IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,611,254
Granted Patent B2
US 12,611,254 · App. 17/566,773 · Granted Apr 28, 2026

Apparatus, system, and method for determining a position of a hip prosthesis in a bone of a patient

Inventors: Matthew R. Dressler (Fort Wayne, IN); Chadd Clary (Highlands Ranch, CO); Clare K. Fitzpatrick (Boise, ID); Casey A. Myers (Denver, CO); Paul J. Rullkoetter (Lyons, CO)
Assignee: DEPUY IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY
A61B34/10A61B34/20A61F2/34A61F2/4607G16H20/40G16H30/40A61B2034/104A61B2034/2065A61B2090/374A61B2090/3762A61F2002/3611A61F2002/4658A61F2002/4668
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,611,254
App. No.
17/566,773
Filed
Dec 31, 2021
Granted
Apr 28, 2026
Kind
B2
Art Unit
2189
USPC
703/6
Abstract

An apparatus, system, and method for determining a position of a hip prosthesis in a bone of a patient includes determining a set of contact points between a femoral head of a femoral prosthesis and a cup liner of an acetabular cup to be implanted into a patient based on a mechanics model. The mechanics model is indicative of mechanical motion of a hip exhibited during performance of a set of ADL or at corresponding functional positions of the patient. In some embodiments, a mathematical model may be generated based on a plurality of sets of contact points determined using the mechanics model and subsequently used to determine a resultant set of contact points.

Claims (61)

1 . A system for determining a position of a hip prosthesis in a patient, the hip prosthesis having a femoral prosthesis and an acetabular cup, the system comprising:

one or more processors; and

one or more memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and including instructions that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the system to:

acquire a set of medical images of a hip of the patient;

determine pelvic tilt measurements of a pelvis of the patient based on the set of medical images, wherein the pelvic tilt measurements are indicative of a range of motion of the hip of the patient between different functional positions;

determine a set of contact points between a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and a cup liner of the acetabular cup with a generic activities-of-daily-living (ADL) mechanics model, using a type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, and an orientation of the acetabular cup relative to an acetabulum of the patient as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein the generic ADL mechanics model is indicative of mechanical motion of a hip exhibited during performance of a set of ADL;

generate a contact plot based on the set of contact points, wherein the contact plot includes an indicia for each contact point in the set of contact points and for an edge of the cup liner;

receive a surgeon's selection of a planned orientation for the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient in response to the contact plot; and

provide guidance to the surgeon to implant the acetabular cup in the acetabulum of the patient at the planned orientation selected by the surgeon.

2 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the set of medical images includes an anterior-posterior medical image of the hip of the patient while the patient is standing, a sagittal medical image of the hip of the patient while the patient is standing, a sagittal medical image of the hip of the patient while the patient is seated and fully bent over at the waist, and a sagittal medical image of the hip of the patient while the patient is standing with a contralateral leg in a flexed position and the back extended, and

wherein to determine the pelvic tilt measurements of the pelvis of the patient comprises to identify a plurality of anatomical landmarks of the hip of the patient based on the set of medical images.

3 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the plurality of instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine a pelvic mobility of the hip of the patient based on the pelvic tilt measurements,

wherein to determine the set of contact points comprises to determine the set of contact points with the generic ADL mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, the pelvic mobility, and the orientation of the acetabular cup as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model.

4 . The system of claim 1 , wherein to determine the set of contact points comprises to:

determine a plurality of sets of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup with the generic ADL mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, a plurality of sets of pelvic tilt values, and a plurality of orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to (i) a different orientation of the acetabular cup of the plurality of orientations of the acetabular cup and (ii) a different set of pelvic tilt values of the plurality of sets of pelvic tilt values used as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model; and

generate a mathematical model based on the plurality of sets of contact points, wherein the mathematical model is a model of the plurality of sets of contact points and is configured to produce a resultant set of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup using a set of pelvic tilt measurements as input, wherein to determine the set of contact points comprises to determine the set of contact points using the mathematical model with the pelvic tilt measurements as an input to the mathematical model.

