IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,303,207
Granted Patent B2
US 12,303,207 · App. 17/607,323 · Granted May 20, 2025

Automated planning of shoulder stability enhancement surgeries

Inventors: Maximilien Mayya (Antibes, FR); Jean Chaoui (Locmaria Plouzané, FR)
Assignee: Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
A61B34/10A61B34/25A61B2034/104A61B2034/105A61F2/30942
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 12,303,207
App. No.
17/607,323
Granted
May 20, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Techniques and systems are described for planning shoulder stability enhancement surgeries. A computing system may determine a size of a predicted premorbid glenoid bone of the patient of a patient, a size of a Bankart lesion on a morbid glenoid bone of the patient, and a size of a geodesic surface on a 3-dimensional model of a predicted premorbid humerus of the patient. The geodesic surface is defined at least in part by a projected medial border of a Hill-Sachs lesion on a morbid humerus and a projected medial border of a footprint of a humeral head of the morbid humerus. The computing system may determine, based on the three areal sizes, whether bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement. The computing system may output an indication of whether a shoulder stability enhancement surgery that includes a bone graft is recommended for the patient.

Claims (104)

1. A computing system comprising:

one or more memories configured to store data describing a 3-dimensional (3D) model of a predicted premorbid humerus of a patient; and

processing circuitry configured to:

determine a first areal size as an areal size of a predicted premorbid glenoid bone of the patient;

determine a second areal size as an areal size of a Bankart lesion on a morbid glenoid bone of the patient;

determine a third areal size as an areal size of a geodesic surface on the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus of the patient, wherein the geodesic surface is defined at least in part by (i) a projected medial border of a Hill-Sachs lesion on a morbid humerus and (ii) a projected medial border of a footprint of a humeral head of the morbid humerus, wherein:

the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion is a projection of a medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus, and

the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus is a projection of a medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus;

determine, based on the first, second, and third areal sizes, whether bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement; and

based on a determination that the bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement, output an indication that a shoulder stability enhancement surgery that includes a bone graft is recommended for the patient.

2. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:

based on the bone loss of the patient involving joint engagement, determine, based on the first areal size and the third areal size, a minimum areal size of the bone graft to be harvested from a coracoid process of the patient in a surgical procedure to attach the bone graft to the morbid glenoid bone; and

output an indication of the minimum areal size of the bone graft.

3. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein the bone loss of the patient includes bone loss on the morbid glenoid bone and the processing circuitry is further configured to:

determine a principal axis of the bone loss on the morbid glenoid bone;

determine, based on the principal axis of the bone loss on the morbid glenoid bone, a recommended bone graft procedure for harvesting the bone graft from a coracoid process of the patient and attaching the bone graft to the morbid glenoid bone; and

output an indication of the recommended bone graft procedure.

4. The computing system of claim 3 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining the recommended bone graft procedure, select the recommended bone graft procedure from among a Latarjet bone graft procedure and a Bristow bone graft procedure.

5. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein:

the processing circuitry is further configured to generate, based on one or more Computed Tomography (CT) scans of the patient, a 3D model of the morbid glenoid bone of the patient, and

the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining the second areal size, determine, based on a comparison of the 3D model of the morbid glenoid bone of the patient and a 3D model of the predicted premorbid glenoid bone, the areal size of the Bankart lesion on the morbid glenoid bone of the patient.

6. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein:

the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a 3D model of the morbid humerus;

the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining the third areal size:

determine the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus;

determine the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion as the projection of the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus;

determine the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus;

determine the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus as the projection of the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus; and

determine connecting lines that connect the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion and the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus, the connecting lines being shortest geodesic paths over the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus from points on the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion to points on the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus,

wherein the geodesic surface is defined by the connecting lines, the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion, and the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus.

