IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,708,527
Granted Patent B2
US 12,708,527 · App. 18/823,359 · Granted Aug 18, 2026

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

Inventors: Christopher Hunt (Leeds, GB); Brittany Marshall (Warsaw, IN); Patrick Cannon (Warsaw, IN); Zahra Ehteshami (Leeds, GB); Filip Leszko (Philadelphia, PA)
Assignee: DEPUY IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY
A61F2/4609A61B2034/2046
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 12,708,527
App. No.
18/823,359
Filed
Sep 3, 2024
Granted
Aug 18, 2026
Kind
B2
Art Unit
3775
USPC
606/91
Abstract

Apparatus, systems, and methods for determining a position of a hip prosthesis in a bone of a patient are disclosed. One method for planning an orthopaedic surgical procedure may comprise determining a first set of target orientations for an acetabular cup of the hip prosthesis when the femoral prosthesis of the hip prosthesis is oriented at a first version, determining a second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at a second version different from the first version, displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) that comprises a first graphic representing the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup, receiving a user input, and, in response to the input, displaying a second GUI that comprises a second graphic representing the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup.

Claims (56)

1 . A method for 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:

determining, with a computer system, a first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at a first version;

determining, with the computer system, a second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at a second version different from the first version;

displaying, with the computer system, a first graphical user interface (GUI) that comprises (i) a first graphic representing the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup, (ii) a first interface element indicating that the first graphic corresponds to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the first version, and (iii) a second interface element indicating that the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup corresponding to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the second version is available for review;

receiving, with the computer system, a user input associated with the second interface element;

displaying, with the computer system and in response to receiving the user input associated with the second interface element, a second GUI that comprises (i) a second graphic representing the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup, (ii) a third interface element indicating that the second graphic corresponds to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the second version, and (iii) a fourth interface element indicating that the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup corresponding to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the first version is available for review;

implanting the femoral prosthesis in the patient such that the femoral prosthesis is oriented at either the first version or the second version; and

implanting the acetabular cup in the patient at a planned orientation, wherein the planned orientation is selected from among (i) the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the first version or (ii) the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the second version.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the computer system determines the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup prior to receiving the user input associated with the second interface element of the first GUI.

3 . The method of claim 1 , wherein displaying the second GUI comprises updating the first GUI by (i) replacing the first graphic with the second graphic, (ii) replacing the first interface element with the fourth interface element, and (iii) replacing the second interface element with the third interface element.

4 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

receiving, with the computer system, a user input associated with the fourth interface element; and

displaying, with the computer system, the first GUI in response to receiving the user input associated with the fourth interface element.

5 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining, with the computer system, a third set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at a third version different from the first version and from the second version;

receiving, with the computer system, a user input associated with a fifth interface element included in both the first GUI and the second GUI, the fifth interface element indicating that the third set of target orientations for the acetabular cup corresponding to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the third version is available for review; and

displaying, with the computer system and in response to receiving the user input associated with the fifth interface element, a third GUI that comprises (i) a third graphic representing the third set of target orientations for the acetabular cup, (ii) a sixth interface element indicating that the third graphic corresponds to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the third version, (iii) the fourth interface element indicating that the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup corresponding to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the first version is available for review, and (iv) the second interface element indicating that the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup corresponding to the femoral prosthesis being oriented at the second version is available for review.

6 . The method of claim 1 , wherein:

the method further comprises determining, with the computer system, that a number of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at a third version is below an output threshold, wherein the third version is different from the first version and from the second version;

the first GUI further comprises a fifth interface element indicating that the computer system cannot generate a sufficient set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the third version; and

the second GUI also comprises the fifth interface element.

7 . The method of claim 1 , wherein:

the first graphic comprises an inclination axis, a version axis, and a first closed shape surrounding the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when graphed relative to the inclination and version axes; and

the second graphic comprises the inclination axis, the version axis, and a second closed shape surrounding the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when graphed relative to the inclination and version axes.

