as a transition between the upper and lower portions of the rear of implant 10 and ensures that implant 10 will fit properly in the patient's anatomy. The upper rear portion of implant 10 is defined by the rear wall 45, which flares outwardly from the top of implant 10. Rear wall 45 is curved such that it does not compete for engagement with upper saddle 20 but rather allows implant 10 to rest freely on the L5 lamina. This allows for easy implantation on the L5 level. The thickness of implant 10 gradually increases from the top of implant 10 to shelf 40. This taper may be between about 30 degrees and about 50 degrees. The bottom rear portion of implant 10 has a thinner profile and provides clearance so that lower saddle 30 does not engage the inferior spinous process. This results in practically no load being transferred from implant 10 to the inferior spinous process. Indeed, lower saddle 30 may be configured such that it is spaced from and does not engage the inferior spinous process when implant 10 is implanted in the patient.
The wider bottom portion of implant 10 allows two lower lobes 33a and 33b to be defined along the bottom portion of implant 10 adjacent to either side of lower saddle 30 and provides an area through which implant 10 may be fixed to the spine. The wider bottom portion of implant 10, and indeed the overall configuration of implant 10, also allow implant 10 to withstand higher forces being placed on it and helps to ensure compression forces placed on implant 10 are evenly distributed throughout the body of implant 10.
Each lower lobe 33a and 33b defines a channel 34a and 34b extending through implant 10. Channels 34a and 34b allow a fixation device 60, such as a cortical screw or similar device, to extend therethrough to fix implant 10 in the desired location on the spine. As such, the internal diameter of channels 34a and 34b should be sufficient to allow passage of fixation device 60 therethrough, but should not be so large as to allow too much “play”, or too big of a gap, between fixation device 60 and channels 34a and 34b. For example, channels 34a and 34b could have an internal diameter that is about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm greater than the outer diameter of fixation device 60. Channels 34a and 34b flare outwardly from about the mid-line of implant 10 and adjacent to the top of the bottom portion of implant 10 so that fixation device 60 can be located therein and extend to the pedicles of the S1 vertebra. For example, channels 34a and 34b may extend at an angle α of about 60 degrees away from the sagittal plane toward the rear of implant and at an angle β of about 5 degrees toward the top of implant 10 in a direction from the front of implant 10 toward the rear of implant 10. Alternatively, angle α could be between about 45 degrees and about 60 degrees, while angle β could be between about 5 degrees and about 10 degrees. The wider bottom portion of implant 10, and indeed the overall configuration of implant 10, also allow implant 10 to withstand higher forces being placed on it and helps to ensure compression forces placed on implant 10 are evenly distributed throughout the body of implant 10.
Implant 10 may be formed as a unitary body of a polymeric material having a gradual variation in the modulus of elasticity along and/or across its cross section. For example, the modulus may vary along the height of the body such that the upper portion of the body is more flexible than the lower portion of the body. See for example
A material that may be formed into a product having a gradual variation in the modulus of elasticity, and the process for making the material, are disclosed in pending published U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0050038, the entire contents of which are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference. The material and process disclosed in the '038 Publication would allow the inferior portion of implant 10, or lower lobes 33a and 33b, to be relatively stiff, i.e. have a higher modulus of elasticity, so that fixation device 60 can firmly affix implant 10 to the spine while ensuring that the inferior portion, or lower lobes 33a and 33b, will not be pulled from fixation device 60 during flexion or other movement of the spine. Such pulling through of the implant is more likely if the inferior portion, or lower lobes 33a and 33b, were formed from a flexible material. Conversely, the material and process disclosed in the '038 Publication would allow the superior portion to be more elastic and flexible, i.e. have a lower modulus of elasticity. Having the superior portion be more flexible allows implant 10 to act as a shock absorber in extension while providing adequate stabilization to the L5/S1 level and allowing a more normal range of motion. In addition to having a gradual increasing of the modulus of elasticity from the top of implant 10 to the bottom of implant 10, the modulus of elasticity could vary from the surface of implant 10 to the inner core of implant 10 such that the inner core would have a lower modulus of elasticity than the surface. In this way, the inner core would be more flexible than the surface. In addition, the modulus of elasticity could vary from the top and central portions of implant 10 to the sides and bottom of implant 10 such that the sides and bottom portion of implant 10 would have a higher modulus of elasticity than the top and central portions. In this way, the sides and bottom would be stiffer than the top and central portions.
