IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,594,170
Granted Patent B2
US 12,594,170 · App. 17/798,763 · Granted Apr 7, 2026

Computer-implemented surgical planning based on bone loss during orthopedic revision surgery

Inventors: Jean Chaoui (Locmaria Plouzané, FR); Sergii Poltaretskyi (Ependes, CH)
Assignee: Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
A61F2/46A61B34/30A61B17/1684A61B17/1778A61B34/10A61B2034/105A61B2034/108A61B34/20A61B2034/2048A61B34/25A61B2034/252A61B2034/258A61B2090/364A61B2090/365A61B90/37A61B2090/371A61B2090/372A61B2090/502A61F2/30A61F2002/30614A61F2002/3069A61F2/4603A61F2/4612A61F2002/4633G02B2027/0138G02B2027/014
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 12,594,170
App. No.
17/798,763
Filed
Aug 10, 2022
Granted
Apr 7, 2026
Kind
B2
Art Unit
3775
USPC
606/86R
Abstract

A surgical assistance system may obtain a pre-revision model of a bone of a patient. The pre-revision model of the bone represents a pre-revision state of the bone after a prior orthopedic surgery on the bone. In this example, an orthopedic prosthesis was attached to the bone during the prior orthopedic surgery. Additionally, the surgical assistance system may obtain intra-revision imaging data of the bone. The intra-revision imaging data represents an intra-revision state of the bone during the orthopedic revision surgery after removal of the orthopedic prosthesis from the bone. The surgical assistance system may determine, based on the intra revision imaging data, damaged and intact parts of the bone. The surgical assistance system may then generate a second intra-revision model of the bone by modifying the pre-revision model of the bone to exclude damaged parts of the bone.

Claims (81)

1 . A computer-implemented method for assisting an orthopedic revision surgery, the method comprising:

obtaining, by one or more processors, a pre-revision model of a bone of a patient, the pre-revision model of the bone representing a pre-revision state of the bone after a prior orthopedic surgery on the bone and before the orthopedic revision surgery, wherein an orthopedic prosthesis was attached to the bone during the prior orthopedic surgery;

obtaining, by the one or more processors, intra-revision imaging data of the bone, the intra-revision imaging data representing an intra-revision state of the bone during the orthopedic revision surgery after removal of the orthopedic prosthesis from the bone;

determining, by the one or more processors, based on the intra-revision imaging data, damaged parts and intact parts of the bone, wherein the damaged parts of the bone are parts of the bone that are different in the intra-revision state of the bone from a pre-morbid state of the bone, and the intact parts of the bone are parts of the bone that are the same in the intra-revision state of the bone and the pre-morbid state of the bone; and

generating, by the one or more processors, an intra-revision model of the bone by modifying the pre-revision model of the bone to exclude the damaged parts of the bone.

2 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising generating, by the one or more processors, a revised surgical plan for the orthopedic revision surgery based on the intra-revision model of the bone.

3 . The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , further comprising:

generating, by the one or more processors, registration data that describes a spatial relationship between the intra-revision model of the bone and the bone; and

generating, by the one or more processors, based on the registration data, a mixed reality (MR) visualization that includes a virtual object defined by the revised surgical plan at a position that has a stable spatial relationship to the bone from a perspective of a user that perceives the MR visualization, wherein the virtual object provides information to the user about the orthopedic revision surgery.

4 . The computer-implemented method of claim 2 , further comprising configuring, by the one or more processors, a robot to perform a surgical task based on the revised surgical plan for the orthopedic revision surgery.

5 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the intra-revision model of the bone is a second intra revision model of the bone and determining the damaged parts and the intact parts of the bone comprises:

generating, based on the intra-revision imaging data, a first intra-revision model of the bone, wherein the first intra-revision model of the bone represents the intra-revision state of the bone during the orthopedic revision surgery after removal of the orthopedic prosthesis from the bone; and

determining the damaged parts and the intact parts of the bone based on the first intra-revision model of the bone.

6 . The computer-implemented method of claim 5 , wherein determining the damaged parts and the intact parts of the bone comprises:

obtaining a pre-morbid model of the bone; and

for each region of the pre-morbid model of the bone:

performing a comparison that compares the region of the pre-morbid model of the bone to a corresponding region of the first intra-revision model of the bone;

determining, based on the comparison, whether the region contains bone in both the pre-morbid model of the bone and the first intra-revision model of the bone; and

one of:

determining that the region is one of the intact parts of the bone based the region containing bone in both the pre-morbid model of the bone and the first intra-revision model of the bone; or

determining that the region is one of the damaged parts of the bone based on the region not containing bone in both the pre-morbid model of the bone and the first intra-revision model of the bone.

7 . The computer-implemented method of claim 6 , wherein obtaining the pre-morbid model of the bone comprises using Mean Statistical Shape (MSS) modeling to generate the pre-morbid model of the bone.

