Variable durometer lumbar-sacral implant

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8591549
  • Patent Number
    8,591,549
  • Date Filed
    Friday, April 8, 2011
    13 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, November 26, 2013
    10 years ago
Abstract
Medical devices for the treatment of spinal conditions are described herein. The medical device includes a main body that is adapted to be placed between the L5 vertebra and the sacrum so that the main body acts as a spacer with respect to the L5 vertebra and the sacrum to maintain distraction therebetween when the spine moves in extension. The main body is formed from a material having a gradual variation in modulus.
Description
BACKGROUND

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.


SUMMARY

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.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of one embodiment of a lumbar-sacral implant;



FIG. 2 is a rear perspective view of the embodiment of a lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1;



FIG. 3 is a bottom perspective view of the embodiment of a lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1;



FIG. 4 is a rear elevation view of the embodiment of a lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1;



FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view of the embodiment of a lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1 taken along line V-V in FIG. 3;



FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional view of the embodiment of a lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 5 located between the L5 spinous process and the sacrum;



FIG. 7 is a cross-sectional view of the embodiment of a lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1 taken along line VII-VII FIG. 3;



FIG. 7A is cross-sectional view similar to the view shown in FIG. 7 showing an alternate embodiment of the lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1;



FIG. 8 is a side elevation view of the lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG.



FIG. 9 is a front elevation schematic view of the lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1 depicting one embodiment of the varying durometer of the implant;



FIG. 10 is a front elevation schematic view of the lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1 depicting another embodiment of the varying durometer of the implant;



FIG. 11 is a front elevation view of the lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1 mounted on a spine; and



FIG. 12 is a side elevation view of the lumbar-sacral implant shown in FIG. 1 mounted on a spine.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

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 FIG. 5, upper saddle 20 may be oriented at about a 10 degree angle in the sagittal plane. The angle could be as large as about degrees. The surfaces forming upper saddle sidewalls 21a and 21b and upper saddle bottom wall 22 may be generally parallel to the sagittal plane. This configuration for upper saddle 20 allows upper saddle 20 to receive and support the spinous process of an L5 vertebra therein. The height of upper saddle sidewalls 21a and 21b should be chosen so that upper saddle sidewalls 21a and 21b prevent the upper portion of implant 10 from moving laterally out of engagement with the spinous process of the L5 vertebra. Upper saddle sidewalls 21a and 21b may extend between ⅓ and ½ of the base of the spinous process so they engage the lamina by about 2 to 3 mm. Upper saddle sidewalls 21a and 21b may not have a constant cross-section. This would allow upper saddle 20 to accommodate the variable thickness of the spinous process. Implant 10 also includes a lower saddle 30 defined by a pair of sidewalls 31a and 31b joined by a top wall 32. As described in more detail below, lower saddle 30 has a configuration to provide clearance of implant 10 over the S1 spinous process. As such, lower saddle 30 would not engage the spinous process of the S1 vertebra. Lower saddle sidewalls 31a, and 31b flare outwardly away from the sagittal plane toward the bottom of implant 10.


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 FIG. 9, which shows this arrangement schematically. 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. See for example FIG. 10, which shows this arrangement schematically.


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 FIGS. 11 and 12, tether 90 may extend across the superior portion of the superior spinous process when implant 10 is located in the interspinous space. Tether 90 thus helps to maintain implant 10 in the proper position in the patient's anatomy during extension and flexion. It is to be understood that other fixation devices may be used instead of a tether 90. For example, a pin, rod, screw or other similar mechanical device may be used and would extend through upper saddle 20 and into the upper spinous process.


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.