7. The computing system of claim 6 , wherein:

the processing circuitry is further configured to:

output the 3D model of the morbid humerus for display, and at least one of:

(i) the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus:

receive indications of user input of first points along the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus; and

interpolate, based on the first points, the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus, or

(ii) the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus on the 3D model of the morbid humerus:

receive indications of user input of second points along the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus on the 3D model of the morbid humerus; and

interpolate, based on the second points, the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus on the 3D model of the morbid humerus.

8. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining whether the bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement:

determine an index value as a predetermined percentage value multiplied by the first areal size, minus the second areal size; and

determine whether the bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement based on whether the index value is greater than or less than the third areal size.

9. The computing system of claim 2 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining the minimum areal size of the bone graft, determine the minimum areal size of the bone graft as a predetermined percentage value multiplied by the first areal size, minus the third areal size.

10. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, as part of determining the second areal size:

determine a projected premorbid glenoid surface as a projection of the predicted premorbid glenoid bone onto a glenoid plane;

determine a projected morbid glenoid surface as a projection of the morbid glenoid bone of the patient onto the glenoid plane;

determine, based on the projected premorbid glenoid surface and the projected morbid glenoid surface, a zone of bone loss; and

determine the areal size of the Bankart lesion as an areal size of the zone of bone loss.

11. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein:

the processing circuitry is further configured to determine an Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) for the patient based on at least one of:

a 3-dimensional shape or volume of the Hill-Sachs lesion, or

a 3-dimensional shape or volume of the Bankart lesion, and

the processing circuitry is configured to determine the first, second, and third areal sizes, and determine whether the bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement in response to determining that the ISIS is greater than a threshold.

12. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, based on the determination that the bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement:

determine a critical position for a type of movement of the morbid humerus; and

determine one or more of the following based on the critical position for the type of movement of the morbid humerus:

a shape of the bone graft, or

a placement of the bone graft on the morbid glenoid bone.

13. The computing system of claim 12 , wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on the shape of the bone graft and/or the placement of the bone graft on the glenoid bone, at least one of a screw length or screw trajectory of a screw to attach the bone graft to the glenoid bone.

14. A computing system comprising:

means for determining a first areal size as an areal size of a predicted premorbid glenoid bone of a patient;

means for determining a second areal size as an areal size of a Bankart lesion on a morbid glenoid bone of the patient;

means for determining a third areal size as an areal size of a geodesic surface on a 3-dimensional (3D) model of a predicted premorbid humerus of the patient, wherein the geodesic surface is defined at least in part by (i) a projected medial border of a Hill-Sachs lesion on a morbid humerus and (ii) a projected medial border of a footprint of a humeral head of the morbid humerus, wherein:

the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion is a projection of a medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus, and

the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus is a projection of a medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus;

means for determining, based on the first, second, and third areal sizes, whether bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement; and

means for outputting, based on a determination that the bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement, an indication that a shoulder stability enhancement surgery that includes a bone graft is recommended for the patient.

15. A method comprising:

storing data describing a 3-dimensional (3D) model of a predicted premorbid humerus of a patient;

determining, by one or more processors, a first areal size as an areal size of a predicted premorbid glenoid bone of the patient;

determining, by the one or more processors, a second areal size as an areal size of a Bankart lesion on a morbid glenoid bone of the patient;

determining, by the one or more processors, a third areal size as an areal size of a geodesic surface on the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus of the patient, wherein the geodesic surface is defined at least in part by (i) a projected medial border of a Hill-Sachs lesion on a morbid humerus and (ii) a projected medial border of a footprint of a humeral head of the morbid humerus, wherein:

the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion is a projection of a medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus, and

the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus is a projection of a medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus;

determining, by the one or more processors, based on the first, second, and third areal sizes, whether bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement; and

based on a determination that the bone loss of the patient involves joint engagement, outputting, by the one or more processors, an indication that a shoulder stability enhancement surgery that includes a bone graft is recommended for the patient.

16. The method of claim 15 , further comprising:

based on the bone loss of the patient involving joint engagement, determining, by the one or more processors, based on the first areal size and the third areal size, a minimum areal size of the bone graft to be harvested from a coracoid process of the patient in a surgical procedure to attach the bone graft to the morbid glenoid bone; and

outputting, by the one or more processors, an indication of the minimum areal size of the bone graft.

