text:
Tournaments & Registration
NOTE: If you have already completed the tournament registration, and simply need to pay the Tournament Registration Fee, please CLICK HERE.
2017 Tournaments
- Fencor tournaments have a national reputation for being well-run as games are on-time and no running clock and scorekeeper and timer will be provided.
- There is no increase in tournament entry fee for the third straight year. All payments must be made on-line.
- Schedule accommodations will be made for out-of-area teams.
- All tournaments feature a 3 games in one day option.
- Multi-team discount: Clubs that have 4 or more teams get $25 off entry fee per team.
- Any 4th grade team that signs up and pays week in advance gets a 10% discount.
Note: You can not sign up for East Coast Nationals on this page, please click here for information.
27th Annual Fencor Invitational (SOLD OUT)
SOLD OUT April 1-2, 2017. Cost: $475 ($375 for 3 games). Grades: 4-12. Games to be played in Montgomery County and Philadelphia. Many AAU teams use this as its opener. Deadline March 25.
18th Annual Easter Egg Invitational (SOLD OUT)
SOLD OUT April 15, 2017. (2 Games, Cost: $250, 3 Games, Cost: $375). Grades: 6-12. All games to be played at one site in Hatboro, PA. Deadline April 8.
10th Annual Fencor Youth Festival (SOLD OUT)
SOLD OUT May 20-21, 2017. Cost: $475 ($375 for three games). Grades: 4-12. Sold out 2 weeks in advance last year. Deadline May 13.
15th Annual Fencor Summer Classic (SOLD OUT)
SOLD OUT June 10-11, 2017. Cost: $495 ($395 for three games). Grades: 4-12. All games at air-conditioned Competitive Edge in King of Prussia. All teams receive free t-shirts, undefeated teams get championship t-shirts. Deadline June 3.
To register for an upcoming Fencor tournament, please complete the following two steps:
1. Use the registration form below to provide your team's registration information. Be sure to indiciate which tournament you are registering for.
2. After submitting that form, you will see a "Pay Now" button. Follow that link to enter our secure server and pay via credit card.
NOTE: If you are registering for East Coast National Championships, do not use the form below; instead, CLICK HERE to register.
Use form below to register for the following 2017 Tournaments:
- Fencor Invitational, April 1-2, 2017 (SOLD OUT)
- Easter Egg Invitational, April 15, 2017 (SOLD OUT)
- Fencor Youth Festival, May 20-21, 2017 (SOLD OUT)
- Fencor Summer Classic, June 10-11, 2017 (SOLD OUT)


text: Trying to be as patient as I can - and trying to alleviate my battery woes every which way I can (even by root-only methods) - and I just can't take it. I need good battery life and I will compromise the sexiness of the device to get it. The only question is "when"? As others have found out, the Hero's 3500 mAh battery is compatible with the EVO, so it shouldn't be an issue of technicality. I'm sure they need time to think up a design to go well with the EVO 4G's kickstand (personally, I wouldn't mind having it covered up) or to think up a design that includes a kickstand on the back cover itself. But I just wish they would hurry it up. Anyone hear anything new regarding its release date?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|Apr 23, 2002
|Filing date
|Jan 21, 2000
|Priority date
|Mar 27, 1995
|Fee status
|Also published as
|Publication number
|Thomas Zdeblick, Eddie Ray, III, Lawrence M. Boyd
|Original Assignee
|Sdgi Holdings, Inc.
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (89), Referenced by (137), Classifications (68), Legal Events (4)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
This application is a con of patent application Ser. No. 09/209,602, filed Dec. 11, 1998, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/157,735, filed Sep. 21, 1998, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/111,197, filed Jul. 7, 1998, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/882,611, filed Jun. 25, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/835,306, filed Apr. 7, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/413,453, filed Mar. 30, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,669,909, issued Sep. 23, 1997, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 08/411,017, filed Mar. 27, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,782,919, issued Jul. 21, 1998.