8 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein:

the method further comprises:

obtaining, by the one or more processors, pre-revision imaging data of the bone, the pre-revision imaging data of the bone representing the pre-revision state of the bone; and

generating, by the one or more processors, based on the pre-revision imaging data of the bone, data indicating a boundary between the orthopedic prosthesis and the bone, and

obtaining the pre-revision model of the bone comprises generating, based on the pre-revision imaging data and the data indicating the boundary between the orthopedic prosthesis and the bone, the pre-revision model of the bone.

9 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the bone is one of:

a scapula of the patient,

a humerus of the patient,

a fibula of the patient,

a patella of the patient,

a tibia of the patient,

a talus of the patient,

a hip of the patient, or

a femur of the patient.

10 . A computing system for assisting an orthopedic revision surgery comprising:

a storage system configured to store a pre-revision model of a bone of a patient, the pre-revision model of the bone representing a pre-revision state of the bone after a prior orthopedic surgery on the bone and before the orthopedic revision surgery, wherein an orthopedic prosthesis was attached to the bone during the prior orthopedic surgery; and

one or more processing circuits configured to:

obtain intra-revision imaging data of the bone, the intra-revision imaging data representing an intra-revision state of the bone during the orthopedic revision surgery after removal of the orthopedic prosthesis from the bone;

determine, based on the intra-revision imaging data, damaged parts and intact parts of the bone, wherein the damaged parts of the bone are parts of the bone that are different in the intra-revision state of the bone from a pre-morbid state of the bone, and the intact parts of the bone are parts of the bone that are the same in the intra-revision state of the bone and the pre-morbid state of the bone; and

generate an intra-revision model of the bone by modifying the pre-revision model of the bone to exclude the damaged parts of the bone.

11 . The computing system of claim 10 , wherein the one or more processing circuits are further configured to generate a revised surgical plan for the orthopedic revision surgery based on the intra-revision model of the bone.

12 . The computing system of claim 11 , wherein the one or more processing circuits are further configured to:

generate registration data that describes a spatial relationship between the intra-revision model of the bone and the bone; and

generate, based on the registration data, a mixed reality (MR) visualization that includes a virtual object defined by the revised surgical plan at a position that has a stable spatial relationship to the bone from a perspective of a user that perceives the MR visualization, wherein the virtual object provides information to the user about the orthopedic revision surgery.

13 . The computing system of claim 11 , wherein the one or more processing circuits are further configured to configure a robot to perform a surgical task based on the revised surgical plan for the orthopedic revision surgery.

14 . The computing system of claim 10 , wherein the intra-revision model of the bone is a second intra revision model of the bone and the one or more processing circuits are configured such that, as part of determining the damaged parts and the intact parts of the bone, the one or more processing circuits:

generate, based on the intra-revision imaging data, a first intra-revision model of the bone, wherein the first intra-revision model of the bone represents the intra-revision state of the bone during the orthopedic revision surgery after removal of the orthopedic prosthesis from the bone; and

determine the damaged parts and the intact parts of the bone based on the first intra-revision model of the bone.

15 . The computing system of claim 14 , wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured such that, as part of determining the damaged parts and the intact parts of the bone, the one or more processing circuits:

obtain a pre-morbid model of the bone; and

for each region of the pre-morbid model of the bone:

perform a comparison that compares the region of the pre-morbid model of the bone to a corresponding region of the first intra-revision model of the bone;

determine, based on the comparison, whether the region contains bone in both the pre-morbid model of the bone and the first intra-revision model of the bone; and

one of:

determine that the region is one of the intact parts of the bone based the region containing bone in both the pre-morbid model of the bone and the first intra-revision model of the bone; or

determine that the region is one of the damaged parts of the bone based on the region not containing bone in both the pre-morbid model of the bone and the first intra-revision model of the bone.

16 . The computing system of claim 15 , wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to obtain the pre-morbid model of the bone comprises using Mean Statistical Shape (MSS) modeling to generate the pre-morbid model of the bone.

17 . The computing system of claim 10 , wherein:

the one or more processing circuits are further configured to:

obtain pre-revision imaging data of the bone, the pre-revision imaging data of the bone representing the pre-revision state of the bone; and

generate, based on the pre-revision imaging data of the bone, data indicating a boundary between the orthopedic prosthesis and the bone, and

the one or more processing circuits are configured such that, as part of determining the pre-revision model of the bone, the one or more processing circuits generate, based on the pre-revision imaging data and the data indicating the boundary of between the orthopedic prosthesis and the bone, the pre-revision model of the bone.

18 . The computing system of claim 10 , wherein the bone is one of:

a scapula of the patient,

a humerus of the patient,

a fibula of the patient,

a patella of the patient,

a tibia of the patient,

a talus of the patient,

a hip of the patient, or

a femur of the patient.

