IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,237,068
Granted Patent B2
US 12,237,068 · App. 18/400,858 · Granted Feb 25, 2025

Predicting implant size in arthroplasty using demographic variables

Inventors: Geoffrey Westrich (New York, NY); Jason Blevins (New York, NY); Yu-fen Chiu (New York, NY); Stephen Lyman (New York, NY); Daniel J. Westrich (New York, NY)
Assignee: NEW YORK SOCIETY FOR THE RELIEF OF THE RUPTURED AND CRIPPLED, MAINTAINING THE HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY
G16H20/40A61B34/10A61B34/25A61B2034/102
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 12,237,068
App. No.
18/400,858
Granted
Feb 25, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

In one or more implementations, a method and system are disclosed in which at least one processor receives information associated with an upcoming arthroplasty and demographic factors of a patient in the upcoming arthroplasty. The processor(s) access i) procedure information representing arthroplasty previously performed for each of a plurality of patients and ii) implant information representing types and sizes of implants from a plurality of manufacturers. Further, the processor(s) determine respective unadjusted probabilities of each of a plurality of implant size options within a range of implant sizes, based on i) of at least one statistical model, ii) the accessed procedure information and the implant information, and iii) the demographic factors of the patient. Moreover, the processor(s) generate information representing some of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities and transmits automatically, to at least one computing device associated with an inventory control system, the generated information.

Claims (190)

1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

receiving, by at least one processor configured by executing instructions stored on processor readable media, information associated with an upcoming arthroplasty and demographic factors of a patient in the upcoming arthroplasty;

accessing, by the at least one processor, i) procedure information representing arthroplasty previously performed for each of a plurality of patients and ii) implant information representing types and sizes of implants from a plurality of manufacturers;

determining, by the at least one processor, respective unadjusted probabilities of each of a plurality of implant size options within a range of implant sizes, based on i) of at least one statistical model, ii) the accessed procedure information and the implant information, and iii) the demographic factors of the patient;

generating, by the at least one processor, information representing some of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities; and

transmitting automatically, by the at least one processor to at least one computing device associated with an inventory control system, the generated information.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the inventory control system generates at least one order for at least one implant respectively associated with the some of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

using, by the at least one processor, at least one application programming interface (“API”) to transmit the generated information to the at least one computing device associated with an inventory control system.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

using, by the at least one processor, at least one API to transmit information associated with the generated information to at least one computing device associated with shipping, storage management, or both shipping and storage management.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising:

providing, by the at least one processor, in a graphical user interface operating on at least one user computing device, information representing the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities; and

receiving, via the graphical user interface, a selection of at least one of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities,

wherein generating, by the at least one processor, the information representing some of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities is based at least in part on the selection received via the graphical user interface.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising applying, by the at least one processor, a matching algorithm to identify one unique implant size provided by each of a plurality of manufacturers, for a respective anatomical dimension size range.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one statistical model is a Bayesian model.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7 , wherein the Bayesian model includes application of:

P

⁡

(

B

)

=

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

1

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

1.

)

+

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

2

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

2

)

+

⋯

+

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

n

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

n

)

=

∑

i

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

i

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

i

)

.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the demographic factors of the patient include gender, height, and weight.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the arthroplasty previously performed for each of a plurality of patients includes total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty.

11. A computer-implemented system, comprising:

at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and a memory that includes instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:

receive information associated with an upcoming arthroplasty and demographic factors of a patient in the upcoming arthroplasty;

access i) procedure information representing arthroplasty previously performed for each of a plurality of patients and ii) implant information representing types and sizes of implants from a plurality of manufacturers;

determine respective unadjusted probabilities of each of a plurality of implant size options within a range of implant sizes, based on i) of at least one statistical model, ii) the accessed procedure information and the implant information, and iii) the demographic factors of the patient;

generate information representing some of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities; and

transmit automatically to at least one computing device associated with an inventory control system, the generated information.

12. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the inventory control system generates at least one order for at least one implant respectively associated with the some of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities.

13. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:

use at least one application programming interface (“API”) to transmit the generated information to the at least one computing device associated with an inventory control system.

14. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:

use at least one API to transmit information associated with the generated information to at least one computing device associated with shipping, storage management, or both shipping and storage management.

15. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:

provide, in a graphical user interface operating on at least one user computing device, information representing the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities; and

receive, via the graphical user interface, a selection of at least one of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities,

wherein generating the information representing some of the respective implant size options and unadjusted probabilities is based at least in part on the selection received via the graphical user interface.

16. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:

apply a matching algorithm to identify one unique implant size provided by each of a plurality of manufacturers, for a respective anatomical dimension size range.

17. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the at least one statistical model is a Bayesian model.