8 . The method of claim 7 , wherein:

the first graphic further comprises a marker indicating a centroid of the first closed shape; and

the second graphic further comprises a marker indicating a centroid of the second closed shape.

9 . The method of claim 1 , wherein:

determining the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup comprises predicting a set of orientations for the acetabular cup that will not result in either edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis or impingement of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the first version; and

determining the second set of target orientations for the acetabular cup comprises predicting a set of orientations for the acetabular cup that will not result in either edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis or impingement of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the second version.

10 . The method of claim 9 , wherein predicting a set of orientations for the acetabular cup that will not result in either edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis or impingement of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the first or second version comprises:

operating a first mathematical model with a set of candidate orientations for the acetabular cup, patient-specific pelvic tilt measurements, and type and size data for the hip prosthesis as inputs to the first mathematical model to generate, for each candidate orientation for the acetabular cup, predicted distances between (i) an edge of a cup liner of the acetabular cup and (ii) contact between the cup liner and a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis in each of a plurality of different functional positions of the patient;

selecting the candidate orientations for the acetabular cup for which each of the predicted distances is greater than a distance threshold;

operating a second mathematical model with the selected candidate orientations for the acetabular cup, the patient-specific pelvic tilt measurements, the type and size data for the hip prosthesis, and a corresponding version of the femoral prosthesis as inputs to the second mathematical model to generate, for each selected candidate orientation for the acetabular cup, predicted amounts of femoral prosthesis rotation until impingement of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup in each of the plurality of different functional positions of the patient; and

identifying the selected candidate orientations for the acetabular cup for which each of the predicted amounts of femoral prosthesis rotation is greater than a rotation threshold as the set of orientations for the acetabular cup predicted to not result in either edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis or impingement of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the corresponding version.

11 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the first version is 15 degrees, and wherein the second version is selected from the group consisting of −5 degrees, 5 degrees, 25 degrees, and 35 degrees.

12 . The method of claim 1 , wherein determining the first set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the first version comprises determining target orientations for the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the same version as the patient's natural femur.

13 . A method for 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, with a computer system, a first mathematical model with a set of candidate orientations for the acetabular cup, patient-specific pelvic tilt measurements, and type and size data for the hip prosthesis as inputs to the first mathematical model to generate, for each candidate orientation for the acetabular cup, predicted distances between (i) an edge of a cup liner of the acetabular cup and (ii) contact between the cup liner and a femoral head of the femoral prosthesis in each of a plurality of different functional positions of the patient;

selecting, with the computer system, the candidate orientations for the acetabular cup for which each of the predicted distances is greater than a distance threshold;

operating, with the computer system, a second mathematical model with the selected candidate orientations for the acetabular cup, the patient-specific pelvic tilt measurements, the type and size data for the hip prosthesis, and a planned version for the femoral prosthesis as inputs to the second mathematical model to generate, for each selected candidate orientation for the acetabular cup, predicted amounts of femoral prosthesis rotation until impingement of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup in each of the plurality of different functional positions of the patient;

identifying, with the computer system, the selected candidate orientations for the acetabular cup for which each of the predicted amounts of femoral prosthesis rotation is greater than a rotation threshold as a set of target orientations for the acetabular cup predicted to not result in either edge loading of the acetabular cup by the femoral prosthesis or impingement of the femoral prosthesis and the acetabular cup when the femoral prosthesis is oriented at the planned version;

providing, with the computer system, a user interface that presents the set of target orientations for the acetabular cup to an orthopaedic surgeon;

receiving, with the computer system, via the user interface, an input indicating a planned orientation for the acetabular cup selected by the orthopaedic surgeon from among the set of target orientations presented via the user interface; and

providing, with the computer system, via the user interface, guidance to the orthopaedic surgeon to implant the acetabular cup in an acetabulum of the patient at the planned orientation selected by the orthopaedic surgeon.