5 . The system of claim 1 , wherein to determine the set of contact points comprises to determine a subset of contact points of the set of contact points for each ADL activity of the set of ADL, wherein the set of contact points comprises the subset of contact points for each corresponding ADL activity, wherein to determine the subset of contact points for each ADL activity comprises to:

temporally discretize each ADL activity into a plurality of temporal periods;

determine an angle between a femur of the patient and the acetabulum of the patient during each temporal period of the plurality of temporal periods based on the pelvic tilt measurements; and

determine a contact point between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup for each temporal period of the plurality of temporal periods with the generic ADL mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, the orientation of the acetabular cup, and the determined angle for the corresponding temporal period as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model.

6 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the plurality of instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine an impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup based on (i) a three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis and a three-dimensional model of the acetabular cup and (ii) a plurality of orientations of the femoral prosthesis relative to a femur of the patient and a plurality of orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient, and

wherein the plurality of instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the system to display the contact plot and indicia of the impingement-free range of motion.

7 . The system of claim 1 , wherein to determine the set of contact points comprises to determine a plurality of sets of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup with the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to a different orientation of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient used as an input to the generic ADL mechanics model, and

wherein the plurality of instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the system to identify a sub-group of the plurality of sets of contact points that are predicted to result in edge loading of the acetabular cup based on a distance between at least one contact point of a corresponding set of contact points of the sub-group and the edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup being within a reference threshold distance.

8 . The system of claim 7 , wherein the plurality of instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the system to:

determine an edge loading boundary based on the different orientations of the acetabular cup corresponding to the sub-group of the plurality of sets of contact points that are predicted to result in edge loading of the acetabular cup; and

display an indicia of the edge loading boundary.

9 . The system of claim 1 , wherein to determine the set of contact points comprises to determine a plurality of sets of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup with the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to a different orientation of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient used as an input to the generic ADL mechanics model,

wherein the plurality of instructions, in response to execution by the one or more processors, further cause the system to:

determine a distance between at least one outermost contact point of each set of contact points and the edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup; and

identify a preferred orientation of the acetabular cup based on the determined distances.

10 . A method for determining a position of a hip prosthesis in a patient, the hip prosthesis having a femoral prosthesis and an acetabular cup, the method comprising:

acquiring a set of medical images of a hip of the patient;

operating a computer system to determine pelvic tilt measurements of a pelvis of the patient based on the set of medical images, wherein the pelvic tilt measurements are indicative of a range of motion of the hip of the patient between different functional positions;

operating the computer system to determine a set of contact points between a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and a cup liner of the acetabular cup with a generic activities-of-daily-living (ADL) mechanics model, using a type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, and an orientation of the acetabular cup relative to an acetabulum of the patient as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein the generic ADL mechanics model is indicative of mechanical motion of a patient-generic hip exhibited during performance of a set of ADL;

operating the computer system to generate a contact plot based on the set of contact points, wherein the contact plot includes an indicia for each contact point in the set of contact points and for an edge of the cup liner;

selecting a planned orientation for the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient in response to the contact plot; and

implanting the acetabular cup in the acetabulum of the patient at the planned orientation.

11 . The method of claim 10 , further comprising operating the computer system to determine a pelvic mobility of the hip of the patient based on the pelvic tilt measurements,

wherein operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points comprises operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points with the generic ADL mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, the pelvic mobility, and the orientation of the acetabular cup as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model.

12 . The method of claim 10 , wherein operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points comprises:

operating the computer system to determine a plurality of sets of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup with the generic ADL mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, a plurality of sets of pelvic tilt values, and a plurality of orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to (i) a different orientation of the acetabular cup of the plurality of orientations of the acetabular cup and (ii) a different set of pelvic tilt values of the plurality of sets of pelvic tilt values used as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model; and

operating the computer system to generate a mathematical model based on the plurality of sets of contact points, wherein the mathematical model is a model of the plurality of sets of contact points and is configured to produce a resultant set of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup using a set of pelvic tilt measurements as input,

wherein operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points comprises operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points using the mathematical model with the pelvic tilt measurements as an input to the mathematical model.

13 . The method of claim 10 , wherein operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points comprises operating the computer system to determine a subset of contact points of the set of contact points for each ADL activity of the set of ADL, wherein the set of contact points comprises the subset of contact points for each corresponding ADL activity, and wherein operating the computer system to determine the subset of contact points for each ADL activity comprises:

operating the computer system to temporally discretize each ADL activity into a plurality of temporal periods;

operating the computer system to determine an angle between a femur of the patient and the acetabulum of the patient during each temporal period of the plurality of temporal periods based on the pelvic tilt measurements; and

operating the computer system to determine a contact point between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup for each temporal period of the plurality of temporal periods with the generic ADL mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, the orientation of the acetabular cup, and the determined angle for the corresponding temporal period as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model.