Implant 10 may also define a curved passage 80 that extends between outer sidewalls 11a and 11b of implant 10. The curve of passage 80 may be defined by a radius of curvature of about 20 millimeters where the openings 85a and 85b to passage 80 are closer to the top of implant 10 than the nadir of passage 80. Openings 85a and 85b are generally perpendicular to outer sidewalls 11a and 11b. Other radii of curvature may also be used to define passage 80. The nadir of passage 80 may be substantially aligned in the sagittal plane with the bottom most portion of upper saddle bottom wall 22 and the uppermost portion of lower saddle top wall 32. A tether 90 may extend through passage 80. The curve of passage 80 facilitates tether 90 being threaded through passage 80 with a standard curved surgical needle. As shown in
While various embodiments of the flexible interspinous process device have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to the practitioner skilled in the art. The foregoing description of the flexible interspinous process device is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the scope of the invention. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the following claims and their equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
624969 | Peterson | May 1899 | A |
1153797 | Kegreisz | Sep 1915 | A |
1516347 | Pataky | Nov 1924 | A |
1870942 | Beatty | Aug 1932 | A |
2077804 | Morrison | Apr 1937 | A |
2299308 | Creighton | Oct 1942 | A |
2485531 | Dzus et al. | Oct 1949 | A |
2607370 | Anderson | Aug 1952 | A |
2677369 | Knowles | May 1954 | A |
2685877 | Dobelle | Aug 1954 | A |
3065659 | Eriksson et al. | Nov 1962 | A |
3108595 | Overment | Oct 1963 | A |
3397699 | Kohl | Aug 1968 | A |
3426364 | Lumb | Feb 1969 | A |
3648691 | Lumb et al. | Mar 1972 | A |
3779239 | Fischer et al. | Dec 1973 | A |
4011602 | Rybicki et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
4237875 | Termanini | Dec 1980 | A |
4257409 | Bacal et al. | Mar 1981 | A |
4274324 | Giannuzzi | Jun 1981 | A |
4289123 | Dunn | Sep 1981 | A |
4327736 | Inoue | May 1982 | A |
4401112 | Rezaian | Aug 1983 | A |
4499636 | Tanaka | Feb 1985 | A |
4519100 | Wills et al. | May 1985 | A |
4553273 | Wu | Nov 1985 | A |
4554914 | Kapp et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
4573454 | Hoffman | Mar 1986 | A |
4592341 | Omagari et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4599086 | Doty | Jul 1986 | A |
4604995 | Stephens et al. | Aug 1986 | A |
4611582 | Duff | Sep 1986 | A |
4632101 | Freedland | Dec 1986 | A |
4636217 | Ogilvie et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4646998 | Pate | Mar 1987 | A |
4657550 | Daher | Apr 1987 | A |
4662808 | Camilleri | May 1987 | A |
4686970 | Dove et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4704057 | McSherry | Nov 1987 | A |
4721103 | Freedland | Jan 1988 | A |
4759769 | Hedman et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4787378 | Sodhi | Nov 1988 | A |
4822226 | Kennedy | Apr 1989 | A |
4827918 | Olerud | May 1989 | A |
4834600 | Lemke | May 1989 | A |
4863476 | Shepperd | Sep 1989 | A |
4886405 | Blomberg | Dec 1989 | A |
4892545 | Day et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
4913144 | Del Medico | Apr 1990 | A |
4931055 | Bumpus et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4932975 | Main et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4969887 | Sodhi | Nov 1990 | A |
5000165 | Watanabe | Mar 1991 | A |
5000166 | Karpf | Mar 1991 | A |
5011484 | Breard | Apr 1991 | A |
5047055 | Bao et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5059193 | Kuslich | Oct 1991 | A |
5092866 | Breard et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5098433 | Freedland | Mar 1992 | A |
5133717 | Chopin | Jul 1992 | A |
5171278 | Pisharodi | Dec 1992 | A |
5201734 | Cozad et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5267999 | Olerud | Dec 1993 | A |
5290312 | Kojimoto et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5306275 | Bryan | Apr 1994 | A |
5306310 | Siebels | Apr 1994 | A |
5312405 | Korotko et al. | May 1994 | A |
5316422 | Coffman | May 1994 | A |
5356423 | Tihon et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5360430 | Lin | Nov 1994 | A |
5366455 | Dove | Nov 1994 | A |
5370697 | Baumgartner | Dec 1994 | A |
5390683 | Pisharodi | Feb 1995 | A |
5395370 | Muller et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5401269 | Buttner-Janz et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5403316 | Ashman | Apr 1995 | A |
5415659 | Lee et al. | May 1995 | A |
5415661 | Holmes | May 1995 | A |
5437672 | Alleyne | Aug 1995 | A |
5437674 | Worcel et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5439463 | Lin | Aug 1995 | A |
5454812 | Lin | Oct 1995 | A |
5456689 | Kresch et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5458641 | Ramirez Jimenez | Oct 1995 | A |
5480442 | Bertagnoli | Jan 1996 | A |
5496318 | Howland et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5518498 | Lindenberg et al. | May 1996 | A |
5554191 | Lahille et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5562662 | Brumfield et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5562735 | Margulies | Oct 1996 | A |
5571192 | Schonhoffer | Nov 1996 | A |
5609634 | Voydeville | Mar 1997 | A |
5609635 | Michelson | Mar 1997 | A |
5628756 | Barker, Jr. et al. | May 1997 | A |
