Tailor-Made Bone Implant Geometry for Low-Resection Fixation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current joint implants require substantial bone resection and anchoring, leading to mechanical stress issues and inadequate support, as well as a lack of customization to individual joint morphology and pathology, resulting in unsatisfactory mobility and stability.

Innovation Solution

A method for producing tailor-made implants using 3D representation superpositioning and modification to match the damaged bone's dimensions and shape, allowing for non-planar anchoring surfaces that conform to the bone structure, preserving bone integrity and enabling precise anchoring and functional surface reconstruction.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If substantial bone resection is performed to fit standard implants, then implant installation is simplified, but bone mechanical strength is compromised and bone integrity is lost

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant installation simplicityVSAvoidbone mechanical strength
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The invention performs preliminary 3D imaging and virtual planning before surgery to design a customized implant that exactly matches the patient's anatomy. This preliminary action allows the implant to be tailored to the specific bone geometry, eliminating the need for substantial resection while ensuring proper fit and function.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The invention creates an implant with non-uniform, patient-specific geometry that matches the local bone structure. The implant's anchoring surface is customized to conform to the specific bone contours, providing optimal local contact and stress distribution without requiring extensive bone removal.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Ease of manufacture

If standard implants are used, then manufacturing and inventory are simplified, but customization to individual joint morphology is lost

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestandard implant productionVSAvoidcustomization to joint morphology
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The invention uses 3D imaging to capture the patient's specific joint geometry and converts this data into a customized implant design. By changing the geometric parameters based on individual patient anatomy, the system achieves full customization while maintaining manufacturing feasibility through modern additive or precision manufacturing techniques.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The invention creates a digital 3D copy of the patient's joint anatomy and uses this virtual model to design the implant. This copying approach allows exact replication of the patient's unique morphology, ensuring perfect anatomical match without requiring physical prototypes or trial fittings.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

3Area of stationary object

If plane resection surfaces are created, then implant anchoring area is increased, but stress distribution becomes concentrated on spongy bone

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant anchoring areaVSAvoidstress distribution on bone
Core Design Contradiction:
Area of stationary objectVSStress or pressure

Solution Approach 1:

The invention replaces flat resection surfaces with curved, anatomically-contoured surfaces that match the natural bone geometry. The implant's anchoring surface is designed with specific curvature to conform to the patient's bone, distributing stress evenly across the cortical and spongy bone interfaces rather than concentrating it on horizontal planes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #14Spheroidality (Curvature)

Solution Approach 2:

The invention performs virtual planning and stress analysis before surgery to optimize the implant design for even stress distribution. By pre-calculating the stress patterns and adjusting the implant geometry accordingly, the system ensures optimal load transfer to the bone without requiring extensive resection to create flat surfaces.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Reliability

If anchoring holes are drilled for screws and pins, then implant fixation is strengthened, but bone structure is damaged and mechanical strength is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplant fixation strengthVSAvoidbone structural integrity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of drilling holes into the bone to create anchoring points, the invention inverts the approach by designing the implant with protrusions and anchoring features that engage with the existing bone surface. The implant's geometry is customized to match the bone contours, allowing mechanical interlocking without penetrating the bone structure with screws or pins.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Solution Approach 2:

The invention creates localized anchoring features on the implant surface that are precisely positioned to engage with specific bone regions. These customized anchoring elements provide strong fixation while minimizing interference with the overall bone structure, as they are tailored to the patient's specific anatomy rather than using standardized hole patterns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS11690725B2Method for producing a tailor-made implant
Publication Date: 2023.07.04 3D MEDICAL
  • US11690725B2 patent drawing
  • US11690725B2 patent drawing
  • US11690725B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method for producing a tailor-made implant intended to be implanted at an implantation site of a damaged bone part, the method comprising a step in which a 3D representation of a standard implant is superposed on a 3D representation of a damaged bone part by positioning said standard implant on an implantation site of the damaged bone part, in order, if necessary, to modify the dimensions and/or to adjust the shape of said standard implant, and also, if necessary, to modify the outer surface of said standard implant, which may be either the impression or substantially the impression of the outer surface of said bone part in the state prior to superpositioning of said implant, when the geometry of the damaged bone part is intended to be retained, or a functional outer surface, when said tailor-made implant is intended to be used at the interface of two bone parts cooperating with each other.