14 . The method of claim 10 , further comprising operating the computer system to determine an impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup based on (i) a three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis and a three-dimensional model of the acetabular cup and (ii) a plurality of orientations of the femoral prosthesis relative to a femur of the patient and a plurality of orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient, wherein the computer system causes the contact plot and indicia of the impingement-free range of motion to be displayed.

15 . The method of claim 10 , wherein operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points comprises operating the computer system to determine a plurality of sets of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup with the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to a different orientation of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient used as an input to the generic ADL mechanics model, and

further comprising operating the computer system to identify a sub-group of the plurality of sets of contact points that are predicted to result in edge loading of the acetabular cup based on a distance between at least one contact point of a corresponding set of contact points of the sub-group and the edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup being within a reference threshold distance.

16 . The method of claim 15 , further comprising operating the computer system to determine an edge loading boundary based on the different orientations of the acetabular cup corresponding to the sub-group of the plurality of sets of contact points that are predicted to result in edge loading of the acetabular cup, wherein the computer system causes an indicia of the edge loading boundary to be displayed.

17 . The method of claim 10 , wherein operating the computer system to determine the set of contact points comprises operating the computer system to determine a plurality of sets of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup with the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to a different orientation of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient used as an input to the generic ADL mechanics model, and further comprising:

operating computer system to determine a distance between at least one outermost contact point of each set of contact points and the edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup; and

operating the computer system to identify a preferred orientation of the acetabular cup based on the determined distances.

18 . A method of performing an orthopaedic surgical procedure on a hip of a patient to implant a hip prosthesis having a femoral prosthesis and an acetabular cup, the method comprising:

operating a computer system to (i) determine a plurality of sets of contact points between a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and a cup liner of the acetabular cup with a generic activities-of-daily-living (ADL) mechanics model, using a type and a size of the femoral prosthesis, a type and a size of the acetabular cup, pelvic tilt measurements of the patient, and a plurality of possible orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient as inputs to the generic ADL mechanics model, wherein the generic ADL mechanics model is indicative of mechanical motion of a patient-generic hip exhibited during performance of a set of ADL, and wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to a different possible orientation of the acetabular cup of the plurality of possible orientations of the acetabular cup used as an input to the generic ADL mechanics model and (ii) identify a sub-group of the plurality of sets of contact points that are predicted to result in edge loading of the acetabular cup based on a distance between at least one contact point of a corresponding set of contact points of the sub-group and an edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup being within a reference threshold distance;

selecting a planned orientation for the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient from among the plurality of possible orientations of the acetabular cup not corresponding to one of the sub-group of the plurality of sets of contact points that are predicted to result in edge loading of the acetabular cup; and

performing the orthopaedic surgical procedure on the hip of a patient to implant the acetabular cup in the acetabulum of the patient at the planned orientation.

19 . The method of claim 18 , wherein selecting the planned orientation for the acetabular cup is performed pre-operatively to the orthopaedic surgical procedure.

20 . The method of claim 18 , further comprising operating the computer system, during the orthopaedic surgical procedure, to (i) determine an actual orientation of the acetabular cup positioned in the acetabulum of the patient and (ii) display a contact plot including indicia for each contact point in one of the plurality of sets of contact points that corresponds with the actual orientation of the acetabular cup.