5630816 | Kambin | May 1997 | A |
5645599 | Samani | Jul 1997 | A |
5653762 | Pisharodi | Aug 1997 | A |
5653763 | Errico et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5658335 | Allen | Aug 1997 | A |
5665122 | Kambin | Sep 1997 | A |
5674295 | Ray et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5676702 | Ratron | Oct 1997 | A |
5685826 | Bonutti | Nov 1997 | A |
5690649 | Li | Nov 1997 | A |
5693100 | Pisharodi | Dec 1997 | A |
5702395 | Hopf | Dec 1997 | A |
5702452 | Argenson et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702455 | Saggar | Dec 1997 | A |
5707390 | Bonutti | Jan 1998 | A |
5716416 | Lin | Feb 1998 | A |
5723013 | Jeanson et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5725341 | Hofmeister | Mar 1998 | A |
5746762 | Bass | May 1998 | A |
5755797 | Baumgartner | May 1998 | A |
5800547 | Schafer et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5810815 | Morales | Sep 1998 | A |
5836948 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5849004 | Bramlet | Dec 1998 | A |
5860977 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5888196 | Bonutti | Mar 1999 | A |
5941881 | Barnes | Aug 1999 | A |
5976186 | Bao et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5980523 | Jackson | Nov 1999 | A |
6022376 | Assell et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6048342 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6068630 | Zucherman et al. | May 2000 | A |
6074390 | Zucherman et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6102922 | Jakobsson et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6126689 | Brett | Oct 2000 | A |
6126691 | Kasra et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6127597 | Beyar et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6132464 | Martin | Oct 2000 | A |
6190413 | Sutcliffe | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6190414 | Young | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6214037 | Mitchell et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6214050 | Huene | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6245107 | Ferree | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6293949 | Justis et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6336930 | Stalcup et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6348053 | Cachia | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6352537 | Strnad | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6364883 | Santilli | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6371987 | Weiland et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6375682 | Fleischmann et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6402750 | Atkinson et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6402751 | Hoeck et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6419703 | Fallin et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6419704 | Ferree | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6432130 | Hanson | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6440169 | Elberg et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6447513 | Griggs | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6451019 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6500178 | Zucherman et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6511508 | Shahinpoor et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6514256 | Zucherman et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6520990 | Ray | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6520991 | Huene | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6554833 | Levy | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6582433 | Yun | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6582467 | Teitelbaum et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6592585 | Lee et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6626944 | Taylor | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6645207 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6669729 | Chin | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6685742 | Jackson | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6695842 | Zucherman et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6699246 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6709435 | Lin | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6723126 | Berry | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6730126 | Boehm, Jr. et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6733531 | Trieu | May 2004 | B1 |
6733534 | Sherman | May 2004 | B2 |
6736818 | Perren et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6743257 | Castro | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6758863 | Estes et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6761720 | Senegas | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6770096 | Bolger et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6783530 | Levy | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6835205 | Atkinson et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6902580 | Fallin et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6905512 | Paes et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6946000 | Senegas et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6981975 | Michelson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7011685 | Arnin et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7041136 | Goble et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7048736 | Robinson et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7070598 | Lim et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7081120 | Li et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7087055 | Lim et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7087083 | Pasquet et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7097648 | Globerman et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7097654 | Freedland | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7101375 | Zucherman et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7163558 | Senegas et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7201751 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7217293 | Branch, Jr. | May 2007 | B2 |
7238204 | Le Couedic et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7306628 | Zucherman et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7335203 | Winslow et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7377942 | Berry | May 2008 | B2 |
7431735 | Liu et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7442208 | Mathieu et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7445637 | Taylor | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7458981 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7582106 | Teitelbaum et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7604652 | Arnin et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7611316 | Panasik et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7621950 | Globerman et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7658752 | Labrom et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7749252 | Zucherman et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7771456 | Hartman et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7862615 | Carli et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7901430 | Matsuura et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8083795 | Lange et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
20010016743 | Zucherman et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20020143331 | Zucherman et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030040746 | Mitchell et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030045940 | Eberlein et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065330 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030153915 | Nekozuka et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040010312 | Enayati | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010316 | William et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040064094 | Freyman | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040087947 | Lim et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040097931 | Mitchell | May 2004 | A1 |
20040106995 | Le Couedic et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117017 | Pasquet et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133204 | Davies | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133280 | Trieu | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040158248 | Ginn | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040167625 | Beyar et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040199255 | Mathieu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040260397 | Lambrecht et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010293 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033434 | Berry | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050049708 | Atkinson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050056292 | Cooper | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050085814 | Sherman et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050143827 | Globerman et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050165398 | Reiley | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050203512 | Hawkins et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203519 | Harms et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203624 | Serhan et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050228391 | Levy et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050245937 | Winslow | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050261768 | Trieu | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267579 | Reiley et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050273166 | Sweeney | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050288672 | Ferree | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060004447 | Mastrorio et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060004455 | Leonard et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015181 | Elberg | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060047282 | Gordon | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064165 | Zucherman et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060084983 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060084985 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060084987 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060084988 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085069 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085070 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085074 | Raiszadeh | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089654 | Lins et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089719 | Trieu | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095136 | McLuen | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106381 | Ferree et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106397 | Lins | May 2006 | A1 |