17. The method of claim 15 , wherein the bone loss of the patient includes bone loss on the morbid glenoid bone and the method further comprises:

determining, by the one or more processors, a principal axis of the bone loss on the morbid glenoid bone;

determining, by the one or more processors, based on the principal axis of the bone loss on the morbid glenoid bone, a recommended bone graft procedure for harvesting the bone graft from a coracoid process of the patient and attaching the bone graft to the morbid glenoid bone; and

outputting, by the one or more processors, an indication of the recommended bone graft procedure.

18. The method of claim 15 , wherein:

the method further comprises generating, by the one or more processors, based on one or more Computed Tomography (CT) scans of the patient, a 3D model of the morbid glenoid bone, and

determining the second areal size comprises determining, by the one or more processors, based on a comparison of the 3D model of the morbid glenoid bone of the patient and a 3D model of the predicted premorbid glenoid bone, the areal size of the Bankart lesion on the morbid glenoid bone.

19. The method of claim 15 , wherein:

the method further comprises generating, by the one or more processors, a 3D model of the morbid humerus;

determining the third areal size comprises:

determining the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus;

determining the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion as the projection of the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus;

determining the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus;

determining the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus as the projection of the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus onto the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus; and

determining connecting lines that connect the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion and the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus, the connecting lines being shortest geodesic paths over the 3D model of the predicted premorbid humerus from points on the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion to points on the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus,

wherein the geodesic surface is defined by the connecting lines, the projected medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion, and the projected medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus.

20. The method of claim 19 , wherein:

the method further comprises outputting, by the one or more processors, the 3D model of the morbid humerus for display, and

at least one of:

(i) determining the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus comprises:

receiving indications of user input of first points along the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus; and

interpolating, based on the first points, the medial border of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the 3D model of the morbid humerus, or

(ii) determining the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus on the 3D model of the morbid humerus comprises:

receiving indications of user input of second points along the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus on the 3D model of the morbid humerus; and

interpolating, based on the second points, the medial border of the footprint of the humeral head of the morbid humerus on the 3D model of the morbid humerus.