Assignments (7)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 8, 2023
From: DRESSLER, MATTHEW R.
To: DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC.
Reel/Frame 065495/0589 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 8, 2023
From: CLARY, CHADD
To: ORTHO HAUS, LLC
Reel/Frame 065495/0618 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 8, 2023
From: FITZPATRICK, CLARE K.
To: ORTHO HAUS, LLC
Reel/Frame 065495/0697 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 8, 2023
From: MYERS, CASEY A.
To: ORTHO HAUS, LLC
Reel/Frame 065495/0754 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 8, 2023
From: RULLKOETTER, PAUL J.
To: ORTHO HAUS, LLC
Reel/Frame 065495/0782 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 8, 2023
From: ORTHO HAUS, LLC
To: DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC.
Reel/Frame 065495/0813 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 8, 2023
From: DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC.
To: DEPUY IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY
Reel/Frame 065495/0854 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 63132991 · Dec 31, 2020
Related Publication 20220202494A1 · Jun 30, 2022
References Cited (214)
US 5715836A · Kliegis et al. · 1998 [cited by applicant]
US 5995738A · Digioia · 1999 [cited by applicant]
US 6205411B1 · DiGioia, III et al. · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 6597818B2 · Kumar et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 8160345B2 · Pavlovskaia et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 9248002B2 · Mccarthy · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9603711B2 · Bojarski et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9662228B2 · Mccarthy · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9687259B2 · Pavlovskaia et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9913691B2 · Brooks · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10182871B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10321961B2 · Mccarthy et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10433914B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10500067B2 · Mccarthy · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10595943B2 · Barsoum et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10610305B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10687856B2 · Park et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10758198B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10765384B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10959782B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11071592B2 · Mcguan et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11107586B1 · DeCook et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11147626B2 · Murphy et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11241287B2 · Boettner · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11318025B2 · Schipper et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11337760B2 · Veilleux et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11337762B2 · Duxbury et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11439467B1 · Park · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 11534127B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11642174B2 · Wollowick et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11737893B2 · Schipper et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 12198812B2 · DeCook et al. · 2025 [cited by applicant]
US 20020055692A1 · Tanaka et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20030176860A1 · Shimura · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20040087852A1 · Chen et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040117028A1 · Iversen · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040171924A1 · Mire et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050054917A1 · Kitson · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050203384A1 · Sati et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060095047A1 · de la Barrera · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060293614A1 · Radinsky et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20080021299A1 · Meulink · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080027312A1 · Dick · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080056552A1 · Muller · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080075348A1 · Rappaport et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080120262A1 · Habets et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080146969A1 · Kurtz · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080255584A1 · Beverland et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090089034A1 · Penney et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090316967A1 · Dardenne et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100030231A1 · Nitzan et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100086181A1 · Zug et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100197639A1 · Lang et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110093087A1 · Mcmahon et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110313424A1 · Bono et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120016269A1 · de la Barrera · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120116533A1 · Forsell · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120157887A1 · Fanson et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120194505A1 · Beck · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120209394A1 · Bojarski et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120230573A1 · Ito et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130046310A1 · Ranawat et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130053858A1 · Penenberg · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130053859A1 · Penenberg · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130072821A1 · Odermatt et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130304429A1 · Haimerl · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140093154A1 · Penenberg · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140378828A1 · Penenberg et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150088145A1 · McCarthy · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150088146A1 · McCarthy · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150117608A1 · Lytle et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150150523A1 · Sirpad et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150227679A1 · Kamer et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150238271A1 · Wollowick et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150257846A1 · Kubiak et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150272695A1 · Kubiak et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160100909A1 · Wollowick et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160128654A1 · Wollowick et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160203608A1 · Izmirli et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160225192A1 · Jones et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170042619A1 · Brooks · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170128135A1 · McCarthy et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170143433A1 · Fanson et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170165008A1 · Finley · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170202682A1 · McCarthy · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170215967A1 · Spath · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170224418A1 · Boettner et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170258526A1 · Lang · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170333137A1 · Roessler · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180161101A1 · Barsoum · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180199995A1 · Odermatt et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180263697A1 · Eskesen et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180263699A1 · Murphy et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190090962A1 · Boettner · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190298452A1 · Veilleux et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190350728A1 · van der Walt et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190385303A1 · Petersen et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200205900A1 · Buckland et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200246079A1 · Shevlev et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200323648A1 · Samuelson et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200323649A1 · Schipper · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200405398A1 · Amanatullah · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210220054A1 · Parker et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210322148A1 · Mitra et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220000562A1 · Murphy, M.D. et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220008131A1 · Sculco et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220039869A1 · Dees, Jr. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220117663A1 · Mcguan et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220125515A1 · Mcguan et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220148454A1 · Jaramaz et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220148739A1 · Farley et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220202503A1 · Dressler et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220249248A1 · Schipper et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220323159A1 · Boettner et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230000556A1 · Duxbury et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230181257A1 · McGuan et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230277331A1 · Beck et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20250107904A1 · Hunt et al. · 2025 [cited by applicant]
US 20250149183A1 · DeCook et al. · 2025 [cited by applicant]
FR 2932677B1 · 2010 [cited by applicant]
GB 2588001B · 2022 [cited by applicant]
JP 2004105551A · 2004 [cited by applicant]
JP 2005185767A · 2005 [cited by applicant]
JP 2007151742A · 2007 [cited by applicant]
JP 2009136384A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
JP 2012532665A · 2012 [cited by applicant]
WO 2007009263A1 · 2007 [cited by applicant]
WO 2009108683A1 · 2009 [cited by applicant]
WO 2013049534A1 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
WO 2013175471A1 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
WO 2014025305A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO 2014069553A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO 2016180438A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017106858A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018162322A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
WO 2019068194A1 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2019191722A1 · 2019 [cited by examiner]
WO 2019241516A1 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020102886A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163314A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163316A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163317A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163318A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163324A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163328A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163330A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163352A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020163355A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2020163358A1 · 2020 [cited by examiner]
WO 2021262539A1 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
WO 2023044138A1 · 2023 [cited by applicant]
Miki, Hidenobu, et al. “Risk of edge-loading and prosthesis impingement due to posterior pelvic tilting after total hip arthroplasty.” Clinical biomechanics 29.6 (2014): 607-613. (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Luthringer, Tyler A., and Jonathan M. Vigdorchik. “A preoperative workup of a “hip-spine” total hip arthroplasty patient: a simplified approach to a complex problem.” The Journal of arthroplasty 34.7 (2019): S57-S70. (Y… [cited by examiner]
