Antibiotic delivery system and method for treating an infected synovial joint during re-implantation of an orthopedic prosthesis
An antibiotic delivery system including an intramedullary stem that is adapted to be removably mounted into a medullary canal of a bone. The stem includes a body having an inlet adapted to be in fluid communication with a source of liquid-borne antibiotic and a plurality of outlets disposed along the stem. A channel extends between the inlet and the plurality of outlets for delivering a fluid-borne antibiotic from the inlet to the plurality of outlets so as to distribute the antibiotic along the medullary canal in a controlled fashion. A method of treating an infected joint during a two-stage re-implantation of an orthopedic implant is also disclosed.
Latest Osteal Therapeutics, Inc. Patents:
Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 8,900,322. The reissue applications are U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 17/680,035, 16/911,303, 15/846,021, 15/336,472, and 14/817,103. More particularly, the present application is a continuation reissue application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/846,021, filed Dec. 18, 2017, now U.S Reissue Pat. No. RE48,119, which is a continuation reissue application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/336,472, filed Oct. 27, 2016, now U.S. Reissue Pat. No. RE46,669, issued Jan. 16, 2018, which is a continuation of reissue application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/817,103, filed on Aug. 3, 2015, now U.S. Reissue Pat. No. RE46,283, issued Jan. 24, 2017, which sought reissue of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/759,239, filed Feb. 5, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,900,322, issued Dec. 2, 2014.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S)This U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/759,239, filed Feb. 5, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,900,322, issued Dec. 2, 2014, is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/712,748, filed Feb. 15, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,545,706, issued Jun. 4, 2013, and entitled “Antibiotic Delivery System and Method for Treating an Infected Synovial Joint During Re-implantation of an Orthopedic Prosthesis,” having U.S. Ser. No. 12/712,748, and filed Feb. 25, 2010, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/208,540, filed Feb. 25, 2009, now expired, and entitled “Joint Purification Systems,.” having Ser. No. 61/208,540, and filed on Feb. 25, 2009.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates, generally, to an antibiotic delivery system and, more specifically, to such a system and method for treating an infected synovial joint and adjacent medullary canals as a means of eliminating infection during a two-stage re-implantation of an orthopedic prosthesis.
2. Description of the Related Art
A total joint replacement (TJR) is a medical procedure that involves the repair and replacement of joints, such as hips and knees. In these cases, the bones at the hip or knee joints are prepared in receive orthopedic implants that mimic the structure of the joint that is replaced. For example, a total knee replacement is representatively shown at 10 in
Currently, there are approximately one million total joint replacement (TJR) surgeries involving either hips or knees performed annually in the United States. Obviously, more TJR surgeries are performed throughout the world. However, the demand for TJR surgery is expected to soar in the future. Doctor-diagnosed arthritis is expected to increase 40% from 2005 to 2030. According to the 2003 National Institute of Health Census Panel Report on total knee replacement, only 9% to 13% of TJR candidates have been willing to undergo the procedure. As patients become more aware of their options, as well as the success of TJR, demand may reach even higher levels.
Baby boomers will start reaching the age of 65 years in 2011. Also, over the past decade, the prevalence of TJR has increased not only in older patients (those who are 65 years or older) but also in younger patients (those less than 65 years old). Premium implant technology such as hard-on-hard bearings and hip resurfacing have been introduced to address the increased activity and longevity of younger patients. The demand for primary total hip and total knee replacements on patients younger than 65 years old was projected to exceed 50% of joint replacement recipients by 2011 and 2013, respectively. Demand for primary total hip replacement is expected to grow 174% and for total knee replacement by 673% by the year 2030. Data collected from the U.S. Nationwide Implant Sample (NIS) between 1993 and 2005 has also been evaluated. This data indicates that by 2030 future demand of primary and revision TJR procedures (where an older implant is replaced with a new one) will be significant. For example, primary total knee replacements are projected to be 4,580,000. The need to revise and re-implant total knee replacements is projected to be 269,000. Primary total hip replacements are projected to be 975,000. And the need to revise and re-implant total hip replacements is projected to be 103,000 per year. These estimated projections total 6,000,000 TJR surgeries annually.
In relatively rare cases, however, infection is a devastating complication of TJR surgeries. The rate of infection in these types of surgeries ranges between 0.5% and 1.5%. Unless an infection is properly diagnosed within the first two to four weeks following the original surgery (which is uncommon), the infected implant must be removed in combination with an extensive debridement of the surrounding joint tissue and bone. According to the Center for Disease Control, there are currently approximately 12,000 infected TJR cases annually in the United States. Obviously, this number increases when the entire worldwide scope of TJR surgeries is considered. At 1% infection rate, and assuming the projections noted above are generally accurate, there will be 60,000 instances of infected total joints annually in the future.