The present invention relates to an artificial implant to be placed into the intervertebral space left after the removal of a damaged spinal disc. Specifically, the invention concerns an implant that facilitates arthrodesis or fusion between adjacent vertebrae while also maintaining or restoring the normal spinal anatomy at the particular vertebral level.
The number of spinal surgeries to correct the causes of low back pain has steadily increased over the last several years. Most often, low back pain originates from damage or defects in the spinal disc between adjacent vertebrae. The disc can be herniated or can be suffering from a variety of degenerative conditions, so that in either case the anatomical function of the spinal disc is disrupted. The most prevalent surgical treatment for these types of conditions has been to fuse the two vertebrae surrounding the affected disc. In most cases, the entire disc will be removed, except for the annulus, by way of a discectomy procedure. Since the damaged disc material has been removed, something must be positioned within the intra-discal space, otherwise the space may collapse resulting in damage to the nerves extending along the spinal column.
In order to prevent this disc space collapse, the intra-discal space is filled with bone or a bone substitute in order to fuse the two adjacent vertebrae together. In early techniques, bone material was simply disposed between the adjacent vertebrae, typically at the posterior aspect of the vertebrae, and the spinal column was stabilized by way of a plate or a rod spanning the affected vertebrae. With this technique once fusion occurred the hardware used to maintain the stability of the segment became superfluous. Moreover, the surgical procedures necessary to implant a rod or plate to stabilize the level during fusion were frequently lengthy and involved.
It was therefore determined that a more optimum solution to the stabilization of an excised disc space is to fuse the vertebrae between their respective end plates, most optimally without the need for anterior or posterior plating. There have been an extensive number of attempts to develop an acceptable intra-discal implant that could be used to replace a damaged disc and yet maintain the stability of the disc interspace between the adjacent vertebrae, at least until complete arthrodesis is achieved. These "interbody fusion devices" have taken many forms. For example, one of the more prevalent designs takes the form of a cylindrical implant. These types of implants are represented by the patents to Bagby, No. 4,501,269; Brantigan, No. 4,878,915; Ray, Nos. 4,961,740 and 5,055,104; and Michelson, No. 5,015,247. In these cylindrical implants, the exterior portion of the cylinder can be threaded to facilitate insertion of the interbody fusion device, as represented by the Ray, Brantigan and Michelson patents. In the alternative, some of the fusion implants are designed to be pounded into the intra-discal space and the vertebral end plates. These types of devices are represented by the patents to Brantigan, Nos. 4,743,256; 4,834,757 and 5,192,327.
In each of the above listed patents, the transverse cross section of the implant is constant throughout its length and is typically in the form of a right circular cylinder. Other implants have been developed for interbody fusion that do not have a constant cross section. For instance, the patent to McKenna, No. 4,714,469 shows a hemispherical implant with elongated protuberances that project into the vertebral end plate. The patent to Kuntz, No. 4,714,469, shows a bullet shaped prosthesis configured to optimize a friction fit between the prosthesis and the adjacent vertebral bodies. Finally, the implant of Bagby, No. 4,936,848 is in the form of a sphere which is preferably positioned between the centrums of the adjacent vertebrae.
Interbody fusion devices can be generally divided into two basic categories, namely solid implants and implants that are designed to permit bone ingrowth. Solid implants are represented by U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,878,915; 4,743,256; 4,349,921 and 4,714,469. The remaining patents discussed above include some aspect that permits bone to grow across the implant. It has been found that devices that promote natural bone ingrowth achieve a more rapid and stable arthrodesis. The device depicted in the Michelson patent is representative of this type of hollow implant which is typically filled with autologous bone prior to insertion into the intra-discal space. This implant includes a plurality of circular apertures which communicate with the hollow interior of the implant, thereby providing a path for tissue growth between the vertebral end plates and the bone or bone substitute within the implant. In preparing the intra-discal space, the end plates are preferably reduced to bleeding bone to facilitate this tissue ingrowth. During fusion, the metal structure provided by the Michelson implant helps maintain the patency and stability of the motion segment to be fused. In addition, once arthrodesis occurs, the implant itself serves as a sort of anchor for the solid bony mass.
