Orthopedic Implant Selection Using 3D Anatomy Fit Analysis
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The selection of orthopedic implants is a time-consuming and imprecise process for surgeons due to the need to visually inspect and fit multiple implants, leading to increased surgical time and waste from unused implants.
Innovation Solution
A method and device using a selection device with a camera, processor, and user interface to capture and analyze anatomical surface dimensions, compare them with implant dimensions, and recommend the best-fitting implant through a best-fit algorithm, reducing human error and contamination.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If the surgeon visually inspects and manually fits multiple implants to select the best-fitting one, then the implant selection can be performed with human judgment, but the surgical time increases and the risk of implant contamination increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces the manual mechanical process of visual inspection and physical fitting with an automated optical scanning system. The 3D scanner captures bone surface geometry, and computer algorithms automatically compare digital models of multiple implants against the scanned bone surface to determine the best fit, eliminating the need for manual trial-and-error fitting during surgery.
Solution Approach 2:
The system performs implant selection calculations and comparisons before the actual implantation procedure. By pre-processing the bone geometry data and evaluating multiple implant options in advance, the system provides a recommended implant selection that eliminates the need for time-consuming intraoperative adjustments and trials.
2Measurement precision
If the surgeon tries multiple implants to find the best fit, then the most suitable implant can be identified, but waste increases due to contamination of unused implants
Solution Approach 1:
The system creates and uses digital copies (3D models) of both the bone surface and implant geometries for evaluation purposes. These virtual models allow for unlimited comparisons and fit assessments without any physical contact between the implants and the bone, eliminating contamination risk while maintaining measurement accuracy.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces physical trial fitting with virtual fitting using computer-generated models. The evaluation process occurs entirely in the digital domain where implant models are virtually positioned and assessed against the bone surface model, preventing any physical contamination of implants that would occur during manual trial-and-error fitting.
3Adaptability or versatility
If multiple implants are available in different sizes and shapes to accommodate unique anatomy, then the implant can be customized to fit the patient, but the complexity of selection increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system evaluates multiple implant variants by changing geometric parameters such as length, width, curvature, and hole positioning. The computer algorithm systematically varies these parameters across different implant models in the catalog and automatically determines which parameter combination provides the optimal fit for the patient's unique bone geometry.
Solution Approach 2:
The system provides automated feedback by comparing each implant model against the scanned bone geometry and ranking options based on fit quality metrics. This feedback mechanism guides the selection process by objectively evaluating how well each implant variant matches the patient's anatomy, eliminating the need for subjective manual assessment.
4Device complexity
If manual visual inspection is used for implant selection, then the process can be performed without additional equipment, but the precision and objectivity of selection decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces subjective visual inspection with objective optical measurement. The 3D scanning system captures precise geometric data of the bone surface, and computer algorithms objectively compare implant models against this data using quantitative fit metrics, eliminating human subjectivity and improving measurement precision.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2A~3B
Figure 4A~5
AI summary
Methods may be provided to identify a medical implant from a plurality of medical implants to be fixed to an anatomical surface. Dimensional parameters for each of the plurality of medical implants may be provided, and dimensional parameters corresponding to the anatomical surface may be provided. The dimensional parameters for each of the plurality of medical implants may be compared with the dimensional parameters corresponding to the anatomical surface, and one of the medical implants may be selected from the plurality of medical implants based on comparing the dimensional parameters for each of the plurality of medical implants with the dimensional parameters corresponding to the anatomical surface. An identification of the medical implant selected from the plurality of medical implants may be provided through a user interface. Related devices and computer program products are also discussed.