Over the past two decades, the standard of care for treatment of an infected TJR in the United States has included a two-stage re-implantation process. In the first stage of this process, the infected components are surgically exposed by incision. Scar tissue is then de-bulked as well as other soft tissue releases, and sometimes an osteotomy. This stage also includes the removal of all prosthetic components and foreign material including, for example, acrylic bone cement. After extensive joint debridement of infected soft tissue and bone, a spacer block consisting of heavily dosed antibiotic bone cement is placed temporarily into the joint space. The purpose of the antibiotic bone cement is to sterilize the joint environment and to serve as an antibiotic delivery system. Additionally, the bone cement acts as a spacer to preserve joint space and maintains ligament length. However, the antibiotic released by the bone cement is uncontrolled and is quite costly to use. For example, a typical knee spacer may require three bags of acrylic bone cement, twelve vials of an antibiotic such as Tobramycin (1.2 g) at a cost of $800 per vial, and six vials of an antibiotic such as Vancomycin (1 g) at $17 per vial. This quickly adds up to about $11,000 in material alone. In addition, more operating room time is necessary to prepare this spacer material. This increases the cost of the operation.
Under the current standard of care, following the removal of the infected implant and the insertion of the antibiotic bone cement spacer, the patient must generally wait between six and, more typically, twelve weeks before the second stage of the procedure can be performed. This period of time is necessary so that the medical professionals can be confident that the infection has been successfully eradicated. Only after the infectious condition has been eliminated, may the second stage proceed. During the second stage, the new prosthesis is re-implanted. The success rate with this two-stage re-implantation process is typically around 90%.
In other countries, such as throughout Europe, a one-stage re-implantation process has been popular. This involves the removal of the infected implant, as noted above, followed by aggressive debridement and then immediate re-implantation of a new implant. The success rate for this technique has typically been in the 70%-85% range. However, this technique has not gained popularity to any degree in the United States. The one-state implantation process is generally reserved for patients who are considered to be too feeble or sick to undergo the traditional two-stage re-implantation process.
Both the one-stage and two-stage surgical re-implantation protocols have their disadvantages. For example, and as noted above, the two-stage re-implantation process requires six to twelve weeks between operations. This is a very difficult time for the patient as they do not have a functional joint in place and it is typically very painful to mobilize or ambulate with an antibiotic spacer. Articulating spacers are somewhat better than static spacers, but are also more expensive as well as more difficult and time-consuming to place during the original stage one procedure. From a health care standpoint, the two-stage procedure also requires two separate hospitalizations. Finally, from a surgeon's standpoint, a significant amount of scar tissue develops during the time span between the two procedures. This makes for a very difficult and time-consuming second stage operation. In addition, the two-stage re-implantation process involves not one, but two, very difficult surgical procedures. The estimated cost of removing the infected original implant, eliminating the infection, extended hospitalization, nursing home care or home health care during the period between the first and second operations, a well as re-implanting a new prosthesis is currently roughly $100,000 per case. This is a tremendous overall burden on the universal health care system and, in the United States alone, reaches approximately $1.2 billion per year. This statistic does not begin to measure losses in patient economic productivity, quality of life, as well as pain and suffering. Moreover, this statistic does not reflect the costs associated with the projected increase in TJR operations in the future as noted above.
On the other hand, a one-stage re-implantation surgical protocol requires absolute identification of the infecting organism in order to proceed. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to achieve this absolute identification in the current health care systems. In addition, a one-stage re-implantation protocol requires the use of fully-cemented components. Fully-cemented components are typically not favored by U.S. surgeons for revision surgery. Fully-cemented components typically require very high amount of antibiotic. This often is as high as 10% by weight. For example, 4 g of antibiotic are required for a 40 g bag of cement. The increase of antibiotic by weight raises concerns regarding structural weakening of the cement.
Moreover, and in both one-stage and two-stage re-implantation surgical protocols, the release of the antibiotic from the bone cement is completely uncontrolled. This is a significant disadvantage of both protocols and essentially acts to lengthen the time between the first and the second surgical procedures in the two-stage re-implantation process.