Assignments (5)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 8, 2022
From: MAYYA, MAXIMILIEN
To: IMASCAP SAS
Reel/Frame 058931/0478 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 8, 2022
From: CHAOUI, JEAN
To: IMASCAP SAS
Reel/Frame 058931/0535 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 8, 2022
From: IMASCAP SAS
To: TORNIER, INC.
Reel/Frame 058931/0601 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 8, 2022
From: IMASCAP SAS
To: TORNIER, INC.
Reel/Frame 058931/0629 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 8, 2022
From: TORNIER, INC.
To: HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP.
Reel/Frame 058978/0803 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 62850238 · May 20, 2019
Related Publication 20220202496A1 · Jun 30, 2022
References Cited (74)
US 10806517B2 · Bonny · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 11020128B2 · Guilloux · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20080312663A1 · Haimerl et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20110304332A1 · Mahfouz · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20130110470A1 · Vanasse · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20140336539A1 · Torres · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150073424A1 · Couture · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160256222A1 · Walch · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160310285A1 · Kovacs et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170105716A1 · Burkhart · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170258390A1 · Howard · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170360566A1 · Sikora · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20180008350A1 · Varadarajan · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180233222A1 · Daley et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180280148A1 · Winslow · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180325618A1 · Justin et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20200037942A1 · Howard · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200060566A1 · Howard · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210038315A1 · Bonny · 2021 [cited by examiner]
CN 106999245A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 107924709A · 2018 [cited by applicant]
JP 2015511511A · 2015 [cited by applicant]
JP 2018516634A · 2018 [cited by applicant]
RU 2573803C · 2014 [cited by applicant]
RU 2573803C1 · 2016 [cited by examiner]
RU 2017100873A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2013062850A1 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018067966A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020205247A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020205248A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
David Saliken et al., “Imaging methods for quantifying glenoid and Hill-Sachs bone loss in traumatic instability of the shoulder: a scoping review,”Jul. 18, 2015, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (2015) 16:164,pp. 1-22. [cited by examiner]
Eliji Itoi ,“‘On-track’ and off-track' shoulder lesions,” Aug. 1, 2017, EOR|vol. 2,Aug. 2017, pp. 344-350. [cited by examiner]
Dragomir Mijic et al.,“Computer-Assisted Planning and Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) in Shoulder Arthroplasty,” Feb. 10, 2019,Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02756-8_2 pp. 15-20. [cited by examiner]
Eamon Ramhamadany et al. ,“Current concepts in the management of recurrent anterior gleno-humeral joint instability with bone loss,”Jun. 18, 2016,World J Orthop Jun. 18, 2016;vol. 7|Issue 6,pp. 343-350. [cited by examiner]
Jack G. Skendzel et al.,“Diagnosis and Management of Humeral Head Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability,” Feb. 17, 2012, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 40, No. 11,pp. 2633-2642. [cited by examiner]
Hidetomo Saito et al.,“Location of the Hill-Sachs lesion in shoulders with recurrent anterior dislocation,” Mar. 20, 2009, Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2009) 129,pp. 1327-1333. [cited by examiner]
Polydoor Emile Huijsmans et al., “Recurrent anterior shoulder instability: accuracy of estimations of glenoid bone loss with computed tomography is insufficient for therapeutic decision-making,”May 21, 2011,Skeletal Rad… [cited by examiner]
Nirav H.Amin et al.,“The Evaluation of Hill-Sachs Injuries and the Use of Humeral HeadAllograft for Repair of Hill-Sachs and Reverse Hill-Sachs Injuries,” Mar. 2015,Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine,vol. 23, Issue… [cited by examiner]
Birgit S. Werner et al.,“The influence of three-dimensional planning on decision-making in total shoulder arthroplasty,”Aug. 2017,J Shoulder Elbow Surg (2017),vol. 26, Issue 8,pp. 1478-1481. [cited by examiner]
G. Moineaua et al.,“Three-dimensional measurement method of arthritic glenoid cavity morphology: Feasibility and reproducibility,” Jun. 22, 2012, Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (2012) 98S,pp. S139-S143. [cited by examiner]
Aysun Sezer et al.,“Segmentation of Bone with Region Based Active Contour Model in PD Weighted MR Images of Shoulder,”May 7, 2015,Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine,vol. 2015,pp. 1-11. [cited by examiner]
First Examination Report from counterpart Australian Application No. 2020279597 dated Aug. 4, 2022, 2 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Communication Pursuant to Rules 161(1) and 162 EPC dated Jan. 5, 2022, from counterpart European Application No. 20729419.0, filed Jul. 5, 2022, 16 pp. [cited by applicant]
