Prosthesis (i.e. – artificial body members) – parts thereof – or ai – Implantable prosthesis – Bone
Reexamination Certificate
2000-08-18
2002-11-19
McDermott, Corrine (Department: 3738)
Prosthesis (i.e., artificial body members), parts thereof, or ai
Implantable prosthesis
Bone
C128S898000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06482235
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to the surgical treatment of intervertebral discs in the lumbar, cervical, or thoracic spine that have suffered from tears in the annulus fibrosis, herniation of the nucleus pulposus and/or significant disc height loss.
The disc performs the important role of absorbing mechanical loads while allowing for constrained flexibility of the spine. The disc is composed of a soft, central nucleus pulposus (NP) surrounded by a tough, woven annulus fibrosis (AF). Herniation is a result of a weakening in the AF. Symptomatic herniations occur when weakness in the AF allows the NP to bulge or leak posteriorly toward the spinal cord and major nerve roots. The most common resulting symptoms are pain radiating along a compressed nerve and low back pain, both of which can be crippling for the patient. The significance of this problem is increased by the low average age of diagnosis, with over 80% of patients in the U.S. being under 59.
Since its original description by Mixter & Barr in 1934, discectomy has been the most common surgical procedure for treating intervertebral disc herniation. This procedure involves removal of disc materials impinging on the nerve roots or spinal cord external to the disc, generally posteriorly. Depending on the surgeon's preference, varying amounts of NP are then removed from within the disc space either through the herniation site or through an incision in the AF. This removal of extra NP is commonly done to minimize the risk of recurrent herniation.
Nevertheless, the most significant drawbacks of discectomy are recurrence of herniation, recurrence of radicular symptoms, and increasing low back pain. Re-herniation can occur in up to 21% of cases. The site for re-herniation is most commonly the same level and side as the previous herniation and can occur through the same weakened site in the AF. Persistence or recurrence of radicular symptoms happens in many patients and when not related to re-herniation, tends to be linked to stenosis of the neural foramina caused by a loss in height of the operated disc. Debilitating low back pain occurs in roughly 14% of patients. All of these failings are most directly related to the loss of NP material and AF competence that results from herniation and surgery.
Loss of NP material deflates the disc, causing a decrease in disc height. Significant decreases in disc height have been noted in up to 98% of operated patients. Loss of disc height increases loading on the facet joints. This can result in deterioration of facet cartilage and ultimately osteoarthritis and pain in this joint. As the joint space decreases the neural foramina formed by the inferior and superior vertebral pedicles also close down. This leads to foraminal stenosis, pinching of the traversing nerve root, and recurring radicular pain. Loss of NP also increases loading on the remaining AF, a partially innervated structure that can produce pain. Finally, loss of NP results in greater bulging of the AF under load. This can result in renewed impingement by the AF on nerve structures posterior to the disc.
Persisting tears in the AF that result either from herniation or surgical incision also contribute to poor results from discectomy. The AF has limited healing capacity with the greatest healing occurring in its outer borders. Healing takes the form of a thin fibrous film that does not approach the strength of the uninjured disc. Surgical incision in the AF has been shown to produce immediate and long lasting decreases in stiffness of the AF particularly against torsional loads. This may over-stress the facets and contribute to their deterioration. Further, in as many as 30% of cases, the AF never closes. In these cases, not only is re-herniation a risk but also leakage of fluids or solids from within the NP into the epidural space can occur. This has been shown to cause localized pain, irritation of spinal nerve roots, decreases in nerve conduction velocity, and may contribute to the formation of post-surgical scar tissue in the epidural space.
Other orthopedic procedures involving removal of soft tissue from a joint to relieve pain have resulted in significant, long lasting consequences. Removal of all or part of the menisci of the knee is one example. Partial and total meniscectomy leads to increased osteoarthritic degeneration in the knee and the need for further surgery in many patients. A major effort among surgeons to repair rather than resect torn menisci has resulted in more durable results and lessened joint deterioration.
Systems and methods for repairing tears in soft tissues are known in the art. One such system relates to the repair of the menisci of the knee and is limited to a barbed tissue anchor, an attached length of suture, and a suture-retaining member, which can be affixed to the suture and used to draw the sides of a tear into apposition. The drawback of this method is that it is limited to the repair of a tear in soft tissue. In the intervertebral disc, closure of a tear in the AF does not necessarily prevent further bulging of that disc segment toward the posterior neural elements. Further, there is often no apparent tear in the AF when herniation occurs. Herniation can be a result of a general weakening in the structure of the AF (soft disc) that allows it to bulge posteriorly without a rupture. When tears do occur, they are often radial.
Another device known in the art is intended for repair of a tear in a previously contiguous soft tissue. Dart anchors are placed across the tear in a direction generally perpendicular to the plane of the tear. Sutures leading from each of at least two anchors are then tied together such that the opposing sides of the tear are brought together. However, all of the limitations pertaining to repair of intervertebral discs, as described above, pertain to this device.
Also known in the art is an apparatus and method of using tension to induce growth of soft tissue. The known embodiments and methods are limited in their application to hernias of the intervertebral disc in that they require a spring to apply tension. Aside from the difficulty of placing a spring within the limited space of the intervertebral disc, a spring will induce a continuous displacement of the attached tissues that could be deleterious to the structure and function of the disc. A spring may further allow a posterior bulge in the disc to progress should forces within the disc exceed the tension force applied by the spring. Further, the known apparatus is designed to be removed once the desired tissue growth has been achieved. This has the drawback of requiring a second procedure.
There are numerous ways of augmenting the intervertebral disc disclosed in the art. In reviewing the art, two general approaches are apparent—implants that are fixed to surrounding tissues and those that are not fixed, relying instead on the AF to keep them in place.
The first type of augmenting of the intervertebral disc includes generally replacing the entire disc. This augmentation is limited in many ways. First, by replacing the entire disc, they generally must endure all of the loads that are transferred through that disc space. Many degenerated discs are subject to pathologic loads that exceed those in normal discs. Hence, the designs must be extremely robust and yet flexible. None of these augmentation devices has yet been able to achieve both qualities. Further, devices that replace the entire disc must be implanted using relatively invasive procedures, normally from an anterior approach. They may also require the removal of considerable amounts of healthy disc material including the anterior AF. Further, the disclosed devices must account for the contour of the neighboring vertebral bodies to which they are attached. Because each patient and each vertebra is different, these types of implants must be available in many shapes and sizes.
The second type of augmentation involves an implant that is not directly fixed to surrounding tissues. These augmentation devices rely on an AF that is gen
Banks Thomas
Lambrecht Gregory H.
Moore Robert Kevin
Redmond Russel J.
Vidal Claude A.
Barrett Thomas C.
Intrinsic Orthopedics, Inc.
Kavanaugh Sean
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
McDermott Corrine
LandOfFree
Devices and methods of vertebral disc augmentation does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Devices and methods of vertebral disc augmentation, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Devices and methods of vertebral disc augmentation will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2936732