Expandable Spinal Implant Locking Mechanism

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing spinal implants for intervertebral body stabilization lack the ability to expand and distract vertebral end plates, fix the device in place, and maintain interbody lordosis, leading to issues like 'flatback syndrome' and poor bone integration due to weak interfaces between bone and biomaterial.

Innovation Solution

A selectively expandable spinal implant with locking elements that can be expanded using fluid pressure or mechanical force to engage vertebral end plates, providing controlled spinal correction in three dimensions and locking the implant in place to prevent relative movement.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If conventional static spacers are used for interbody stabilization, then the device can be inserted between vertebral bodies, but the device cannot expand or distract the end plates and cannot fix itself in place

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveexpandabilityVSAvoiddevice structure
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The implant transitions from a static structure to a dynamic one through the inclusion of an expandable cage mechanism. The cage can be compressed for insertion and then expanded within the intervertebral space to distract end plates and maintain lordosis, providing adaptability while remaining a single integrated device structure.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The locking elements are nested within the implant structure itself. The locking surfaces are formed as integral parts of the expandable cage and end plates, with locking elements that can engage with each other through rotational or translational movement, allowing the locking mechanism to be contained within the overall device footprint.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #7Nested doll (Nesting)

2Strength

If conventional static cages are used, then the implant can be inserted, but poor interface between bone and biomaterial results in weak bonding and nonunion

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebone-implant interface strengthVSAvoidsurface structure
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The end plates incorporate localized surface features such as ridges, grooves, or coated regions that enhance bone-implant interface strength. These surface modifications are applied specifically at the bone-contacting surfaces rather than throughout the entire implant, providing enhanced bonding where needed while maintaining overall structural integrity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The end plates feature curved or contoured surfaces that match the natural anatomy of vertebral end plates. This curvature enhances contact area and distributes loads more evenly, improving the bone-implant interface strength and promoting osseointegration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #14Spheroidality (Curvature)

3Stability of the object's composition

If conventional static spacers are used, then the device can be placed between vertebral bodies, but the device cannot maintain interbody lordosis and contributes to flatback syndrome

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinterbody lordosis maintenanceVSAvoidstructural configuration
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The expandable cage provides dynamic control over the restoration and maintenance of interbody lordosis. By adjusting the expansion程度, the surgeon can precisely control the height and angle of the spinal segment, ensuring proper lordotic curvature is maintained while preventing flatback syndrome.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The implant is divided into functional segments including end plates for bone engagement, an expandable cage body for volume adjustment, and locking mechanisms for stabilization. This segmentation allows each component to be optimized for its specific function while working together to maintain interbody lordosis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

4Adaptability or versatility

If conventional static spacers are used, then the device can be inserted, but the device cannot provide controlled spinal correction in three dimensions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespinal correction capabilityVSAvoidmechanism complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The expandable cage mechanism enables dynamic adjustment of the implant volume and shape, allowing controlled spinal correction in three dimensions. The cage can be expanded to distract end plates vertically, while the overall device geometry can be selected or adjusted to correct sagittal, coronal, and transverse plane deformities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The implant is designed as a multi-functional device that combines distraction, stabilization, and correction capabilities in a single structure. The expandable cage can address multiple deformity types (scoliosis, kyphosis, listhesis) and can be used in various spinal levels, providing universal applicability across different clinical scenarios.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

The implant effectively distracts intervertebral spaces, restores neural element space, stabilizes the motion segment, and enhances spine arthrodesis by promoting bone fusion and correcting spinal deformities such as scoliosis and kyphosis.

Implementation Method 1

The locking elements can be spring biased against the locking surfaces to lock the implant in the expanded configuration

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectFriction: Friction

Implementation Method 2

a force applied to the at least one moveable lock member forces the moveable locking surface into engagement with the fixed locking surface

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectMechanical Force: Mechanical Force

Implementation Method 3

The implant includes: first and second pistons disposed on one the bone engaging member and cooperating with mating cylinders disposed on the opposite bone engaging member

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectHydraulic Press: Hydraulic Press

Data Source

PatentUS12232975B2Lockable spinal implant
Publication Date: 2025.02.25 VB SPINE LLC
  • US12232975B2 patent drawing
  • US12232975B2 patent drawing
  • US12232975B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A spinal implant which is configured to be deployed between adjacent vertebral bodies. The implant has at least one extendable support element with a retracted configuration to facilitate deployment of the implant and an extended configuration so as to expand the implant and effectively distract the disc space, stabilize the motion segments and eliminate pathologic spine motion. The implant has a minimal dimension in its unexpanded state that is smaller than the dimensions of the neuroforamen through which it typically passes to be deployed within the intervertebral space. The implant is provided with a locking system having a plurality of linked locking elements that work in unison to lock the implant in an extended configuration. Bone engaging anchors also may be provided to ensure secure positioning.