14 . The method of claim 13 , further comprising measuring, with the computer system, a pre-operative version of the patient's natural femur from one or more medical images, wherein the measured pre-operative version is used as the planned version for the femoral prosthesis when operating the second mathematical model.

15 . The method of claim 13 , wherein identifying the selected candidate orientations for the acetabular cup for which each of the predicted amounts of femoral prosthesis rotation is greater than a rotation threshold comprises:

determining a first number of selected candidate orientations for the acetabular cup for which each of the predicted amounts of femoral prosthesis rotation is greater than a first rotation threshold; and

in response to the first number being less than a size threshold for the set of target orientations for the acetabular cup, determining a second number of selected candidate orientations for the acetabular cup for which each of the predicted amounts of femoral prosthesis rotation is greater than a second rotation threshold, wherein the second rotation threshold is less than the first rotation threshold.

16 . The method of claim 13 , wherein the user interface comprises a graphic including an inclination axis, a version axis, and a closed shape surrounding the set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when graphed relative to the inclination and version axes.

17 . The method of claim 16 , wherein the graphic further includes a marker indicating a centroid of the closed shape.

18 . The method of claim 16 , wherein the graphic further includes a marker representing the planned orientation for the acetabular cup when graphed relative to the inclination and version axes.

19 . The method of claim 13 , further comprising:

detecting, with the computer system, during the orthopaedic surgical procedure, an actual orientation of the acetabular cup relative to the acetabulum of the patient; and

presenting, via the user interface, during the orthopaedic surgical procedure, a comparison of the actual orientation of the acetabular cup to the set of target orientations for the acetabular cup.

20 . The method of claim 19 , wherein the user interface comprises a graphic including an inclination axis, a version axis, a closed shape surrounding the set of target orientations for the acetabular cup when graphed relative to the inclination and version axes, and a marker representing the actual orientation of the acetabular cup when graphed relative to the inclination and version axes.