Thus, there remains a need in the art for a device that may be employed during re-implantation surgical procedures that may be used to deliver antibiotic in a controlled and titratable manner directly into the synovial joint cavity and adjoining medullary canals as a means of eliminating the infection following the removal of a previous orthopedic implant. In addition, there remains a need in the art for such a device that can provide stability and maintain the physical dimensions of joint space and normal soft tissue envelope in any joint undergoing the re-implantation of an orthopedic implant. In addition, there remains a need in the art for such a device that may be easily employed, facilitates the reduction in the time needed to conduct the stage one re-implantation surgery and that reduces the overall time between the first and second stages of a two-stage re-implantation surgical protocol.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTIONThe present invention is directed toward an antibiotic delivery system including a device and method for treating an synovial joint and adjacent tissues, including bone, during the re-implantation of an orthopedic prosthesis. The antibiotic delivery device includes an intramedullary stem adapted to be removably mounted in a medullary canal of a bone. The stem includes an inlet adapted to be in fluid communication with a source of fluid-borne antibiotic, a plurality of outlets disposed along the stem and a channel extending between the inlet and the plurality of outlets for delivering fluid-borne antibiotic from the inlet to the plurality of outlets so as to distribute the antibiotic along the medullary canal in a controlled fashion.
In addition, the present invention is also directed toward a method of treating an infected synovial joint and adjacent tissue during a two-stage re-implantation of an orthopedic implant. The method includes the steps of removing the infected implant mounted to the medullary canal of a bone and debriding the medullary canal. An intramedullary stem is then installed into the medullary canal. The stem includes an inlet, a plurality of outlets, and a channel extending between the inlet and the plurality of outlets. In addition, the method includes the step of providing a source of fluid-borne antibiotic to the inlet of the intramedullary stem so as to distribute the antibiotic through the channel and outlets into the medullary canal in a controlled fashion.
The antibiotic delivery system of the present invention, as well as the method overcomes the disadvantages in the related art in providing a modular, implantable device designed for short-term use of approximately one week as a part of an abbreviated two-stage re-implantation technique tor treatment of septic TJR of either the knee or the hip. The present invention provides structural rigidity to the joint and the limb during the period of time between the removal of an infected prosthesis and the re-insertion of a new prosthesis. This allows the patient to be mobile, while minimizing pain. The present invention also eliminates the need for an external stabilizing device, such as a cast, between the first and second stages of the re-implantation process. In addition, the system maintains joint space while acting as a temporary spacer. As explained in greater detail below, the implant assembly maintains the proper length of vital structures, including ligaments, muscles, tendons, neurovascular structures, etc., until the new prosthesis can be implanted. The system and method of the present invention act to deliver a controlled titratable antibiotic dosed directly into the synovial joint cavity and the medullary canals via an infusion system thereby attaining and maintaining much higher local joint space and tissue levels of antibiotics than can be obtained by current antibiotic spacers (static or articulating) as well as perental/I.V.-administered antibiotics. In addition, the system and method of the present invention act to irrigate and cleanse the synovial joint and medullary canals through a novel concept utilizing intermittent pulsatile levage. In this way, the present invention facilitates the reduction in the time between the first and second stages of a two-stage re-implantation process from six to twelve weeks under the current standard of care to approximately one week.
Other objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be readily appreciated as the same becomes better understood while reading the subsequent description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
One embodiment of an antibiotic delivery system according to the present invention is generally indicated at 110 in
More specifically, various features of the intramedullary stem will now be described with respect to the embodiment designated 118 in
In the embodiment illustrated in
Referring now specifically to the device as it is employed in connection with a re-implantation of a knee, the intramedullary stem 118 illustrated in
In one embodiment, the body 126 of the intramedullary stem 118 includes an intra-articular end 130 having base plate 132 disposed at the proximal end 134 of the body 126 and a distal end 136 disposed remote from the proximal end 134. The body 126 may also have a tapered cross-section disposed along the longitudinal axis A from the proximal end 134 to the distal end 136 of the body 126 of the intramedullary stem 118. In one embodiment, the fins 128 may have a 2° taper, gradually narrowing from the proximal end 134 to the distal end 136 of the stem. The distal end 136 may terminate in a bullet-like tip 140. However, those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the exact shape of the distal end 136 can vary and that the taper may differ from approximately 2°. Moreover, the shape and size of the distal end 136 as well as the extent of the taper may be a function of the various sizes of the stems that may be employed with patients of different sizes. Those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate from the description herein that the body 126 of the intramedullary stem 118, and its distal end 136, can have any shape that facilitates stability of the implant in the medullary canal and that further facilitates the insertion and removal of the device, and that assists in providing a press-fit of the stem in the medullary canal, so as to provide axial and rotational stability.
The inlet 120 is located in the base plate 132 of the body 126. Similarly, the plurality of cadets 122 are disposed between the outer surface 142 of at least one of the plurality of fins 128. In the embodiment illustrated herein, the outlets 122 are disposed along the longitudinal length of the body 126 of the intramedullary stem 118 in the valleys 144 defined between adjacent fins. The size and shape of the plurality of outlets 122 may vary depending on a number of factors including, but not limited to, the type of antibiotic fluid and other agents that pass through the stem 118, the desired pressure and flow of the fluid-borne antibiotic, as well as various patient factors, such as age. In addition and in one embodiment, the plurality of outlets 122 may vary in size, ranging from a smaller size at the proximal end of the stem, to a larger size at the distal tip, in order to compensate for a loss in pressure. In any event, those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the size, location along the body 126 of the intramedullary stem 118, as well as the number of the outlets 122 may vary pursuant to a number of factors, all of which are within the scope of the present invention.
