Spinal Implant With Distinct Surface Topographies

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Traditional spinal implants face challenges such as improper seating, subsidence, poor biomechanical integrity, damage to critical bone structures, and limited integration with vertebral bone, among others, during anterior spinal fusion procedures.

Innovation Solution

The development of interbody spinal implants with three distinct surfaces: an integration surface with macro, micro, and nano features for bone integration; a graft contact surface with micro and nano features to promote bone remodeling; and a soft tissue surface with nano features for low friction and tissue protection, designed to enhance stability and fusion while minimizing tissue damage.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional spinal implants are used, then the procedure can be performed, but improper seating and subsidence occur

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant seating stabilityVSAvoidimplant installation difficulty
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The implant surface is divided into distinct zones with different properties: a roughened integration surface for bone engagement, a smooth soft tissue surface for low friction, and a graft contact surface for bone remodeling. This local differentiation allows each surface to perform its specific function optimally, preventing both improper seating and subsidence while maintaining ease of installation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The implant is segmented into multiple functional surfaces (integration surface, graft contact surface, soft tissue surface) with distinct topographies. Each surface is independently optimized for its specific purpose, allowing the implant to achieve stable seating without requiring excessive installation force that could cause subsidence.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Strength

If traditional implants are used, then basic fusion can be achieved, but poor biomechanical integrity of endplates occurs

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveendplate biomechanical integrityVSAvoidfusion outcome
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The integration surface features a roughened topography with controlled macro, micro, and nano features that specifically engage with endplate bone structures. This localized optimization provides enhanced biomechanical integrity at the endplate interface while maintaining overall fusion reliability through the combined effect of all three surfaces.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Productivity

If traditional implants are used, then implantation can proceed, but critical bone structures are damaged

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplantation efficiencyVSAvoidbone structure damage
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The soft tissue surface is specifically designed with a smooth topography to minimize friction and prevent damage to soft tissues and critical bone structures during implantation. This localized smooth surface reduces harmful mechanical interactions while the roughened integration surface maintains efficient bone engagement, thus preserving bone structure integrity without compromising implantation efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

4Stability of the object's composition

If traditional implants are used, then basic stability can be achieved, but insufficient room for bone graft occurs

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant stabilityVSAvoidbone graft containment volume
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSVolume of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The implant incorporates a substantially hollow center that segments the internal volume, creating dedicated space for bone graft containment. This hollow structure provides stability through the implant body while simultaneously offering sufficient volume for bone graft placement, resolving the contradiction between stability and graft containment space.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

5Ease of operation

If traditional implants are used, then insertion can be performed, but implant expulsion occurs

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant insertion easeVSAvoidimplant retention
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The integration surface features a roughened topography that creates strong frictional engagement with bone structures, preventing implant expulsion. This localized rough surface provides retention without requiring excessive insertion force, thus maintaining ease of operation while ensuring reliable implant retention through the combined effect of all three surfaces.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentEP2877128B8Implants having three distinct surfaces
Publication Date: 2018.08.29 SCHNEIDER W AND CO

AI summary

An interbody spinal implant (1) having at least three distinct surfaces (10, 60a, 70a) including at least one integration surface having a roughened surface topography (80) including macro features, micro features, and nano features, without sharp teeth that risk damage to bone structures; at least one graft contact surface having a coarse surface topography including micro features and nano features; and at least one soft tissue surface having a substantially smooth surface including nano features. Also disclosed are processes of fabricating the different surface topographies, which may include separate macro processing, micro processing, and nano processing steps.