Assignments (2)
CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE EFFECTIVE DATE FROM SEPTEMBER 29, 2023, TO MARCH 29, 2024, IN FILIP LESZKO'S ASSIGNMENT PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 68579 FRAME 42. ASSIGNOR(S) HEREBY CONFIRMS THE ASSIGNMENT OF ALL RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST. Recorded Sep 18, 2024
From: HUNT, CHRISTOPHER; MARSHALL, BRITTANY; CANNON, PATRICK; EHTESHAMI, ZAHRA; LESZKO, FILIP
To: DEPUY IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY
Reel/Frame 068998/0736 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 13, 2024
From: HUNT, CHRISTOPHER; MARSHALL, BRITTANY; CANNON, PATRICK; EHTESHAMI, ZAHRA; LESZKO, FILIP
To: DEPUY IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY
Reel/Frame 068579/0042 →
Continuity (3)
Provisional Application 63571818 · Mar 29, 2024
Provisional Application 63541603 · Sep 29, 2023
Related Publication 20250107904A1 · Apr 3, 2025
References Cited (218)
US 5715836A · Kliegis et al. · 1998 [cited by applicant]
US 5995738A · Digioia, III et al. · 1999 [cited by applicant]
US 6205411B1 · Digioia et al. · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 6597818B2 · Levienaise-Obadia et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 8160345B2 · Pavlovskaia · 2012 [cited by examiner]
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 · 2017 [cited by examiner]
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 · 2020 [cited by examiner]
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 · Mckinnon et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11439467B1 · Park · 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 · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 11887306B2 · Cooper et al. · 2024 [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 · Revie et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100086181A1 · Zug et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100197639A1 · Lang · 2010 [cited by examiner]
US 20110093087A1 · Mcmahon et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110313424A1 · Bono et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120016269A1 · Moctezuma De La Barrera · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120116533A1 · Forsell · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120157887A1 · Fanson et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120194505A1 · Beck · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120209394A1 · Bojarski et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120230573A1 · Ito et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130046310A1 · Ranawat et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130053858A1 · Penenberg · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130053859A1 · Penenberg · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130072821A1 · Odermatt et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130304429A1 · Haimerl · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140093154A1 · Penenberg · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140378828A1 · Penenberg et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150088145A1 · Mccarthy · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150088146A1 · Mccarthy · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150117608A1 · Lytle et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150150523A1 · Sirpad et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150227679A1 · Kamer et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150238271A1 · Wollowick et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150257846A1 · Kubiak et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150272695A1 · Kubiak et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160100909A1 · Wollowick et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160128654A1 · Wollowick et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160203608A1 · Izmirli et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160225192A1 · Yarin et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170042619A1 · Brooks · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170128135A1 · Mccarthy et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170143433A1 · Fanson et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170165008A1 · Finley · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170202682A1 · Mccarthy · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170215967A1 · Spath · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170224418A1 · Boettner et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170258526A1 · Lang · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170333137A1 · Roessler · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180161101A1 · Barsoum et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180199995A1 · Odermatt et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180263697A1 · Eskesen · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180263699A1 · Murphy et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190090962A1 · Boettner · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190298452A1 · Veilleux et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190350728A1 · Van Der Walt et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190385303A1 · Petersen et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200205900A1 · Buckland et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200246079A1 · Shevlev et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200323648A1 · Samuelson et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200323649A1 · Schipper 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 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 20220202503A1 · Dressler et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220249248A1 · Schipper et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220323159A1 · Boettner et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230000556A1 · McKinnon 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 20240261030A1 · Long · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20250149183A1 · DeCook et al. · 2025 [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 2019191722A1 · 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 2020163358A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 2021262539A1 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
WO 2022144448A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
WO 2023044138A1 · 2023 [cited by applicant]
WO 2023059905A1 · 2023 [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]
Brown et al., “Impingement in total hip replacement: mechanisms and consequences,” Current Orthopaedics, 2008, pp. 376-391, vol. 22, Elsevier, Inc. [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 U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, 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 U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, Dec. 6, 2024, 81 pages. [cited by applicant]
Depuy Synthes, Cuptimize Hip-Spine Analysis User Guide, Sep. 27, 2022, 48 pages. [cited by applicant]
Depuy Synthes, Velys Hip Navigation User Guide (Version 4.1), Jul. 2021, 84 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/EP2021/087907, May 3, 2022, 16 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]
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, vol. 88. [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]
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]
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]
Miki et al., “Risk of edge loading and prosthesis impingement due to posterior pelvic tilting after total hip arthroplasty,” Clinical Biomechanics, 2014, pp. 607-613, vol. 29, No. 4, 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., “Effect of intraoperative treatment options on hip joint stability following total hip arthroplasty,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 2022, pp. 604-613, vol. 40, Wiley Periodicals LLC. [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]
Depuy Synthes Products, Inc., Response to Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, Jul. 9, 2025, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ezquerra et al., “Range of Movement for Impingement and Dislocation Avoidance in Total Hip Replacement Predicted by Finite Element Model,” J. Med. Biol. Eng., Jan. 21, 2017, pp. 26-34, vol. 37, Springer. [cited by applicant]
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]
Mahboba et al., “Improving of artificial hip joint design by studying multiple angles of articulation between femoral head and acetabular liner,” International Journal of Energy and Environment, Jul. 31, 2019, pp. 195-2… [cited by applicant]
Pedersen et al., “Temporal and Spatial Distributions of Directional Counterface Motion at the Acetabular Bearing Surface in Total Hip Arthroplasty,” The lowa 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]
United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, May 9, 2025, 43 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, Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination in U.S. Appl. No. 96/050,073, 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]
Ramkumar et al., “Patient-Specific Safe Zones for Acetabular Component Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mathematically Accounting for Spinopevlic Biomechanics,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Mar. 16, 2023, pp. 1779… [cited by applicant]