Pedersen DR, Brown TD, Maxian TA, Callaghan JJ. Temporal and spatial distributions of directional counterface motion at the acetabular bearing surface in total hip arthroplasty. Iowa Orthop J. 1998;18:43-53. (Year: 1998… [cited by examiner]
Henebry A, Gaskill T. The Effect of Pelvic Tilt on Radiographic Markers of Acetabular Coverage. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2013;41(11):2599-2603. (Year: 2013). [cited by examiner]
Pierrepont, Jim, et al. “The effect of seated pelvic tilt on posterior edge-loading in total hip arthroplasty: a finite element investigation.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of … [cited by examiner]
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/EP2021/087907, May 3, 2022, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Miki Hidenobou et al., “Risk of edge loading and prosthesis impingement due to posterior pelvic tilting after after total hip arthroplasty,” Clinical Biomechanics (May 2014), 29:4, 607-613. [cited by applicant]
Thomas D. Brown, John J. Callaghan, “Impingement in total hip replacement: mechanisms and consequences,” Current Orthopaedics (2008), 22, 376-391. [cited by applicant]
Myers et al., “Effect of intraoperative treatment options on hip joint stability following total hip arthroplasty,” J Orthop Res. (2022), 40, 604-613. [cited by applicant]
Gibbons et al., “Development of a statistical shape-function model of the implanted knee for real-time prediction of joint mechanics,” Journal of Biomechanics, 2019, pp. 55-63. [cited by applicant]
Zhu et al., “Quantification of Pelvic Tilt in Total Hip Arthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Aug. 28, 2009, pp. 571-575, vol. 468(2), Springer. [cited by applicant]
Ezquerra et al., “Range of Movement for Impingement and Dislocation Avoidance in Total Hip Replacement Predicted by Finite Element Model,” J. Med. Biol. Eng., Jan. 21, 2017, pp. 26-34, vol. 37, Springer. [cited by applicant]
Mahboba et al., “Improving of artificial hip joint design by studying multiple angles of articulation between femoral head and acetabular liner,” International Journal of Energy and Environment, Jul. 31, 2019, pp. 195-2… [cited by applicant]
Alvarez et al., “Fluoroscopic Imaging of Acetabular Cup Position During THA Through a Direct Anterior Approach,” Orthopedics, Oct. 2013, pp. 776-777, vol. 36, No. 10. [cited by applicant]
Alvarez, “Fluoroscopic Imaging of Acetabular Cup Position During THA Through a Direct Anterior Approach,” Orthopedics, Jan. 2014, p. 12, vol. 37, No. 1. [cited by applicant]
Babisch et al., “The Rationale for Tilt-Adjusted Acetabular Cup Navigation,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Feb. 2008, pp. 357-365, vol. 90-A, No. 2. [cited by applicant]
Bachhal et al., “A new method of measuring acetabular cup anteversion on simulated radiographs,” International Orthopaedics (SICOT), May 31, 2012, pp. 1813-1818, vol. 36, Springer. [cited by applicant]
Bergmann et al., “Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities,” Journal of Biomechanics, Jul. 2001, pp. 859-871, vol. 34(7), Elsevier Science Ltd. [cited by applicant]
Bergmann et al., “Standardized Loads Acting in Hip Implants,” PLoS ONE, May 19, 2016, 23 pages, vol. 11(5). [cited by applicant]
Blondel et al., “Sacro-femoral-pubic angle: a coronal parameter to estimate pelvic tilt,” European Spine Journal, Nov. 24, 2011, pp. 719-724, vol. 21, Springer-Verlag. [cited by applicant]
Buckland et al., “Sagittal pelvic orientation: a comparison of two methods of measurement,” Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Diseases 2017, pp. 234-240, vol. 75(4). [cited by applicant]
Chevillotte et al., “Variability in Hip Range of Motion on Clinical Examination,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Aug. 2009, pp. 693-697, vol. 24(5), Elsevier, Inc. [cited by applicant]
Cuptimize, Inc., Traditional 510(k) Application for Cuptimize Software, submitted confidentially to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 14, 2020, 215 pages (partially redacted). [cited by applicant]
Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Excerpts from Traditional 510(k) Application for DePuy CUPTIMIZE Advanced, submitted confidentially to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 24, 2023, 22 pages. [cited by applicant]
Depuy Synthes Products, Inc., Corrected Request for Supplemental Examination of U.S. Pat. No. 11,107,586, assigned Conrol U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, filed Dec. 24, 2024, 106 pages. [cited by applicant]
Depuy Synthes Products, Inc., Request for Supplemental Examination of U.S. Pat. No. 11,107,586, assigned Conrol U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, filed Dec. 6, 2024, 81 pages. [cited by applicant]
Depuy Synthes Products, Inc., Response to Non-Final Office Action in Control No. U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, filed Jul. 9, 2025, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Eftekhary et al., “A systematic approach to the hip-spine relationship and its applications to total hip arthroplasty,” The Bone & Joint Journal, Jul. 2019, pp. 808-816, vol. 101-B, No. 7. [cited by applicant]
Esposito et al., “Biplanar Low-Dose Radiography Is Accurate for Measuring Combined Anteversion After Total Hip Arthroplasty,” HSS Journal, Feb. 5, 2019, pp. 23-29, vol. 16, No. 1, Springer Nature. [cited by applicant]
European Patent Office, Communication with Extended European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 21828607.8, Jul. 2, 2024, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
European Patent Office, International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/ EP2024/076483, Feb. 24, 2025, 24 pages. [cited by applicant]
Goodell et al., “Computer Navigation vs. Conventional Overlay Methods in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Single Surgeon Experience,” Cureus, Oct. 4, 2022, 10 pages, vol. 14(10). [cited by applicant]
Heckmann et al., “Late Dislocation Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: Spinopelvic Imbalance as a Causative Factor,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Nov. 7, 2018, pp. 1845-1853, vol. 100-A, The Journal of Bone and Join… [cited by applicant]