In the embodiment illustrated in
As noted above, the intramedullary stem of the present invention forms a part of an antibiotic implant assembly 112. One such assembly is illustrated in
Like the intramedullary stem illustrated in
As noted above and illustrated in
As best shown in
More specifically and as best shown in
Similarly, the coupler 410 includes a femoral stem receptacle, generally indicated at 438, adapted to receive the proximal end 334 of the body 326 of the femoral intramedullary stem 350 so as to establish fluid communication between the reservoir 426 and the inlet 320 to the femoral intramedullary stem 350. The femoral stem receptacle 438 includes an inlet port 440, a nipple section 442, and a transverse portion 444 extending between the inlet port 440 and the nipple section 442. The intra-articular end 334 of the femoral interamedullary stem 350 is adapted to be snugly received in the inlet port 440. Similarly, the base plate 332 is adapted to be received in the transverse portion 444 and the inlet 320 is adapted to be received in the nipple section 442 of the femoral stem receptacle 438. A gasket may also be employed at the inlet 320 to the femoral intramedullary stem 350 to establish an appropriate seal at this juncture with the nipple section 442 and the stem receptacle 438. Other seals may be employed to make the coupler fluid-tight as necessary. Thus, the stem receptacles 428, 438 in both ends of the coupler 410 are complimentarily shaped with respect to the intra-articular ends 234, 334 of the tibial and femoral intramedullary stems 250, 350 such that the stems are rigidly held in place by the coupler 410 when it is fully assembled, as illustrated, for example, in
As noted above, the tibial and femoral intramedullary stems 250, 350 may have a 2° taper gradually narrowing from the proximal to the distal end of the device. The tibial and femoral stems 250, 350 may have increasing lengths with each increase in stem diameter. Both the tibial and femoral stems 250, 350 may increase in diameter by 1 mm increments from approximately 14 mm to 22 mm at the base of the stems. This allows for a “press fit” in the intramedullary canal for axial and rotational stability. The intra-articular ends 234, 334 of the stems may all have one standard diameter and may be solid circumferentially for an axial length, such as 25 mm so that any proximal end of any stem will fit into any coupler. In any event, those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the dimensions set forth herein are merely representative and are not meant to limit the size and shape of the components of the system.
Another embodiment of the antibiotic implant assembly of the present invention is illustrated in
In the embodiment illustrated in
In its operative mode, the antibiotic implant assembly, its individual intramedullary stems, as well as the entire system is employed in the first stage of what is an abbreviated two-stage re-implantation process. This process begins with the removal of the infected implants and aggressive debridement of the medullary canal. As noted above, in a traditional two-stage re-implantation, an antibiotic cement spacer would be placed between the tibia and femur bones in a knee as well as the upper portion of the femur and hip socket, in connection with a re-implantation of a hip. The wound would then be closed and would heal completely in the next six to twelve weeks before the patient would return for the second stage. This extended period of time between the first and second stages is necessary, in part, because the antibiotic is distributed fern the cement using elusion principles and is essentially uncontrolled.
However, in the abbreviated two-stage re-implantation employing the antibiotic delivery system of the present invention, the intramedullary stem 118, 218, 250, 350, 518 is mounted in the respective bone and provides direct antibiotic irrigation of the wound once the system is installed in both the tibia and femur (in the case of a knee replacement) or in the upper portion of the femur and hip socket (in the case of a hip replacement). Moreover, as best show in
The direct infusion of antibiotic, such as Vancomycin, into the infected joint cavity allows for a very high level of drug concentration to be delivered in a fast and titratable fashion. This is in contrast to solely relying on the traditional antibiotic cement spacer to release the antibiotic through elusion principles alone, which is uncontrollable and typically starts out with most of the antibiotic released within the first few days, then gradually tapering off over the next weeks to months.
The present invention also takes advantage of concentration gradients. Over a typical 24-hour period, 4 g of Vancomycin could be delivered directly into the wound bed at the site of the infection at a concentration of approximately 13.3 mg per mm. In contrast, traditional IV antibiotic delivery systems, in which 1 g of antibiotic are given every 24 hours, will achieve a serum concentration level of around 10 μg to 20 μg per mm, and even less of a level in the actual joint space itself through diffusion. Those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the practice among surgeons may vary and so different types of antibiotics in different concentrations may be preferred by different surgeons under different circumstances. Nevertheless, in the example set forth above, there is a concentration difference of a 1,000 fold or more in what concentration the actual joint space itself is projected to see between the two techniques. In addition, and using the traditional two-stage technique described in the background section of this application, there is no way to control the overall amount or rate of antibiotic elusion from the cement spacer.
