Personalized Orthopedic Prostheses via Patient-Specific CAD

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current medical implants and surgical instruments often fail to provide a personalized fit and function, leading to suboptimal performance and increased recovery times due to standardization that does not account for individual patient anatomy or activity levels.

Innovation Solution

The use of medical imaging, quantitative image analysis, computer-aided design and manufacturing, and additive manufacturing to create personalized biocompatible devices tailored to individual patient profiles, incorporating feedback from surgeons and historical data for optimal design and production.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If standardized prosthetic devices are used to accommodate different anatomical ranges, then manufacturing complexity is reduced, but fit precision deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemanufacturing simplicityVSAvoidfit precision

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of manufactureVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by creating prostheses with variable geometric parameters that can be adjusted to match specific patient anatomies. The design system modifies key dimensions and shapes based on patient-specific measurements while maintaining manufacturing feasibility through controlled parameter variation within standardized production frameworks.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements preliminary action by performing virtual design validation and simulation before actual manufacturing. The system uses computer-aided design and imaging data to pre-validate the prosthesis design for proper fit and function, allowing corrections to be made in the digital model before production, thus ensuring precision without increasing manufacturing complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

2Device complexity

If generic prosthetic sizes are selected to fit a range of patients, then device complexity is reduced, but functional performance deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedevice varietyVSAvoidfunctional performance

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by customizing specific regions of the prosthesis to match local patient anatomy while maintaining standardized components elsewhere. The design system identifies which portions of the prosthesis require patient-specific adaptation (such as interface surfaces) and which can remain standardized, optimizing both performance and simplicity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements segmentation by dividing the prosthesis into modular components, allowing certain segments to be customized for patient-specific fit while other segments remain standardized. This modular approach enables functional optimization without requiring complete device customization, thus maintaining manageable complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

3Adaptability or versatility

If bone tissue is removed to improve prosthesis fit, then adaptability improves, but structural integrity deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefit adaptabilityVSAvoidbone strength

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies the inversion principle by reversing the traditional approach: instead of modifying the bone to fit the prosthesis, the system modifies the prosthesis design to fit the existing bone anatomy. The design system uses patient-specific imaging data to create prostheses that adapt to the natural bone contours, eliminating the need for additional bone removal and preserving bone strength.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

4Manufacturing precision

If mass customization is implemented for personalized prostheses, then fit precision improves, but production time increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecustomization accuracyVSAvoidproduction speed

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces traditional mechanical manufacturing processes with automated computer-aided design and manufacturing systems. The system uses digital models derived from patient imaging data to directly guide manufacturing equipment, enabling rapid production of customized prostheses without manual intervention, thus maintaining high precision while reducing production time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies parameter changes by using standardized parameter sets that can be quickly adjusted based on patient measurements. The system maintains a library of proven design parameters and modifies them systematically for each patient, allowing mass customization through efficient parameter adjustment rather than complete redesign, thus preserving production speed.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS9715563B1Personalized fit and functional designed medical prostheses and surgical instruments and methods for making

Publication Date: 2017.07.25 SCHROEDER JAMES

AI summary

Methods, devices and systems for virtual, remote and real-time collaboration between surgeons and engineers using system learning and intelligent and timely disbursement of design and performance information to engineering teams embarking on the preliminary design event of a personalized orthopedic implant or personalize surgical instrument utilizing a case-based reasoning expert system. Additive manufacturing technology and statistically controlled advanced manufacturing processes quickly produce personalized medical devices worldwide.