Patient-Adapted Articular Implants with Customized Surface Contours

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Traditional orthopedic implants often fail to match individual patient anatomy, leading to complications such as pain, discomfort, and unnatural joint movement due to the need for extensive bone removal during surgery, limiting subsequent revision options.

Innovation Solution

Patient-adapted articular implants and guide tools are designed using patient-specific data from imaging tests, featuring customized surface contours, curvatures, and bone cuts that match the patient's anatomy, minimizing bone resection and enhancing natural joint movement.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If standard off-the-shelf implants are used, then manufacturing cost and availability are improved, but fit to patient anatomy and joint movement naturalness deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemanufacturing cost and availabilityVSAvoidfit to patient anatomy
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

Patient-specific imaging data is collected and analyzed before surgery to create a customized implant design. The implant geometry is pre-planned based on the patient's actual anatomy, allowing for optimal fit while maintaining standard manufacturing processes for production

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The implant design parameters (surface contours, curvatures, dimensions) are customized for each patient based on their imaging data, while the base manufacturing process remains standardized. This allows customization without requiring entirely new manufacturing systems

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Ease of operation

If extensive bone removal is performed to accommodate standard implants, then implant installation is simplified, but bone stock is reduced and revision options are limited

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant installation simplicityVSAvoidbone stock
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSLoss of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The implant is designed to match the specific local anatomy of each patient's joint surface. By adapting the implant geometry to the existing bone structure rather than forcing the bone to accommodate the implant, minimal bone removal is required while maintaining proper implant positioning and function

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The required bone resection amounts are determined in advance through imaging analysis and virtual planning. This allows surgeons to perform only the necessary minimal bone removal to accommodate the customized implant, preserving bone stock for future revisions

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Manufacturing precision

If patient-specific implant design is implemented, then fit to anatomy and joint movement are improved, but design complexity and manufacturing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefit to patient anatomyVSAvoiddesign complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Only the necessary geometric parameters of the implant (surface contours, curvatures, dimensions) are customized based on patient imaging data, while maintaining standard implant architecture, materials, and attachment mechanisms. This reduces design complexity compared to fully custom implants

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The customized implant design is completed during the preoperative planning phase using imaging data. This shifts the complexity to the planning stage rather than the surgical or manufacturing stages, allowing standard manufacturing processes to produce the customized implant

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Manufacturing precision

If patient-specific imaging analysis is performed, then implant customization is improved, but preoperative preparation time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant customization accuracyVSAvoidpreoperative preparation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Only the critical geometric parameters needed for implant fit (surface contours, curvatures, key dimensions) are extracted from patient imaging data, rather than analyzing the entire anatomy. This reduces preoperative analysis time while maintaining customization accuracy

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The imaging analysis and implant design are completed in advance during preoperative planning, allowing the actual surgery to proceed efficiently without time-consuming intraoperative measurements or adjustments

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS9439767B2Patient-adapted and improved articular implants, designs and related guide tools
Publication Date: 2016.09.13 CONFORMIS INC
  • US9439767B2 patent drawing
  • US9439767B2 patent drawing
  • US9439767B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Methods and devices are disclosed relating improved articular models, implant components, and related guide tools and procedures. In addition, methods and devices are disclosed relating articular models, implant components, and/or related guide tools and procedures that include one or more features derived from patient-data, for example, images of the patient's joint. The data can be used to create a model for analyzing a patient's joint and to devise and evaluate a course of corrective action. The data also can be used to create patient-adapted implant components and related tools and procedures.