IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,594,121
Granted Patent B2
US 12,594,121 · App. 17/566,772 · Granted Apr 7, 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 12,594,121
App. No.
17/566,772
Filed
Dec 31, 2021
Granted
Apr 7, 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 (56)

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, wherein the set of medical images includes medical images of the patient positioned in different functional positions;

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 the different functional positions;

determine a boundary that defines a set of orientations of the acetabular cup, relative to an acetabulum of the patient shown in the set of medical images, that are predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis based on a first mathematical model of contact points between a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and a cup liner of the acetabular cup for each of the different functional positions of the patient, using a type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup and the pelvic tilt measurements as inputs to the first mathematical model;

display a graph of the boundary relative to a range of possible orientations for the acetabular cup to be implanted in the acetabulum of the patient;

receive a surgeon's selection of a planned orientation for the acetabular cup from the range of possible orientations in response to displaying the graph of the boundary; 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 to determine the boundary comprises to:

produce, as an output of the first mathematical model, a resultant set of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup for each functional position of the different functional positions, and

identify a sub-set of the resultant sets of contact points produced by the first mathematical model that are each predicted to result in edge loading of the acetabular cup based on a distance between at least one contact point of a corresponding resultant set of contact points and an edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup being within a reference threshold distance, wherein the boundary is based on the sub-set of the resultant sets of contact points.

3 . The system of claim 1 , wherein to determine the boundary 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 based on a stationary mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, and each orientation of the range of possible orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient as inputs to the stationary mechanics model, wherein the stationary mechanics model is indicative of the loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis while the patient is positioned in each of the different functional positions, wherein the range of possible orientations includes the set of orientations that are predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis, 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 in the range of possible orientations.

4 . The system of claim 3 , wherein the of each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points and an processors, further cause the system to:

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

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

5 . 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 predict, for each orientation of the acetabular cup that is predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis based on the first mathematical model, an impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup based on a second mathematical model of the impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup at each of the different functional positions of the patient, using geometric measurements of the hip prosthesis as inputs to the second mathematical model, and

wherein the boundary defines a set of orientations of the acetabular cup that are predicted to each (i) not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis based on the first mathematical model and (ii) have an impingement-free range of motion exceeding a threshold value based on the second mathematical model.

6 . The system of claim 5 , wherein the geometric measurements of the hip prosthesis include an inner dimension of the acetabular cup, an outer dimension of the acetabular cup, a proximal-distal distance measurement from a medial edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup to a center of rotation of the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis, a proximal-distal distance measurement from a lateral edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup to the center of rotation of the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis, and a neck angle of the femoral prosthesis.

7 . The system of claim 5 , wherein to predict the impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup comprises to predict the impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup based on a three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis and a three-dimensional model of the acetabular cup.

8 . The system of claim 5 , wherein to predict the impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup comprises to:

determine a plurality of sets of stem version values of the femoral prosthesis that result in impingement of the femoral prosthesis on the acetabular cup, wherein each set of stem version values in the plurality of sets of stem version values corresponds to a different combination of (i) an orientation of the acetabular cup in the range of possible orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient and (ii) a set of geometric measurements of a range of possible geometric measurements of the hip prostheses, wherein the range of possible orientations of the acetabular cup includes the set of orientations that are predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis; and

determine, for each of the different combinations of the orientation of the acetabular cup and the set of geometric measurements, the impingement-free range of motion based on the set of stem version values corresponding to the respective combination.

9 . The system of claim 8 , wherein to determine the plurality of sets of stem version values of the femoral prosthesis that result in impingement of the femoral prosthesis on the acetabular cup comprises to:

move, for each of the different combinations, a three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis from an initial position relative to a three-dimensional model of the acetabular cup to a final position at which the femoral prosthesis contacts a portion of the acetabular cup, wherein the three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis and the three-dimensional model of the acetabular cup are based on the corresponding set of geometric measurements of that different combination;

update the initial position of the three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis; and

move, for each of the different combinations, the three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis from the updated initial position to another final position at which the femoral prosthesis contacts a portion of the acetabular cup.

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, wherein the set of medical images includes medical images of the patient positioned in different functional positions;

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 the different functional positions;

operating the computer system to determine a boundary that defines a set of orientations of the acetabular cup, relative to an acetabulum of the patient shown in the set of medical images, that are predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis based on a first mathematical model of contact points between a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and a cup liner of the acetabular cup for each of the different functional positions of the patient, using a type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup and the pelvic tilt measurements as inputs to the first mathematical model;

selecting a planned orientation for the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient while a graph of the boundary is displayed on a display of the computer system; and

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

11 . The method of claim 10 , wherein operating the computer system to determine the boundary comprises:

operating the computer system to produce, as an output of the first mathematical model, a resultant set of contact points between the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and the cup liner of the acetabular cup for each functional position of the different functional positions, and

operating the computer system to identify a sub-set of the resultant sets of contact points produced by the first mathematical model that are each 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 resultant contact points and an edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup being within a reference threshold distance, wherein the boundary is based on the sub-set of the resultant sets of contact points.