19 . A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a computing system to:

obtain a pre-revision model of a bone of a patient, the pre-revision model of the bone representing a pre-revision state of the bone after a prior orthopedic surgery on the bone and before an orthopedic revision surgery, wherein an orthopedic prosthesis was attached to the bone during the prior orthopedic surgery;

obtain intra-revision imaging data of the bone, the intra-revision imaging data representing an intra-revision state of the bone during the orthopedic revision surgery after removal of the orthopedic prosthesis from the bone;

determine, based on the intra-revision imaging data, damaged parts and intact parts of the bone, wherein the damaged parts of the bone are parts of the bone that are different in the intra-revision state of the bone from a pre-morbid state of the bone, and the intact parts of the bone are parts of the bone that are the same in the intra-revision state of the bone and the pre-morbid state of the bone; and

generate an intra-revision model of the bone by modifying the pre-revision model of the bone to exclude the damaged parts of the bone.

20 . The non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium of claim 19 , wherein the intra-revision model of the bone is a second intra revision model of the bone and the instructions that cause the computing system to determine the damaged parts and the intact parts of the bone comprise instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to:

generate, based on the intra-revision imaging data, a first intra-revision model of the bone, wherein the first intra-revision model of the bone represents the intra-revision state of the bone during the orthopedic revision surgery after removal of the orthopedic prosthesis from the bone; and

determine the damaged and intact parts of the bone based on the first intra-revision model of the bone.

Assignments (3)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 10, 2022
From: CHAOUI, JEAN; POLTARETSKYI, SERGII
To: IMASCAP SAS
Reel/Frame 060772/0685 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 10, 2022
From: IMASCAP SAS
To: TORNIER, INC.
Reel/Frame 060772/0770 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 10, 2022
From: TORNIER, INC.
To: HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP.
Reel/Frame 061143/0445 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 62978124 · Feb 18, 2020
Related Publication 20230113848A1 · Apr 13, 2023
References Cited (51)
US 7974677B2 · Mire et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8842893B2 · Teichman et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8891847B2 · Helm et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9675273B2 · Gluncic · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9808261B2 · Gelaude et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10172715B2 · De Wilde et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10194991B2 · Bonny et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10350010B2 · Kao et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10405910B2 · Netravali et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10489907B2 · Rowley Grant et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11090019B2 · Siemionow et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11576725B2 · Chav et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20120289965A1 · Gelaude et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130211531A1 · Steines et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20160030126A1 · Netravali · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160157751A1 · Mahfouz · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20180014891A1 · Krebs · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180217734A1 · Koenig et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180233222A1 · Daley et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190175277A1 · Chav et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20210153946A1 · Bonny et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210361357A1 · Crawford · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220039868A1 · Chaoui · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20230056596A1 · Farley et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230094903A1 · Harris, Jr. et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
EP 3498197A2 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
FR 3108419A1 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
KR 20180044421A · 2018 [cited by applicant]
WO 2014145591A2 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO 2016094298A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
WO 2016118521A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017041080A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018013848A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
WO 2019160827A1 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO 2021185940A1 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
WO 2022046966A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
Response to Office Action dated Sep. 11, 2023, from counterpart Australian Application No. 2021224529 filed Dec. 21, 2023, 98 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Intent to Grant from counterpart Australian Application No. 2021224529 dated Feb. 6, 2024, 3 pp. [cited by applicant]
Boissonnat et al., “Shape Reconstruction from Planar Cross Sections,” Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, vol. 44, Mar. 29, 1988, 29 pp. [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability from International Application No. PCT/US2021/018118 dated Sep. 1, 2022, 9 pp. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion of International Application No. PCT/US2021/018118, dated Jun. 4, 2021, 12 pp. [cited by applicant]
Marker et al., “Contour-Based Surface Reconstruction using Implicit Curve Fitting, and Distance Field Filtering and Interpolation,” Volume Graphics, Jan. 2006, 9 pp. [cited by applicant]
Nguyen et al., “A New Segmentation Method for MRI Images of the Shoulder Joint,” Fourth Canadian Conference on Computer and Robot Vision(CRV'07), May 28-30, 2007, 8 pp. [cited by applicant]
Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC from counterpart European Application No. 21711097.2 dated Feb. 13, 2025, 4 pp. [cited by applicant]
Office Action from counterpart Australian Application No. 2021224529 dated Sep. 11, 2023, 4 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Communication Pursuant to Rules 161(1) and 162 EPC dated Sep. 27, 2022, from counterpart European Application No. 21711097.2, filed Mar. 17, 2023, 22 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Intent to Grant and Text Intended to Grant from counterpart European Application No. 21711097.2 dated Jul. 3, 2025, 119 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Feb. 13, 2025, from counterpart European Application No. 21711097.2 filed Jun. 11, 2025, 9 pp. [cited by applicant]
First Examination Report from counterpart Australian Application No. 2024202787 dated Oct. 10, 2025, 6 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Intent to Grant and Text Intended to Grant from counterpart European Application No. 21711097.2 dated Sep. 24, 2025, 64 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to First Examination Report dated Oct. 10, 2025, from counterpart Australian Application No. 2024202787 filed Feb. 16, 2026, 51 pp. [cited by applicant]