18. The computer-implemented system of claim 17 , wherein the Bayesian model includes application of:

P

⁡

(

B

)

=

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

1

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

1.

)

+

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

2

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

2

)

+

⋯

+

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

n

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

n

)

=

∑

i

P

⁡

(

B

❘

A

i

)

⁢

P

⁡

(

A

i

)

.

19. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the demographic factors of the patient include gender, height, and weight.

20. The computer-implemented system of claim 11 , wherein the arthroplasty previously performed for each of a plurality of patients includes total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 10, 2024
From: WESTRICH, GEOFFREY; BLEVINS, JASON; CHIU, YU-FEN; LYMAN, STEPHEN; WESTRICH, DANIEL J.
To: NEW YORK SOCIETY FOR THE RELIEF OF THE RUPTURED AND CRIPPLED, MAINTAINING THE HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY
Reel/Frame 066083/0328 →
Continuity (5)
Continuation 17683618 · Mar 1, 2022
Provisional Application 63155106 · Mar 1, 2021
Provisional Application 63194450 · May 28, 2021
Provisional Application 63195095 · May 31, 2021
Related Publication 20240136046A1 · Apr 25, 2024
References Cited (33)
US 10102309B2 · McKinnon · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10748115B2 · Laster · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10849689B1 · Hu · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 11684423B2 · McKinnon · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 11887718B2 · Westrich · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20070233267A1 · Amirouche et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20110295887A1 · Palmese · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20120226198A1 · Carson · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20160220323A1 · Forrest et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20180330800A1 · Bogue et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190015213A1 · Mahfouz · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190073632A1 · Laster et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190325386A1 · Laster et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190388153A1 · Running et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200275976A1 · Mckinnon et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200323649A1 · Schippeer et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20220093232A1 · Wirth et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
Evan M. Polce et al., “Machine Learning Predicts Femoral and Tibial Implant Size Mismatch for Total Knee Arthroplasty”, Arthroplasty Today, Feb. 2021, pp. 268-277. [cited by applicant]
Stephen J. Wallace et al., “Demographic data is more predictive of component size than digital radiographic templating in total knee arthroplasty”, Knee Surgery & Related Research, Nov. 2000 (7 pages). [cited by applicant]
Jason L. Blevins et al., “Predicting implant size in total knee arthroplasty using demographic variables: linear regression and Bayesian modelling”, The bone & joint journal, Jun. 2020. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed on May 16, 2022 (10 pages). [cited by applicant]
Steven M. Kurts et al., “Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030”, Clin Orthop Relat Res. Apr. 2009, pp. 2606-2612. [cited by applicant]
Alexander S. McLawhorn et al., Abstract—“Template-Directed Instrumentation Reduces Cost and Improves Efficiency for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Economic Decision Analysis and Pilot Study”, J Arthroplasty. Oct. 2015, pp.… [cited by applicant]
Rorbert A. Sershon MD et al., Abstract—“Can Demographic Variables Accurately Predict Component Sizing in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty?”, Oct. 2017, pp. 3004-3008. [cited by applicant]
Bayes et al., “An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances.”, By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, FRS communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, Amfr S. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Soci… [cited by applicant]
Stephan Lyman et al., Abstract—“Surgical decision making for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in patients aged over 40 years”, Arthroscopy. Apr. 2012, pp. 492-501. [cited by applicant]
No authors listed. Global Database on Body Mass Index. World Health Organization. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/a-healthy-lifestyle/body-mass-index-bmi (date last accessed Apr. 21… [cited by applicant]
Matthew P. Abdel MD, Abstract—“Increased Aseptic Tibial Failures in Patients With a BMI 35 and Well-Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasties”, J Arthroplasty. Dec. 2015, pp. 2181-2184. [cited by applicant]
Michael E. Berend MD et al.,—Abstract “Implant migration and failure in total knee arthroplasty is related to body mass index and tibial component size”, J Arthroplasty. Sep. 2008, pp. 104-109. [cited by applicant]
Thomas K. Fehring MD et al.,—Abstract “Catastrophic Varus Collapse of the Tibia in Obese Total Knee Arthroplasty”. J Arthroplasty. May 2017, p. 1625-1629. [cited by applicant]
J. Ryan Martin Md et al.—Abstract “Radiographic Findings in Patients With Catastrophic Varus Collapse After Total Knee Arthroplasty”. J Arthroplasty. Jan. 2018, pp. 241-244. [cited by applicant]
Matthew G. Prohaska, MD et al. , Preoperative body mass index and physical function are associated with length of stay and facility discharge after total knee arthroplasty:, Knee. Jun. 2017, pp. 634-640. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report in EP Application No. 22763870.7-1122/4302310, mailed Dec. 23, 2024 (10 pages). [cited by applicant]