20060111728 | Abdou | May 2006 | A1 |
20060116690 | Pagano | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060122620 | Kim | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060129239 | Kwak | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136060 | Taylor | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060142858 | Colleran et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149242 | Kraus et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060182515 | Panasik et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184247 | Edidin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184248 | Edidin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195102 | Malandain | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060217726 | Maxy et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060224159 | Anderson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060224241 | Butler et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235387 | Peterman | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235532 | Meunier et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241601 | Trautwein et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241613 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241643 | Lim et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060241757 | Anderson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060247623 | Anderson et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060247640 | Blackwell et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060264938 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271044 | Petrini et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271049 | Zucherman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271061 | Beyar et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060282075 | Labrom et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282079 | Labrom et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293662 | Boyer, II et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293663 | Walkenhorst et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005064 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070010813 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070032790 | Aschmann et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043362 | Malandain et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043363 | Malandain et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070073289 | Kwak et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070100340 | Lange et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070123861 | Dewey et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070142915 | Altarac et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070151116 | Malandain | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070162000 | Perkins | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070167945 | Lange et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070173822 | Bruneau et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070173823 | Dewey et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070191833 | Bruneau et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070191834 | Bruneau et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070191837 | Trieu | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070191838 | Bruneau et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198091 | Boyer et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070225807 | Phan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070233068 | Bruneau et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233074 | Anderson et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233076 | Trieu | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233081 | Pasquet et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233089 | DiPoto et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070250060 | Anderson et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070270823 | Trieu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270824 | Lim et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270825 | Carls et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270826 | Trieu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270827 | Lim et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270828 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270829 | Carls et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270834 | Bruneau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070270874 | Anderson | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070272259 | Allard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276368 | Trieu et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276369 | Allard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276493 | Malandain et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276496 | Lange et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276497 | Anderson | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070282443 | Globerman et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080021457 