Office Action, and translation thereof, from counterpart Japanese Application No. 2021-569011 dated Sep. 13, 2023, 4 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Intent to Grant and Text Intended to Grant from counterpart European Application No. 20729419.0 dated Jul. 13, 2023, 59 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Acceptance for patent application from counterpart Australian Application No. 2020279597 dated Oct. 18, 2022, 9 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Nov. 18, 2022, from counterpart European Application No. 20729419.0 filed Mar. 2, 2023, 14 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to First Examination Report dated Aug. 4, 2022, from counterpart Australian Application No. 2020279597 filed Sep. 23, 2022, 84 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Intent to Grant and Text Intended to Grant from counterpart European Application No. 20729419.0 dated Nov. 27, 2023, 111 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Intent to Grant from counterpart Japanese Application No. 2021-569011 dated Jan. 9, 2024, 5 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Communication Pursuant to Rules 71(3) EPC dated Jul. 13, 2023, from counterpart European Application No. 20729419.0, filed Nov. 13, 2023, 14 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Office Action dated Sep. 13, 2023, from counterpart Japanese Application No. 2021-569011 filed Nov. 27, 2023, 11 pp. [cited by applicant]
Extended Search Report from counterpart European Application No. 23218791.4 dated Apr. 2, 2024, 6 pp. [cited by applicant]
First Office Action and Search Report, and translation thereof, from counterpart Chinese Application No. 202080037784.9 dated Jan. 25, 2024, 10 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Intent to Grant from counterpart Chinese Application No. 202080037784.9 dated May 31, 2024, 3 pp. [cited by applicant]
Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC from counterpart European Application No. 20729419.0 dated Nov. 18, 2022, 4 pp. [cited by applicant]
Office Action, and translation thereof, from counterpart Japanese Application No. 2021-569011 dated Apr. 4, 2023, 11 pp. [cited by applicant]
“Blueprint 3d Planning Software + PSI,” Wright Medical Group, retrieved from https://www.wright.com/blueprint-3d-planning-psi-system on Oct. 15, 2020, 9 pp. [cited by applicant]
“Hololens 2,” Microsoft Hololens, retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens, on Oct. 15, 2020, 5 pp. [cited by applicant]
Balg et al., “The instability severity index score—A simple Pre-Operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilization,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 89-B, No. 11, Nov. 2007, 8 p… [cited by applicant]
Huijsmans et al., “Recurrent anterior shoulder instability: accuracy of estimations of glenoid bone loss with computed tomography is insufficient for therapeutic decision-making,” Skeletal Radiology, vol. 40, No. 10, Ma… [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability from International Application No. PCT/US2020/032085, dated Dec. 2, 2021, 8 pp. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion of International Application No. PCT/US2020/032085, dated Sep. 4, 2020, 13 pp. [cited by applicant]
Toi, E., “‘On-track’ and ‘off-track’ shoulder lesions,” EFORT Open Reviews, vol. 2, No. 8, Aug. 2017, 9 pp. [cited by applicant]
Moineau et al., “Three-dimensional measurement method of arthritic glenoid cavity morphology: Feasibility and reproducibility,” Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, vol. 98, No. 6, Supplement, Sep. 2012, 7 p… [cited by applicant]
Ozturk et al., “Management of a first episode of antero-inferior shoulder dislocation in an athlete,” Revue Medicale Suisse, Sports Medicine, vol. 14, 613, Jul. 2018, 18 pp. with translation. [cited by applicant]
Ramhamadany et al., “Current concepts in the management of recurrent anterior gleno-humeral joint instability with bone loss,” World Journal of Orthopedics, vol. 7, No. 6, Jun. 2016, 12 pp. [cited by applicant]
Saliken et al., “Imaging methods for quantifying glenoid and Hill-Sachs bone loss in traumatic instability of the shoulder: a scoping review,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 16, No. 164, Jul. 2015, 26 pp. [cited by applicant]
Shaha et al., “Clinical Validation of the Glenoid Track Concept in Anterior Glenohumeral Instability,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American vol. vol. 98-A, No. 22, Nov. 2016, 6 pp. [cited by applicant]
Surazhsky et al., “Fast exact and approximate geodesics on meshes,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 24, No. 3, Jul. 2005, 8 pp. [cited by applicant]
Wright Medical, “BluePrint Video-Wright Medical Announces the Acquisition of IMASCAP SAS”, accessed from www.imascap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/blueprintvid.mp4, Dec. 14, 2017, 9 pp. [cited by applicant]
Wright, “BluePrint, 3d Planning + PSI,” User Manual V2.1, Tomier, CAW-8754, Nov. 2017, 18 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Office Action, and translation thereof, dated Apr. 4, 2023, from counterpart Japanese Application No. 2021-569011 filed Jun. 13, 2023, 15 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Extended Search Report dated Apr. 2, 2024, from counterpart European Application No. 23218791.4 filed Oct. 25, 2024, 22 pp. [cited by applicant]