12 . The method of claim 10 , wherein operating the computer system to determine the boundary 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 based on a stationary mechanics model using the type and size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup, the pelvic tilt measurements, and each orientation of a range of possible orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient as inputs to the stationary mechanics model, wherein the stationary mechanics model is indicative of the loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis while the patient is positioned in each of the different functional positions, wherein the range of possible orientations includes the set of orientations that are predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis, and wherein each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points corresponds to a different orientation of the acetabular cup in the range of possible orientations.

13 . The method of claim 12 , further comprising:

operating the computer system to determine a distance between at least one outermost contact point of each set of contact points of the plurality of sets of contact points and an 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.

14 . The method of claim 10 , further comprising:

operating the computer system to predict, for each orientation of the acetabular cup that is predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis based on the first mathematical model, an impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup based on a second mathematical model of the impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup at each of the different functional positions of the patient, using geometric measurements of the hip prosthesis as inputs to the second mathematical model, wherein the boundary defines a set of orientations of the acetabular cup that are predicted to each (i) not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis based on the first mathematical model and (ii) have an impingement-free range of motion exceeding a threshold value based on the second mathematical model.

15 . The method of claim 14 , wherein the geometric measurements of the hip prosthesis includes an inner dimension of the acetabular cup, an outer dimension of the acetabular cup, a proximal-distal distance measurement from a medial edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup to a center of rotation of the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis, a proximal-distal distance measurement from a lateral edge of the cup liner of the acetabular cup to the center of rotation of the femoral head of the femoral prosthesis, and a neck angle of the femoral prosthesis.

16 . The method of claim 14 , wherein operating the computer system to predict the impingement-free range of motion of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup comprises:

operating the computer system to determine a plurality of sets of stem version values of the femoral prosthesis that result in impingement of the femoral prosthesis on the acetabular cup, wherein each set of stem version values in the plurality of sets of stem version values corresponds to a different combination of (i) an orientation of the acetabular cup in a range of possible orientations of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient and (ii) a set of geometric measurements of a range of possible geometric measurements of the hip prostheses, wherein the range of possible orientations of the acetabular cup includes the set of orientations that are predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis; and

operating the computer system to determine, for each of the different combinations of the orientation of the acetabular cup and the set of geometric measurements, the impingement-free range of motion based on the set of stem version values corresponding to the respective combination.

17 . The method of claim 16 , wherein operating the computer system to determine the plurality of sets of stem version values of the femoral prosthesis that result in impingement of the femoral prosthesis on the acetabular cup comprises:

operating the computer system, with each of the different combinations, to move a three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis from an initial position relative to a three-dimensional model of the acetabular cup to a final position at which the femoral prosthesis contacts a portion of the acetabular cup, wherein the three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis and the three-dimensional model of the acetabular cup are based on the corresponding set of geometric measurements of that different combination;

operating the computer system to update the initial position of the three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis; and

operating the computer system, with each of the different combinations, to move the three-dimensional model of the femoral prosthesis from the updated initial position to another final position at which the femoral prosthesis contacts a portion of the acetabular cup.

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 boundary that defines a set of orientations of the acetabular cup, relative to an acetabulum of the patient, that are predicted to not result in edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis based on a first mathematical model of contact points between a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis and a cup liner of the acetabular cup for each functional position of a set of different functional positions of the patient, using a type and a size of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup and pelvic tilt measurements of the hip of the patient as inputs to the first mathematical model and (ii) display a graph of the boundary relative to a range of possible orientations for the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient;

selecting a planned orientation for the acetabular cup from the range of possible orientations while the graph of the boundary is displayed by the computer system; 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 the actual orientation of the acetabular cup on the graph of the boundary.

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 20220202503A1 · Jun 30, 2022
References Cited (212)
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 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 · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160225192A1 · Jones et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170042619A1 · Brooks · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170128135A1 · Mccarthy · 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 · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200246079A1 · Shevlev et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200323648A1 · Samuelson et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200323649A1 · Schipper et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
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 20220202494A1 · 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 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]
Ezquerra, L., Quilez, M.P., Pérez, M.Á. et al. Range of Movement for Impingement and Dislocation Avoidance in Total Hip Replacement Predicted by Finite Element Model. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 37, 26-34 (2017). https://doi.org… [cited by examiner]
Mahboba, Yousuf Jamal, and Mohsin Abdullah Al-Shammari. “Improving of artificial hip joint design by studying multiple angles of articulation between femoral head and acetabular liner.” International Journal of Energy a… [cited by examiner]
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/EP 2021/087907, May 3, 2022, 14 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]
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 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 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. 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 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 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]
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]
Henebry et al., “The Effect of Pelvic Tilt on Radiographic Markers of Acetabular Coverage,” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2013, pp. 2599-2603, vol. 41(11), SAGE. [cited by applicant]
Luthringer et al., “A Preoperative Workup of a ‘Hip-Spine’ Total Hip Arthroplasty Patient: A Simplified Approach to a Complex Problem,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Jan. 18, 2019, pp. S57-S70, vol. 34, Elsevier Inc. [cited by applicant]
Pedersen et al., “Temporal and Spatial Distributions of Directional Counterface Motion at the Acetabular Bearing Surface in Total Hip Arthroplasty,” The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal, 1998, pp. 43-53, vol. 18. [cited by applicant]
Pierrepont et al., “The effect of seated pelvic tilt on posterior edge-loading in total hip arthroplasty: A finite element investigation,” Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 2018, pp. 241-248, vol. 232(3), SAGE. [cited by applicant]