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021460 | Bruneau et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080058934 | Malandain et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080097446 | Reiley et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080114357 | Allard et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114358 | Anderson et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114456 | Dewey et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080140082 | Erdem et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080147190 | Dewey et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080161818 | Kloss et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080167685 | Allard et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183209 | Robinson et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183211 | Lamborne et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183218 | Mueller et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195152 | Altarac et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215094 | Taylor | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080221685 | Altarac et al. | Sep 2008 | A9 |
20080234824 | Youssef et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080262617 | Froehlich et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080281360 | Vittur et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080281361 | Vittur et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090062915 | Kohm et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090099610 | Johnson et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090105766 | Thompson et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090105773 | Lange et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090234389 | Chuang et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090240283 | Carls et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090270918 | Attia et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090326538 | Sennett et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100121379 | Edmond | May 2010 | A1 |
20100191241 | McCormack et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100204732 | Aschmann et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100211101 | Blackwell et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20120259366 | Lange | Oct 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2821678 | Nov 1979 | DE |
3922044 | Feb 1991 | DE |
4012622 | Jul 1991 | DE |
0322334 | Feb 1992 | EP |
0767636 | Jan 1999 | EP |
1004276 | May 2000 | EP |
1011464 | Jun 2000 | EP |
1138268 | Oct 2001 | EP |
1148850 | Oct 2001 | EP |
1148851 | Oct 2001 | EP |
1302169 | Apr 2003 | EP |
1330987 | Jul 2003 | EP |
1552797 | Jul 2005 | EP |
1854433 | Nov 2007 | EP |
1905392 | Apr 2008 | EP |
1982664 | Oct 2008 | EP |
2623085 | May 1989 | FR |
2625097 | Jun 1989 | FR |
2681525 | Mar 1993 | FR |
2700941 | Aug 1994 | FR |
2703239 | Oct 1994 | FR |
2707864 | Jan 1995 | FR |
2717675 | Sep 1995 | FR |
2722087 | Jan 1996 | FR |
2722088 | Jan 1996 | FR |
2724554 | Mar 1996 | FR |
2725892 | Apr 1996 | FR |
2730156 | Aug 1996 | FR |
2731643 | Sep 1996 | FR |
2775183 | Aug 1999 | FR |
2799948 | Apr 2001 | FR |
2816197 | May 2002 | FR |
2884135 | Apr 2005 | FR |
02-224660 | Sep 1990 | JP |
09-075381 | Mar 1997 | JP |
2003079649 | Mar 2003 | JP |
988281 | Jan 1983 | SU |
1484348 | Jun 1989 | SU |
WO 9426192 | Nov 1994 | WO |
WO 9426195 | Nov 1994 | WO |
WO 9718769 | May 1997 | WO |
WO 9820939 | May 1998 | WO |
WO 9926562 | Jun 1999 | WO |
WO 0044319 | Aug 2000 | WO |
WO 0154598 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 03057055 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO 2004047689 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004047691 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004084743 | Oct 2004 | WO |
WO 2004084768 | Oct 2004 | WO |
WO 2004110300 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO 2005009300 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO 2005011507 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO 2005044118 | May 2005 | WO |
WO 2005048856 | Jun 2005 | WO |
WO 2005110258 | Nov 2005 | WO |
WO 2006064356 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2006110578 | Oct 2006 | WO |
WO 2007034516 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO 2007052975 | May 2007 | WO |
WO 2009083276 | Jul 2009 | WO |
WO 2009083583 | Jul 2009 | WO |
WO 2009098536 | Aug 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“Dispositivo Intervertebrale Ammortizzante DIAM,” date unknown, p. 1. |
“Tecnica Operatoria Per II Posizionamento Della Protesi DIAM,” date unknown, pp. 1-3. |
“Wallis Operative Technique: Surgical Procedure for Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) of Lumbar Spine,” date unknown, pp. 1-24, Spine Next, an Abbott Laboratories company, Bordeaux, France. |
Anasetti et al., “Spine Stability After Implantation of an Interspinous Device: An In Vitro and Finite Element Biomechanical Study,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, Nov. 2010, vol. 13, pp. 568-575. |
Bellini et al., “Biomechanics of the Lumbar Spine After Dynamic Stabilization,” J. Spinal Discord Tech., 2006, vol. 00, No. 00, pp. 1-7. |
Benzel et al., “Posterior Cervical Interspinous Compression Wiring and Fusion for Mid to Low Cervical Spinal Injuries,” J. Neurosurg., Jun. 1989, pp. 893-899, vol. 70. |