Hofmann et al., “Minimizing Leg-Length Inequality in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Use of Preoperative Templating and an Intraoperative X-Ray,” The American Journal of Orthopedics, Jan. 2008, pp. 18-23, vol. 37(1). [cited by applicant]
Imai et al., “Correlation of tilt of the anterior pelvic plane angle with anatomical pelvic tilt and morphological configuration of the acetabulum in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip: a cross-sectional s… [cited by applicant]
Inaba et al., “Preoperative planning for implant placement with consideration of pelvic tilt in total hip arthroplasty: posoperative efficacy evaluation,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Jul. 13, 2016, 7 pages, vol. 17, … [cited by applicant]
Jaramaz et al., “CupAlign: Computer-Assisted Postoperative Radiographic Measurement of Acetabular Components Following Total Hip Arthroplasty,” Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 1999, … [cited by applicant]
Jointpoint, Inc., JointPoint User Guide Version 3.4, Oct. 14, 2018, 92 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kleeman-Forsthuber et al., “Reliability of Spinopelvic Measurements That May Influence the Cup Position in Total Hip Arthroplasty,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Jun. 24, 2020, pp. 3758-3764, vol. 35, Elsevier Inc. [cited by applicant]
Labronici et al., “Positioning of the acetabular component in cemented prostheses—radiograph calculation,” Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), 2013, pp. 62-68, vol. 48(1), Elsevier Editora Ltda. [cited by applicant]
Larose et al., “Post-Operative Measurement of Acetabular Cup Position Using X-ray/CT Registration,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 2000, pp. 1104-1113, Springer-Verlag. [cited by applicant]
Lewinnek et al., “Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Mar. 1978, pp. 217-220, vol. 60-A(2). [cited by applicant]
Liaw et al., “A New Tool for Measuring Cup Orientation in Total Hip Arthroplasties from Plain Radiographs,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Oct. 2006, pp. 134-139, vol. 451, Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins. [cited by applicant]
Lo Re et al., “Sacro-Femoral-Pubic Angle and Acetabular Cup Anteversion in Total Hip Arthroplasty,” EC Orthopaedics, May 31, 2019, pp. 429-437, vol. 10(6). [cited by applicant]
Lu et al., “Reliability and Validity of Measuring Acetabular Component Orientation by Plain Anteroposterior Radiographs,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, May 4, 2013, pp. 2987-2994, vol. 471, Springer. [cited by applicant]
Maratt et al., “Pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: when does it matter?” Author Manuscript, 2014, 15 pages, Elsevier Inc. [cited by applicant]
Matta et al., “Single-Incision Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty on an Orthopaedic Table,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Dec. 2005, pp. 115-124, vol. 441, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. [cited by applicant]
Mccarthy et al., “The Effect of Pelvic Tilt and Femoral Head Size on Hip Range-of-Motion to Impingement,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Jun. 15, 2017, pp. 3544-3549, vol. 32, Elsevier, Inc. [cited by applicant]
Murphy et al., “The Safe Zone Range for Cup Anteversion Is Narrower Than for Inclination in THA,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Jan. 17, 2018, pp. 325-335, vol. 476, No. 2, Wolters Kluwer. [cited by applicant]
Murray, “The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1993, pp. 228-232, vol. 75-B. [cited by applicant]
Myers et al., “Spinopelvic Mobility in THA and Lumbar Fusion Patients Across a Range of Common Functional X-ray Positions,” Annual Meeting of Orthopaedic Research Society, Feb. 2022, Tampa Bay, FL. [cited by applicant]
Penney et al., “Postoperative Calculation of Acetabular Cop Position Using 2-D-3-D Registration,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Jul. 2007, pp. 1342-1348, vol. 54(7), IEEE. [cited by applicant]
Philippot et al., “Pelvic Balance in Sagittal and Lewinnek Reference Planes in the Standing, Supine and Sitting Positions,” Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 2009, pp. 70-76, vol. 95, Elsevier Masson. [cited by applicant]
Pierrepont et al., “Patient-Specific Component Alignment in Total Hip Arthroplasty,” Reconstructive Review, Dec. 2016, pp. 27-33, vol. 6(4), Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation. [cited by applicant]
Pierrepont et al., “Variation in functional pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty,” The Bone & Joint Journal, Feb. 2017, pp. 184-191, vol. 99-B. [cited by applicant]
Pierrepont, Patient-Specific Component Alignment in Total Hip Arthroplasty, Jun. 2017, 321 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ragsdale et al., “Pelvic Tilt Evaluation From Frontal Radiographs: The Validity, Interobserver Reliability and Intraobserver Reproducibility of the Sacro-Femoral-Pubic Parameter,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Nov. 23, 2… [cited by applicant]
Tsukamoto et al., “Proposal of accurate cup placement procedure during total hip arthroplasty based on pelvic tilt discrepancies in the lateral position,” Scientific Reports, Jul. 6, 2021, 9 pages, vol. 11, No. 13870, S… [cited by applicant]
United States Patent & Trademark Office, International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2021/038006, Sep. 29, 2021, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Control U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, filed May 9, 2025, 43 pages. [cited by applicant]
United States Patent & Trademark Office, Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination in Control U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, filed Feb. 14, 2025, 37 pages. [cited by applicant]
Vigdorchik et al., “2021 Otto Aufranc Award: A simple Hip-Spine Classification for total hip arthroplasty,” The Bone & Joint Journal, Jul. 2021, pp. 17-24, vol. 103-B, No. 7. [cited by applicant]
Vigdorchik et al., “Prevalence of Risk Factors for Adverse Spinopelvic Mobility Among Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Jul. 2021, pp. 2371-2378, vol. 36(7), Elsevier Inc. [cited by applicant]