The intramedullary stems 118, 218, 250, 350, 518 of the present invention may be manufactured of any suitable material. However, one suitable material of note includes a copper alloy. Copper has recently been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the first solid surface material to be registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentcide Act. According to the EPA registration, certain copper alloys continuously reduce bacterial contamination achieving approximately 99.9% reduction within two hours of exposure. In addition, copper alloys can also kill greater than 99.9% of bacteria within two hours of exposure. Moreover, certain copper alloys deliver continuous and ongoing antibacterial action, even alter repeated wear and re-contamination. Those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that many different types of copper alloys may be suitable for this purpose. However, in order for the alloys to have antibacterial properties, it is believed that they must contain at least 65% copper. As presently best understood, there are currently 48 cast alloys which are included in the Group II Copper Alloys which have between 85% and 95% copper. In any event, those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the present invention is not limited to any specific copper alloy or any particular material.
Like the stems, in one preferred embodiment the coupler 410 may also be metallic and may be manufactured using a copper alloy. Multiple couplers may be available, each having a variable thickness and transverse dimension that act to separate the abutting ends of the stems by, for example 5 mm increments, to allow the distance between the tibial and femoral stems to be customized in order to allow proper distraction of the joint cavity (for example between 25 mm and 40 mm), until the desired tension on the ligaments could be obtained. As noted above, in addition to the pump delivering the antibiotic fluid, the system 110 may also employ a negative pressure wound therapy to remove antibiotic irrigation fluid and to aid in the eradication of infection through principles unique to that technology.
The antibiotic delivery system 110 and the associated implant 112 assembly of the present invention overcomes the disadvantages in the related art in providing a modular, implantable device designed for short-term use of approximately one week as a part of an abbreviated two-stage re-implantation technique for treatment of a septic (infected) TJR of either the knee or the hip. The present invention provides structural rigidity to the joint and the limb during the period of time between the removal of an infected prosthesis and the re-insertion of a new prosthesis. This allows the patient to be mobile, while minimizing pain. In addition, the implant assembly 112 maintains joint space while acting as a temporary spacer. This maintains proper length of vital structures, including ligaments, muscles, tendons, neurovascular structures, etc., until the new prosthesis can be implanted. The system 110 and the individual components thereof act to deliver a controlled and titratable antibiotic dosed directly into the synovial joint cavity and medullary canals via an infusion system. In addition, the system and its components act to irrigate and cleanse the medullary canals through a novel concept utilizing intermittent pulsatile levage.
The present invention has been described in an illustrative manner. It is to be understood that the terminology that has been used is intended to be in the nature of words of description rather than of limitation. Many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in light of the above teachings. Therefore, within the scope of the appended claims, the present invention may be practiced other than as specifically described. In addition, those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate from the foregoing description, taken along with the drawings, that the term “system” as used in the claims may encompass individual components of the system, such as the intramedullary stems, the implant assembly for both a knee and hip, as well as the entire system, including the implant assembly, the pump, and the source of antibiotic fluid. Thus, the term “system” as it is used in the claims does not necessarily encompass all of the components of the system and, depending on the scope of the individual claims, may refer to merely a subcomponent of that system.
Claims
1. An antibiotic delivery system comprising:
- a femoral intramedullary stem adapted to be removably mounted into a medullary canal of a femur bone, said femoral intramedullary stem including a body having a proximate end and a distal end disposed remote from said proximate end, said body including a plurality of fins extending therealong and disposed in spaced angular relationship with respect to each other so as to define valleys that provide fluid flow spaces disposed between adjacent fins, said fins adapted to engage said medullary canal in a removably stable fashion, a femoral head and a neck extending from said proximal end of said body and between said body and said femoral head, said femoral intramedullary stem including at least one inlet, and a plurality of outlets disposed along said stem and between an outer surface of one of said plurality of adjacent fins in said valleys and in fluid communication with said fluid flow spaces and a channel extending between said inlet and said plurality of outlets, said femoral head having a plurality of outlets and a channel extending between said at least one inlet and said plurality of outlets for delivering fluid-borne antibiotics from said at least one inlet to said plurality of outlets so as to distribute said antibiotic along said intramedullary canal and the socket of a hip joint in a controlled fashion.
2. An antibiotic delivery system as set forth in claim 1, wherein said body includes an inlet and said femoral head includes an inlet, both inlets being in fluid communication with a source of fluid-borne antibiotic.
3. An antibiotic delivery system as set forth in claim 1, wherein said femoral head has a hemispherical shape so as to be complimentarily received in the socket of a hip joint.
