Surgery – Instruments – Orthopedic instrumentation
Reexamination Certificate
2001-06-01
2003-07-22
Lewis, Ralph A. (Department: 3732)
Surgery
Instruments
Orthopedic instrumentation
C606S099000, C606S064000, C623S017160
Reexamination Certificate
active
06595998
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention involves the field of surgery, and particularly surgical instruments and methods of using the same.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
A variety of physical conditions involve two tissue surfaces that, for treatment of the condition, need to be distracted from one another and then supported away from one another. Such distraction may be to gain exposure to select tissue structures, to apply a therapeutic pressure to select tissues, to return tissue structures to their anatomic position and form, or in some cases to deliver a drug or growth factor to alter, influence or deter further growth of select tissues. Depending on the condition being treated, the tissue surfaces may be opposed or contiguous and may be bone, skin, soft tissue, or a combination thereof. An optimal treatment method includes distracting and supporting the tissue surfaces simultaneously.
A minimally invasive distraction and support device would have significant application in orthopaedic surgical procedures, including acute and elective procedures to treat bone fractures and degenerative changes of the skeletal system and including vertebral compression fractures, interbody fusion, vertebral disc augmentation or replacement, and other compression fractures including, but not limited to tibial plateau compression fractures, calcaneous compression fractures, distal tibia fractures, distal radius (wrist) fractures, crushed or fractured orbit and orthopaedic oncology. Further, a minimally invasive distraction and support device would have application in non-orthopaedic surgical procedures in plastic surgery (for example facial reconstruction), gastrointestinal surgery and urological surgery (for example the treatment of incontinence).
Vertebral Compression Fractures
A vertebral compression fracture is a crushing injury to one or more vertebrae. Vertebral fractures are generally associated with osteoporosis (the “brittle bone” disease), metastasis, and/or trauma. Osteoporosis reduces bone density, thereby weakening bones and predisposing them to fracture.
The osteoporosis-weakened bones can collapse during normal activity. In severe cases of osteoporosis, actions as simple as bending forward can be enough to cause a vertebral compression fracture. Vertebral compression fractures are the most common type of osteoporotic fractures according to the National Institute of Health. The mechanism of these fractures is one of flexion with axial compression where even minor events cause damage to the weak bone. While the fractures may heal without intervention, the crushed bone may fail to heal adequately. Moreover, if the bones are allowed to heal on their own, the spine will be deformed to the extent the vertebrae were compressed by the fracture. Spinal deformity may lead to breathing and gastrointestinal complications, and adverse loading of adjacent vertebrae.
Vertebral fractures happen most frequently at the thoracolumbar junction, with a relatively normal distribution of fractures around this point. Vertebral fractures can permanently alter the shape and strength of the spine. Commonly, they cause loss of height and a humped back. This disorder (called kyphosis or “dowager's hump”) is an exaggeration of the spinal curve that causes the shoulders to slump forward and the top of the back to look enlarged and humped. In severe cases, the body's center of mass is moved further away from the spine resulting in increased bending moment on the spine and increased loading of individual vertebrae.
Another contributing factor to vertebral fractures is metastatic disease. When cancer cells spread to the spine, the cancer may cause destruction of part of the vertebra, weakening and predisposing the bone to fracture.
Osteoporosis and metastatic disease are common root causes leading to vertebral fractures, but trauma to healthy vertebrae also causes minor to severe fractures. Such trauma may result from a fall, a forceful jump, a car accident, or any event that stresses the spine past its breaking point. The resulting fractures typically are compression fractures or burst fractures.
Vertebral fractures can occur without pain. However, they often cause a severe “band-like” pain that radiates from the spine around both sides of the body. It is commonly believed that the source of acute pain in compression fractures is the result of instability at the fracture site, allowing motion that irritates nerves in and around the vertebrae.
Until recently, treatment of vertebral compression fractures has consisted of conservative measures including rest, analgesics, dietary, and medical regimens to restore bone density or prevent further bone loss, avoidance of injury, and bracing. Unfortunately, the typical patient is an elderly person who generally does not tolerate extended bed rest well. As a result, minimally invasive surgical methods for treating vertebral compression fractures have recently been introduced and are gaining popularity.
One technique used to treat vertebral compression fractures is injection of bone filler into the fractured vertebral body. This procedure is commonly referred to as percutaneous vertebroplasty. Vertebroplasty involves injecting bone filler (for example, bone cement) into the collapsed vertebra to stabilize and strengthen the crushed bone.
In vertebroplasty, physicians typically use one of two surgical approaches to access thoracic and lumbar vertebral bodies: transpedicular or extrapedicular. The transpedicular approach involves the placement of a needle or wire through the pedicle into the vertebral body, and the physician may choose to use either a unilateral access or bilateral transpedicular approach. The second approach, the extrapedicular technique, involves an entry point through the posterolateral corner of the vertebral body. The needle entry point is typically 8 cm to 12 cm lateral of the mid-sagittal plane, with the skin incision typically closer to 8 cm in the proximal spine and generally closer to 12 cm in the distal spine. In general, one cannula is placed to fill the vertebral body with the extra-pedicular approach.
Regardless of the surgical approach, the physician generally places a small diameter guide wire or needle along the path intended for the bone filler delivery needle. The guide wire is advanced into the vertebral body under fluoroscopic guidance to the delivery point within the vertebrae. The access channel into the vertebra may be enlarged to accommodate the delivery tube. In some cases, the delivery tube is placed directly and forms its own opening. In other cases, an access cannula is placed over the guide wire and advanced into the vertebral body. After placement, the cannula is replaced with the delivery tube, which is passed over the guide pin. In both cases, a hollow needle or similar tube is placed into the vertebral body and used to deliver the bone filler into the vertebra.
In this procedure, lower viscosities and higher pressures tend to disperse the bone filler throughout the vertebral body. However, such conditions dramatically increase the risk of bone filler extravasation from the vertebral body. The transpedicular approach requires use of a relatively small needle (generally 11 gauge or smaller). In contrast, the extrapedicular approach provides sufficient room to accommodate a larger needle (up to 6 mm internal diameter in the lumbar region and lower thoracic regions). In general, the small diameter needle required for a transpedicular approach necessitates injecting the bone filler in a more liquid (less viscous) state. Further, the pressure required to flow bone filler through a small gauge needle is relatively high. The difficulty of controlling or stopping bone filler flow into injury sensitive areas increases as the required pressure increases. The larger needle used in the extrapedicular approach allows injection of bone filler in a thicker, more controllable viscous state. Therefore, many physicians now advocate the extrapedicular approach so that the bone filler may be delivered through a larger cannula un
Johnson Wes
Kieval Robert
Lipschultz Tyler
Wales Larry
Lewis Ralph A.
Maginot Moore & Bowman
SpineWave, Inc.
LandOfFree
Tissue distraction device does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Tissue distraction device, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Tissue distraction device will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3062084