Buric et al., “DIAM Device for Low Back Pain in Degenerative Disc Disease 24 Months Follow-up,” Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery and Therapy for Spine and Nerves, Alexandre et al., eds., 2011, pp. 177-182, Spinger-Verlat/Wien. |
Caserta et al., “Elastic Stabilization Alone or Combined with Rigid Fusion in Spinal Surgery: a Biomechanical Study and Clinical Experience Based on 82 Cases,” Eur. Spine J., Oct. 2002, pp. S192-S197, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
Christie et al., “Dynamic Interspinous Process Technology,” SPINE, 2005, pp. S73-S78, vol. 30, No. 16S. |
Cousin Biotech, “Analysis of Clinical Experience with a Posterior Shock-Absorbing Implant,” date unknown, pp. 2-9. |
Cousin Biotech, Dispositif Intervertébral Amortissant, Jun. 1998, pp. 1-4. |
Cousin Biotech, Technique Operatoire de la Prothese DIAM, date unknown, Annexe 1, pp. 1-8. |
Dickman et al., “The Interspinous Method of Posterior Atlantoaxial Arthrodesis,” J. Neurosurg., Feb. 1991, pp. 190-198, vol. 74. |
Dubois et al., “Dynamic Neutralization: A New Concept for Restabilization of the Spine,” Lumbar Segmental Insability, Szpalski et al., eds., 1999, pp. 233-240, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. |
Ebara et al., “Inoperative Measurement of Lumbar Spinal Instability,” Spine, 1992, pp. S44-S50, vol. 17, No. 3S. |
Fassio et al., “Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Instability L4-L5 by Interspinous Ligamentoplasty,” Rachis, Dec. 1991, pp. 465-474, vol. 3, No. 6. |
Fassio, “Mise au Point Sur la Ligamentoplastie Inter-Epineuse Lombaire Dans les Instabilites,” Maîtrise Orthopédique, Jul. 1993, pp. 18, No. 25. |
Garner et al., “Development and Preclinical Testing of a New Tension-Band Device for the Spine: the Loop System,” Eur. Spine J., Aug. 7, 2002, pp. S186-S191, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
Guang et al., “Interspinous Process Segmental Instrumentation with Bone-Button-Wire for Correction of Scoliosis,” Chinese Medical J., 1990, pp. 721-725, vol. 103. |
Guizzardi et al., “The Use of DIAM (Interspinous Stress-Breaker Device) in the Prevention of Chronic Low Back Pain in Young Patients Operated on for Large Dimension Lumbar Disc Herniation,” 12th Eur. Cong. Neurosurg., Sep. 7-12, 2003, pp. 835-839, Port. |
Hambly et al., “Tension Band Wiring-Bone Grafting for Spondylolysis and Spondylolisthesis,” Spine, 1989, pp. 455-460, vol. 14, No. 4. |
Kiwerski, “Rehabilitation of Patients with Thoracic Spine Injury Treated by Spring Alloplasty,” Int. J. Rehab. Research, 1983, pp. 469-474, vol. 6, No. 4. |
Kramer et al., “Intervetertebral Disk Diseases: Causes, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prophylaxis,” pp. 244-249, Medical, 1990. |
Laudet et al., “Comportement Bio-Mécanique D'Un Ressort Inter-Apophysaire Vertébral Postérieur Analyse Expérimentale Due Comportement Discal En Compression Et En Flexion/Extension,” Rachis, 1993, vol. 5, No. 2. |
Mah et al., “Threaded K-Wire Spinous Process Fixation of the Axis for Modified Gallie Fusion in Children and Adolescents,” J. Pediatric Othopaedics, 1989, pp. 675-679, vol. 9. |
Mariottini et al., “Preliminary Results of a Soft Novel Lumbar Intervertebral Prothesis (DIAM) in the Degenerative Spinal Pathology,” Acta Neurochir., Adv. Peripheral Nerve Surg. and Minimal Invas. Spinal Surg., 2005, pp. 129-131, vol. 92, Suppl. |
McDonnell et al., “Posterior Atlantoaxial Fusion: Indications and Techniques,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 92-106, Ch. 9, Thieme, New York. |
Minns et al., “Preliminary Design and Experimental Studies of a Novel Soft Implant for Correcting Sagittal Plane Instability in the Lumbar Spine,” Spine, 1997, pp. 1819-1825, vol. 22, No. 16. |
Müller, “Restauration Dynamique de la Stabilité Rachidienne,” Tiré de la Sulzer Technical Review, Jan. 1999, Sulzer Management Ltd, Winterthur, Switzerland. |
Pennal et al., “Stenosis of the Lumbar Spinal Canal,” Clinical Neurosurgery: Proceedings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, St. Louis, Missouri, 1970, Tindall et al., eds., 1971, Ch. 6, pp. 86-105, vol. 18. |
Petrini et al., “Analisi Di Un'Esperienza Clinica Con Un Impianto Posteriore Ammortizzante,” S.O.T.I.M.I. Società di Ortopedia e Traumatologia dell'Italia Meridionale e Insulare 90° Congresso, Jun. 21-23, 2001, Paestum. |
Petrini et al., “Stabilizzazione Elastica,” Patologia Degenerativa del Rachide Lombare, Oct. 5-6, 2001, Rimini. |
Phillips et al., “Biomechanics of Posterior Dynamic Stabiling Device (DIAM) After Facetectomy and Disectomy,” The Spine Journal, 2006, vol. 6, pp. 714-722. |
Porter, “Spinal Stenosis and Neurogenic Claudication,” Spine, Sep. 1, 1996, pp. 2046-2052, vol. 21, No. 17. |
Pupin et al., “Clinical Experience with a Posterior Shock-Absorbing Implant in Lumbar Spine,” World Spine 1: First Interdisciplinary World Congress on Spinal Surgery and Related Disciplines, Aug. 27-Sep. 1, 2000, Berlin, Germany. |
Rengachary et al., “Cervical Spine Stabilization with Flexible, Multistrand Cable System,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 79-81, Ch. 7, Thieme, New York. |
Richards et al., “The Treatment Mechanism of an Interspinous Process Implant for Lumbar Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication,” Spine, 2005, pp. 744-749, vol. 30, No. 7. |