4. A method of treating an infected joint during a two-stage re-implantation of an orthopedic implant, said method comprising the steps of: removing the infected implants mounted to the medullary canal of a bone; debriding the medullary canal; installing an intramedullary stem into the medullary canal where the stem includes an inlet, a plurality of outlets and a channel extending between the inlet and the plurality of outlets; said stem including a plurality of fins extending along a longitudinal axis of the stem and disposed in spaced angular relationship with respect to each other so as to define valleys that provide fluid flow spaces disposed between adjacent fins and a plurality of outlets disposed along said stem and between an outer surface of one of said plurality of adjacent fins in said valleys and in fluid communication with said fluid flow spaces providing a source of fluid-borne antibiotic to the inlet of the intramedullary stem so as to distribute the antibiotic into the medullary canal in a controlled fashion.
5. A method of treating an infected orthopedic implant as set forth in claim 4, wherein said step of installing an intramedullary stem includes installing a tibial intramedullary stem into the medullary canal of the tibia bone and installing a femoral intramedullary stem into the medullary canal of a femur bone.
6. A method of treating an infected orthopedic implant as set forth in claim 5, wherein the method further includes the step of positioning a coupler between the tibial intramedullary stem and the femoral intramedullary stem so as to provide axial stability between the tibial and femoral intramedullary stems.
7. A method of treating an infected orthopedic implant as set forth in claim 6, wherein the method further includes the step of establishing fluid communication between the coupler and the inlet of the tibial and femoral intramedullary stems and providing fluid communication between the coupler and a source of fluid-borne antibiotic so as to distribute the antibiotic through the tibial and femoral intramedullary stems and along the medullary canals in a controlled fashion.
8. A method of treating infected tissue in a patient, the method comprising:
- a) installing a first intramedullary stem into a first medullary canal of a first bone, said intramedullary stem comprising a longitudinal axis, wherein said installing comprises engaging an outer stem surface of the first intramedullary stem with said first medullary canal of the first bone, the outer stem surface comprising a plurality of fins extending along said first intramedullary stem, said plurality of fins disposed in spaced angular relationship so as to define a plurality of valleys, each of said plurality of valleys disposed between an adjacent pair of fins and providing a fluid-flow space between said adjacent pair of fins when said stem is installed in said first medullary canal, wherein the first intramedullary stem comprises a first inlet, a first plurality of outlets and a first channel therein and in fluid communication with each of said first inlet, said first plurality of outlets and the fluid-flow spaces, and further wherein said first plurality of outlets is disposed along said stem in said plurality of valleys; and
- b) removing a first fluid from the first medullary canal.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein said removing the first fluid from the first medullary canal comprises using negative pressure in fluid communication with the first medullary canal to remove said first fluid.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein a pump applies said negative pressure to remove said first fluid from said first medullary canal.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the pump pumps the fluid in a pulsatile fashion.
12. The method of claim 8, further comprising removing at least one implant from the first medullary canal before said installing said first intramedullary stem.
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising debriding the first medullary canal after removing said at least one implant from the first medullary canal and before said installing said first intramedullary stem.
14. The method of claim 8, further comprising delivering a second fluid to the first medullary canal via said first inlet, said first channel and said first plurality of outlets after said removing the first fluid.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the second fluid comprises at least one of an antibiotic, a cleaning fluid, an irrigating fluid, a debriding fluid, and a fluid-borne agent for treating infected tissue.
16. The method of claim 8, further comprising installing a second intramedullary stem into a second medullary canal of a second bone, the second intramedullary stem comprising a second channel therein and in fluid communication with a second plurality of outlets disposed along the second intramedullary stem.
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising removing the first fluid from the second medullary canal.
18. The method of claim 17, comprising irrigating the first medullary canal and the second medullary canal prior to removing the first fluid.
19. The method of claim 17, further comprising delivering a second fluid to the second medullary canals via said second channel and said second plurality of outlets after removing the first fluid from said second medullary canal.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the second fluid comprises at least one of an antibiotic, a cleaning fluid, an irrigating fluid, a debriding fluid, and a fluid-borne agent for treating infected tissue.
21. The method of claim 16, wherein the second intramedullary stem comprises a plurality of fins extending therealong and disposed in spaced angular relationship so as to define a plurality of valleys, each of said plurality of valleys disposed between an adjacent pair of fins and providing a fluid flow space between said adjacent pair of fins when said stem is installed in said first medullary canal, wherein each of the fluid flow spaces is in fluid communication with the second plurality of outlets.
22. The method of claim 16, further comprising coupling the first intramedullary stem to the second intramedullary stem with a coupler.
23. The method of claim 10, further comprising delivering a second fluid to the first medullary canal via said first inlet, said first channel and said first plurality of outlets after said removing the first fluid.