Claims
  • 1. A device, comprising: a front face;a rear face;an upper body portion defining an upper saddle wherein the upper body portion has a first modulus of elasticity, the upper saddle is configured to receive and support a superior spinous process;a lower body portion having a first sidewall and a second sidewall defining a lower saddle; the upper body portion separated from the lower body portion by an axial plane wherein the lower body portion has a second modulus of elasticity wherein the second modulus is greater than the first modulus, each sidewall flares out at angle between 25 degrees and 35 degrees such that contact with the inferior spinous process is avoided;the lower body portion including a left lower lobe and a right lower lobe, each lobe being adjacent to an opposite side of the lower saddle;a left sidewall, a right sidewall and a sagittal plane dividing the device into a left part and a right part, the left sidewall and the right sidewall each extending from the upper body portion to the lower body portion and extending away from the sagittal plane in a direction from the upper body portion to the lower body portion such that a first distance between the left sidewall and the right sidewall adjacent to the upper body portion is less than a second distance between the left sidewall and the right sidewall adjacent to the lower body portion; anda left channel extending through the device in the left lower lobe and a right channel extending through the device in the right lower lobe.
  • 2. The device of claim 1 wherein the device has a gradual variation in modulus such that the modulus gradually increases from the upper body portion to the lower body portion.
  • 3. The device of claim 2 wherein the device has a gradual variation in modulus such that the modulus gradually increases from a central portion of the device to the left sidewall and the right sidewall.
  • 4. The device of claim 1 wherein the device has a gradual variation in modulus such that the modulus gradually increases from a central portion of the device to the left sidewall and the right sidewall.
  • 5. The device of claim 1 wherein the device includes a passageway extending between the left sidewall and the right sidewall.
  • 6. The device of claim 5 wherein the passageway is curved.
  • 7. The device of claim 6 wherein the curve of the passageway is configured to receive a curved surgical needle utilized to thread a tether through the passageway.
  • 8. The device of claim 5 wherein the passageway is configured to receive a tether.
  • 9. The device of claim 8 wherein the tether is configured to stabilize positioning of the device during flexion and extension.
  • 10. A device, comprising: an upper body portion defining an upper saddle wherein the upper body portion has a first modulus of elasticity; and a lower body portion defining a lower saddle wherein the lower body portion has a second modulus of elasticity wherein the second modulus is greater than the first modulus, the lower saddle is defined by a first sidewall and a second sidewall, each sidewall flares out at angle between 25 degrees and 35 degrees such that contact with an inferior spinous process is avoided.
  • 11. The device of claim 10 wherein the device has a gradual variation in modulus such that the modulus gradually increases from the upper body portion to the lower body portion.
  • 12. The device of claim 11 wherein the device has a gradual variation in modulus such that the modulus gradually increases from a central portion of the device to a left sidewall and a right sidewall.
  • 13. The device of claim 10 wherein the device has a gradual variation in modulus such that the modulus gradually increases from a central portion of the device to a left sidewall and a right sidewall.
  • 14. A device, comprising: a front face;a rear face;an upper body portion defining an upper saddle, the upper saddle configured to receive and support a superior spinous process;a lower body portion defining a lower saddle; the upper body portion separated from the lower body portion by an axial plane; the lower body portion including a left lower lobe and a right lower lobe, each lobe being adjacent to an opposite side of the lower saddle;a left sidewall, a right sidewall and a sagittal plane dividing the device into a left part and a right part, the left sidewall and the right sidewall each extending from the upper body portion to the lower body portion and extending away from the sagittal plane in a direction from the upper body portion to the lower body portion such that a first distance between the left sidewall and the right sidewall adjacent to the upper body portion is less than a second distance between the left sidewall and the right sidewall adjacent to the lower body portion, the left sidewall and the right sidewall of the lower body portion each flare out at angle between 25 degrees and 35 degrees such that contact with the inferior spinous process is avoided;a central body portion disposed between the upper body portion and the lower body portion and between the left part and the right part; anda left channel extending through the device in the left lower lobe and a right channel extending through the device in the right lower lobe, wherein a modulus of elasticity of the device gradually varies across the device.
  • 15. The device of claim 14 wherein the modulus increases from the upper body portion to the lower body portion.
  • 16. The device of claim 15 wherein the modulus decreases from the left sidewall to the central body portion.
  • 17. The device of claim 15 wherein the modulus decreases from the right sidewall to the central body portion.
  • 18. The device of claim 14 wherein the modulus decreases from the left sidewall to the central body portion.
  • 19. The device of claim 14 wherein the modulus decreases from the right sidewall to the central body portion.
  • 20. The device of claim 14 wherein the device includes an inner body portion between the front face and the rear face wherein the modulus decreases from the front face and the rear face to the inner body portion.
US Referenced Citations (372)
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
Foreign Referenced Citations (63)
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
Non-Patent Literature Citations (69)
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.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20120259364 A1 Oct 2012 US