Spinal Stabilization Device with Sliding Guide Trajectories

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current spine stabilization devices either lead to degeneration of adjacent discs due to rigid fusion or fail to maintain anatomical mobility with flexible connections, which are difficult to dimension and can lose elasticity over time, resulting in poor stabilization and potential aggravation of spinal lesions.

Innovation Solution

A dynamic stabilization device using rigid connecting means with sliding assemblies that impose predetermined guiding trajectories on vertebral assemblies, maintaining intervertebral space and allowing for anatomical mobility, primarily in flexion/extension, while supporting stresses on the intervertebral disc.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Stability of the object's composition

If rigid fusion is used to stabilize vertebrae, then spinal stability is improved, but adjacent disc degeneration occurs and mobility is lost

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespinal stabilityVSAvoidspinal mobility
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The device employs a dynamic stabilization mechanism with sliding connections that allow controlled movement between vertebrae. The sliding assembly enables the device to adapt to physiological spinal movements while maintaining stability, avoiding the rigidity of fusion procedures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The device changes the mechanical parameters of the spinal connection by introducing a sliding mechanism with controlled degrees of freedom. This allows the system to maintain stability while permitting physiological movement, effectively changing from a rigid fixed-parameter system to a dynamic adjustable-parameter system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If flexible connection elements are used to maintain mobility, then spinal mobility is preserved, but the elements are difficult to dimension and may lose elasticity over time

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespinal mobilityVSAvoidstabilization reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The invention replaces long-lasting elastic elements with a mechanical sliding assembly that provides reliable, predictable behavior over time. The sliding mechanism consists of rigid components with defined geometric constraints, eliminating the degradation issues associated with elastic materials.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #27Cheap short-living objects (Disposable)

Solution Approach 2:

The device substitutes elastic mechanical elements with a kinematic sliding mechanism. This replacement transitions from a system relying on material elasticity to one based on geometric constraints and mechanical guidance, providing more predictable and reliable long-term performance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Adaptability or versatility

If elastic elements are used to connect vertebrae, then mobility is maintained, but control of flexibility is difficult and anatomical kinematics may not be guaranteed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespinal mobilityVSAvoidkinematic precision
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The sliding assembly incorporates curved guide surfaces that define specific movement trajectories. These geometric features guide the vertebral assemblies along predetermined paths that reproduce physiological kinematics, ensuring precise control over the mobility characteristics.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #14Spheroidality (Curvature)

Solution Approach 2:

The device changes the control mechanism from material property-dependent (elasticity) to geometry-dependent (sliding trajectory). By defining precise geometric constraints in the sliding assembly, the system achieves reliable control over flexibility and kinematic behavior.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Stability of the object's composition

If rigid connecting means are used, then stable kinematic behavior is achieved, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvekinematic stabilityVSAvoiddevice structure
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The device divides the stabilization function into separate modular components: vertebral assemblies, sliding connections, and connecting bars. This segmentation allows each component to perform its specific function independently, simplifying the overall design while maintaining stable kinematic behavior.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP1795136B1Apparatus for dynamic stabilisation of the spine
Publication Date: 2009.05.06 PHUSIS
  • EP1795136B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP1795136B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4
  • EP1795136B1 patent drawingFigure 5

AI summary

The device has two vertebral assemblies (10A, 10B) adapted for being respectively fixed on a bone of two vertebrae (1A, 1B). Bars (12, 12`) are connected to each vertebral assembly in a sliding manner following relative guiding paths (28A, 28A`, 28B, 28B`) when the device is in implantation configuration. The paths are curved along a spine by presenting a concavity turned towards the spine and by being centered in a zone contained in a plantar interosseous space delimited between the vertebrae.