Scarfò, “Instability/Stenosis: Holistic Approach for Less Invasive Surgery,” date unknown, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. |
Schiavone et al., “The Use of Disc Assistance Prosthesis (DIAM) in Degenerative Lumbar Pathology: Indications, Technique, Results,” Italian J. Spinal Disorders, 2003, pp. 213-220, vol. 3, No. 2. |
Schlegel et al., “The Role of Distraction in Improving the Space Available in the Lumbar Stenotic Canal and Foramen,” Spine, 1994, pp. 2041-2047, vol. 19, No. 18. |
Senegas et al., “Le Recalibrage du Canal Lombaire, Alternative à la Laminectomie dans le Traitement des Sténoses du Canal Lombaire,” Revue de Chirurgie Orthopedique, 1988, pp. 15-22. |
Senegas et al., “Stabilisation Lombaire Souple,” Instabilitè Vertébrales Lombaires, Gastambide, ed., 1995, pp. 122-132, Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris, France. |
Senegas, “La Ligamentoplastie Inter Vertébrale Lombaire, Alternative a L'Arthrodèse,” La Revue de Medécine Orthopédique, Jun. 1990, pp. 33-35, No. 20. |
Senegas, “La Ligamentoplastie Intervertébrale, Alternative à L'arthrodèse dans le Traitement des Instabilités Dégénératives,” Acta Othopaedica Belgica, 1991, pp. 221-226, vol. 57, Suppl. I. |
Senegas, “Mechanical Supplementation by Non-Rigid Fixation in Degenerative Intervertebral Lumbar Segments: the Wallis System,” Eur. Spine J., 2002, p. S164-S169, vol. 11, Suppl. 2. |
Senegas, “Rencontre,” Maîtrise Orthopédique, May 1995, pp. 1-3, No. 44. |
Serhan, “Spinal Implants: Past, Present, and Future,” 19th International IEEE/EMBS Conference, Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 1997, pp. 2636-2639, Chicago, Illinois. |
Spadea et al., “Interspinous Fusion for the Treatment of Herniated Intervertebral Discs: Utilizing a Lumbar Spinous Process as a Bone Graft,” Annals of Surgery, 1952, pp. 982-986, vol. 136, No. 6. |
Sulzer Innotec, “DIAM—Modified CAD Geometry and Meshing,” date unknown. |
Taylor et al., “Analyse d'une expérience clinique d'un implant postérieur amortissant,” Rachis Revue de Pathologie Vertébrate, Oct./Nov. 1999, vol. 11, No. 4-5, Gieda Inter Rachis. |
Taylor et al., “Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion: Technique and Intial Results,” 22 Neurosurg. Focus, Jan. 2007, vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-6. |
Taylor et al., “Surgical Requirement for the Posterior Control of the Rotational Centers,” date unknown. |
Taylor et al., “Technical and Anatomical Considerations for the Placement of a Posterior Interspinous Stabilizer,” 2004, pp. 1-10, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee. |
Taylor, “Biomechanical Requirements for the Posterior Control of the Centers of Rotation,” Swiss Spine Institute International Symposium: Progress in Spinal Fixation, Jun. 21-22, 2002, pp. 1-2, Swiss Spine Institute, Bern, Switzerland. |
Taylor, “Non-Fusion Technologies of the Posterior Column: A New Posterior Shock Absorber,” International Symposium on Intervertebral Disc Replacement and Non-Fusion-Technology, May 3-5, 2001, Spine Arthroplasty. |
Taylor, “Posterior Dynamic Stabilization using the DIAM (Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion),” date unknown, pp. 1-5. |
Taylor, “Présentation à un an d'un dispositif amortissant d'assistance discale,” 5èmes journées Avances & Controverses en pathologie rachidienne, Oct. 1-2, 1998, Faculté Libre de Médecine de Lille. |
Tsuji et al., “Ceramic Interspinous Block (CISB) Assisted Anterior Interbody Fusion,” J. Spinal Disorders, 1990, pp. 77-86, vol. 3, No. 1. |
Vangilder, “Interspinous, Laminar, and Facet Posterior Cervical Bone Fusions,” Techniques in Spinal Fusion and Stabilization, Hitchon et al., eds., 1995, pp. 135-146, Ch. 13, Thieme, New York. |
Voydeville et al., “Experimental Lumbar Instability and Artificial Ligament,” Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol., Jul. 15, 2000, pp. 167-176, vol. 10. |
Voydeville et al., “Lumbar Instability Treated by Intervertebral Ligamentoplasty with Smooth Wedges,” Orthopédie Traumatologie, 1992, pp. 259-264, vol. 2, No. 4. |
Waldemar Link, “Spinal Surgery: Instrumentation and Implants for Spinal Surgery,” 1981, Link America Inc., New Jersey. |
Wilke et al., “Biomedical Effect of Different Lumbar Interspinous Implants on Flexibilty and Intradiscal Pressure,” Eur Spine J., Vo. 17, published online Jun. 27, 2008, pp. 1049-1056. |
Wiltse et al., “The Treatment of Spinal Stenosis,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Urist, ed., Mar.-Apr. 1976, pp. 83-91, No. 115. |
Wisneski et al., “Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Seminars in Spine Surgery, Wiesel, ed., Jun. 1994, pp. 116-123, vol. 6, No. 2. |
Zdeblick et al., “Two-Point Fixation of the Lumbar Spine Differential Stability in Rotation,” Spine, 1991, pp. S298-S301, vol. 16, No. 6, Supplement. |
Zhao et al., “Efficacy of the Dynamic Interspinous Assisted Motion System in Clinical Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disease,” Chin. Med. J., 2010, vol. 123, No. 21, pp. 2974-2977. |
Zucherman et al., “Clinical Efficacy of Spinal Instrumentation in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease,” Spine, Jul. 1992, pp. 834-837, vol. 17, No. 7. |
Wittenberg et al., “Flexibility and Distraction after Monosegmental and Bisegmental Lumbrosacral Fixation with Angular Stable Fixators,” Spine, 1995, pp. 1227-1232, vol. 20, No. 11. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120259364 A1 | Oct 2012 | US |