24. The method of claim 23, wherein said pump for applying said negative pressure is also adapted to deliver said second fluid to said first medullary canal.
| 4274163 | June 23, 1981 | Malcom et al. |
| 4399814 | August 23, 1983 | Pratt et al. |
| 4488549 | December 18, 1984 | Lee et al. |
| 4653487 | March 31, 1987 | Maale |
| 4711233 | December 8, 1987 | Brown |
| 4888024 | December 19, 1989 | Powlan |
| 4892550 | January 9, 1990 | Huebsch |
| 5116377 | May 26, 1992 | Skripitz et al. |
| 5133767 | July 28, 1992 | Frey et al. |
| 5133771 | July 28, 1992 | Duncan et al. |
| 5133772 | July 28, 1992 | Hack et al. |
| 5156606 | October 20, 1992 | Chin |
| 5290291 | March 1, 1994 | Linden |
| 5340362 | August 23, 1994 | Carbone |
| 5370698 | December 6, 1994 | Heimke et al. |
| 5376123 | December 27, 1994 | Klaue et al. |
| 5433718 | July 18, 1995 | Brinker |
| 5501687 | March 26, 1996 | Willert et al. |
| 5514137 | May 7, 1996 | Coutts |
| 5549702 | August 27, 1996 | Ries et al. |
| 5554111 | September 10, 1996 | Morrey et al. |
| 5562736 | October 8, 1996 | Ray et al. |
| 5571204 | November 5, 1996 | Nies |
| 5618286 | April 8, 1997 | Brinker |
| 5681289 | October 28, 1997 | Wilcox et al. |
| 5683472 | November 4, 1997 | O'Neil et al. |
| 5693099 | December 2, 1997 | Harle |
| 5702446 | December 30, 1997 | Schenck et al. |
| 5725596 | March 10, 1998 | Burke |
| 5741265 | April 21, 1998 | Chan |
| 5755811 | May 26, 1998 | Tanamal et al. |
| 5827289 | October 27, 1998 | Reiley et al. |
| 5871484 | February 16, 1999 | Spievack et al. |
| 5954771 | September 21, 1999 | Richelsoph et al. |
| 5980573 | November 9, 1999 | Shaffner |
| 6066154 | May 23, 2000 | Reiley et al. |
| 6106495 | August 22, 2000 | Scott |
| 6113639 | September 5, 2000 | Ray et al. |
| 6132674 | October 17, 2000 | Compton et al. |
| 6155812 | December 5, 2000 | Smith et al. |
| 6217619 | April 17, 2001 | Keller |
| 6235043 | May 22, 2001 | Reiley et al. |
| 6248110 | June 19, 2001 | Reiley et al. |
| 6336941 | January 8, 2002 | Subba Rao et al. |
| 6361731 | March 26, 2002 | Smith et al. |
| 6361780 | March 26, 2002 | Ley et al. |
| 6423083 | July 23, 2002 | Reiley et al. |
| 6447514 | September 10, 2002 | Stalcup et al. |
| 6544472 | April 8, 2003 | Compton et al. |
| 6589281 | July 8, 2003 | Hyde, Jr. |
| 6679890 | January 20, 2004 | Margulies et al. |
| 6692529 | February 17, 2004 | Shah |
| 6740090 | May 25, 2004 | Cragg et al. |
| 6740120 | May 25, 2004 | Grimes |
| 6783515 | August 31, 2004 | Miller et al. |
| 6899716 | May 31, 2005 | Cragg |
| 6921403 | July 26, 2005 | Cragg et al. |
| 6942475 | September 13, 2005 | Ensign et al. |
| 6942702 | September 13, 2005 | Mitsugi et al. |
| 6969404 | November 29, 2005 | Ferree |
| 6979336 | December 27, 2005 | Durniak |
| 6981981 | January 3, 2006 | Reiley et al. |
| 6989033 | January 24, 2006 | Schmidt |
| 7048743 | May 23, 2006 | Miller et al. |
| 7112205 | September 26, 2006 | Carrison |
| 7141053 | November 28, 2006 | Rosa et al. |
| 7141067 | November 28, 2006 | Jones et al. |
| 7211113 | May 1, 2007 | Zelener et |
| 7217260 | May 15, 2007 | Molander et al. |
| 7250055 | July 31, 2007 | Vanderwalle |
| 7255713 | August 14, 2007 | Malek |
| 7300282 | November 27, 2007 | Sapian |
| 7306629 | December 11, 2007 | Saladino et al. |
| 7427296 | September 23, 2008 | Evans |
| 7429346 | September 30, 2008 | Ensign et al. |
| 7534240 | May 19, 2009 | Johnson |
| 7572293 | August 11, 2009 | Rhodes et al. |
