Spinal Implant Helical Members and Support Frame
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current spinal fusion implants lack optimal designs for promoting bone growth and stability between vertebrae, as they often require additional structural members that reduce the volume available for bone ingrowth and may not effectively distribute loads.
Innovation Solution
The design includes a peripheral frame portion with a central wall and helical bone contacting members that extend to the frame, minimizing structural members in the central region to maximize volume for bone growth, and incorporating support members to enhance stability and load distribution.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Strength
If additional structural members are added to current spinal fusion implants to enhance stability and load distribution, then the stability and load-bearing capacity are improved, but the volume available for bone ingrowth is reduced
Solution Approach 1:
The implant is divided into distinct functional components: a peripheral frame providing structural support and stability, and a central region optimized for bone ingrowth. This segmentation allows each zone to serve its specific function without compromising the other, resolving the contradiction between structural strength and bone growth volume.
Solution Approach 2:
The design extracts the structural support function to the peripheral frame only, removing unnecessary structural members from the central region. This extraction maximizes the central volume for bone ingrowth while the peripheral frame continues to provide the required stability and load distribution.
2Reliability
If the central region of the implant is filled with structural members to enhance stability, then the load-bearing capacity is improved, but the space for bone growth-promoting materials is reduced
Solution Approach 1:
Structural members are extracted from the central region and relocated to the periphery, creating a clear functional separation. The central region becomes dedicated to accommodating bone growth-promoting materials, while the peripheral frame provides all necessary structural support and stability.
Solution Approach 2:
Different regions of the implant are assigned different qualities and functions: the peripheral frame has high structural density for stability, while the central region has low structural density to maximize space for bone growth materials. This local differentiation resolves the contradiction between stability and material space.
3Strength
If more structural members are incorporated into the implant design to improve load distribution, then the mechanical strength is enhanced, but the device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The design extracts and eliminates redundant structural members from the central region, retaining only the essential peripheral frame structure. This reduction in the number of structural members decreases device complexity while the optimized peripheral frame configuration maintains adequate load distribution functionality.
Data Source
AI summary
An implant including a peripheral frame portion defining a periphery of the body; a first helical bone contacting member attached to the body and disposed within the superior half of the implant; and a second helical bone contacting member attached to the body and disposed within the superior half of the implant. The implant also includes a first support member extending inwardly of the bone contacting member into a central region of the implant; and a second support member extending inwardly of the bone contacting members. The first support member and the second support member are substantially U-shaped and are connected to one another at the bottoms of the two U-shapes in the central region.