| 7601157 | October 13, 2009 | Boyd et al. |
| 7601176 | October 13, 2009 | Soffiati et al. |
| 7641698 | January 5, 2010 | Gibbs et al. |
| 7771428 | August 10, 2010 | Siravo et al. |
| 7842095 | November 30, 2010 | Klein |
| 7862619 | January 4, 2011 | Clark |
| 7914585 | March 29, 2011 | Keller |
| 8038682 | October 18, 2011 | McGill et al. |
| 8097039 | January 17, 2012 | Evans |
| 8135466 | March 13, 2012 | Fuller et al. |
| 8366782 | February 5, 2013 | Wright |
| 8388881 | March 5, 2013 | Giori |
| 8454706 | June 4, 2013 | de Beaubien |
| 8475505 | July 2, 2013 | Nebosky et al. |
| 8496711 | July 30, 2013 | Anapliotis et al. |
| 8579985 | November 12, 2013 | Podolsky et al. |
| 8608802 | December 17, 2013 | Bagga et al. |
| 8652216 | February 18, 2014 | Chen et al. |
| 8673018 | March 18, 2014 | Walls |
| 8685432 | April 1, 2014 | Evans et al. |
| 8721520 | May 13, 2014 | Caira et al. |
| 8974538 | March 10, 2015 | Teeny et al. |
| 9173742 | November 3, 2015 | Faccioli et al. |
| 9795486 | October 24, 2017 | Faccioli et al. |
| 10433965 | October 8, 2019 | de Beaubien et al. |
| 20010051831 | December 13, 2001 | Subba Rao et al. |
| 20020169507 | November 14, 2002 | Malone |
| 20030060891 | March 27, 2003 | Shah |
| 20030097184 | May 22, 2003 | Mitsugi et al. |
| 20030187513 | October 2, 2003 | Durniak |
| 20040036189 | February 26, 2004 | Ensign et al. |
| 20040193268 | September 30, 2004 | Hazebrouck |
| 20040193281 | September 30, 2004 | Grimes |
| 20040225360 | November 11, 2004 | Malone |
| 20050004680 | January 6, 2005 | Saladino et al. |
| 20050021084 | January 27, 2005 | Lu et al. |
| 20050107794 | May 19, 2005 | Hazebrouck |
| 20050187555 | August 25, 2005 | Biedermann et al. |
| 20050277936 | December 15, 2005 | Siravo et al. |
| 20060004431 | January 5, 2006 | Fuller et al. |
| 20060014120 | January 19, 2006 | Sapian |
| 20060030945 | February 9, 2006 | Wright |
| 20060093646 | May 4, 2006 | Cima et al. |
| 20060121083 | June 8, 2006 | Mor |
| 20070005142 | January 4, 2007 | Rhodes et al. |
| 20070016163 | January 18, 2007 | Santini et al. |
| 20070110804 | May 17, 2007 | Royer |
| 20070123835 | May 31, 2007 | Molander et al. |
| 20070179609 | August 2, 2007 | Goble et al. |
| 20090069899 | March 12, 2009 | Klein |
| 20090130167 | May 21, 2009 | Shelton et al. |
| 20100042167 | February 18, 2010 | Nebosky et al. |
| 20100042213 | February 18, 2010 | Nebosky et al. |
| 20100042214 | February 18, 2010 | Nebosky et al. |
| 20100042215 | February 18, 2010 | Stalcup et al. |
| 20100114324 | May 6, 2010 | Gibbs et al. |
| 20100217401 | August 26, 2010 | de Beaubien |
| 20100292803 | November 18, 2010 | Giori |
| 20110208315 | August 25, 2011 | Anapliotis et al. |
| 20110236501 | September 29, 2011 | Guelcher et al. |
| 20130041472 | February 14, 2013 | Rabiner et al. |
| 20130209522 | August 15, 2013 | Brooks et al. |
| 20130211334 | August 15, 2013 | de Beaubien |
| 20130211369 | August 15, 2013 | de Beaubien |
| 2005-028129 | February 2005 | JP |
| 2012-500056 | January 2012 | JP |
| WO-2010/019781 | February 2010 | WO |
Type: Grant
Filed: Jun 24, 2020
Date of Patent: Oct 11, 2022
Assignee: Osteal Therapeutics, Inc. (Dallas, TX)
Inventor: Brian C. de Beaubien (Fenton, MI)
Primary Examiner: Beverly M Flanagan
Application Number: 16/911,303
International Classification: A61F 2/30 (20060101); A61F 2/38 (20060101); A61M 37/00 (20060101); A61F 2/36 (20060101); A61F 2/48 (20060101); A61F 2/46 (20060101); A61F 2/26 (20060101);