A number of difficulties still remain with the many interbody fusion devices currently available. While it is recognized that hollow implants that permit bone ingrowth into bone or bone substitute within the implant is an optimum technique for achieving fusion, most of the prior art devices have difficulty in achieving this fusion, at least without the aid of some additional stabilizing device, such as a rod or plate. Moreover, some of these devices are not structurally strong enough to support the heavy loads and bending moments applied at the most frequently fused vertebral levels, namely those in the lower lumbar spine.
There has been a need for providing an interbody fusion device that optimizes the bone ingrowth capabilities but is still strong enough to support the spine segment until arthrodesis occurs. It has been found by the present inventors that openings into a hollow implant for bone ingrowth play an important role in avoiding stress shielding of the autologous bone impacted within the implant. In other words, if the ingrowth openings are improperly sized or configured, the autologous bone will not endure the loading that is typically found to be necessary to ensure rapid and complete fusion. In this instance, the bone impacted within the implant may resorb or evolve into simply fibrous tissue, rather than a bony fusion mass, which leads to a generally unstable construction. On the other hand, the bone ingrowth openings must not be so extensive that the cage provides insufficient support to avoid subsidence into the adjacent vertebrae.
Another problem that is not addressed by the above prior devices concerns maintaining or restoring the normal anatomy of the fused spinal segment. Naturally, once the disc is removed, the normal lordotic or kyphotic curvature of the spine is eliminated. With the prior devices, the need to restore this curvature is neglected. For example, in one type of commercial device, the BAK device of SpineTech, as represented by the patent to Bagby, No. 4,501,269, the adjacent vertebral bodies are reamed with a cylindrical reamer that fits the particular implant. In some cases, the normal curvature is established prior to reaming and then the implant inserted. This type of construct is illustrated in FIG. 1 which reveals the depth of penetration of the cylindrical implant into the generally healthy vertebrae adjacent the instrumented discal space. However, this over-reaming of the posterior portion is generally not well accepted because of the removal of load bearing bone of the vertebrae,. and because it is typically difficult to ream through the posterior portion of the lower lumbar segment where the lordosis is greatest. In most cases using implants of this type, no effort is made to restore the lordotic curvature, so that the cylindrical implant is likely to cause a kyphotic deformity as the vertebra settles around the implant. This phenomenon can often lead to revision surgeries because the spine becomes imbalanced.
In view of these limitations of the prior devices, there remains a need for an interbody fusion device that can optimize bone ingrowth while still maintaining its strength and stability. There is further a need for such an implant that is capable of maintaining or restoring the normal spinal anatomy at the instrumented segment. This implant must be strong enough to support and withstand the heavy loads generated on the spine at the instrumented level, while remaining stable throughout the duration.
In response to the needs still left unresolved by the prior devices, the present invention contemplates a hollow threaded interbody fusion device configured to restore the normal angular relation between adjacent vertebrae. In particular, the device includes an elongated body, tapered along substantially its entire length, defining a hollow interior and having an outer diameter greater than the size of the space between the adjacent vertebrae. The body includes an outer surface with opposite tapered cylindrical portions and a pair of opposite flat tapered side surfaces between the cylindrical portions. Thus, at an end view, the fusion device gives the appearance of a cylindrical body in which the sides of the body have been truncated along a chord of the body's outer diameter. The cylindrical portions are threaded for controlled insertion and engagement into the end plates of the adjacent vertebrae.
In another aspect of the invention, the outer surface is tapered along its length at an angle corresponding, in one embodiment, to the normal lordotic angle of lower lumbar vertebrae. The outer surface is also provided with a number of vascularization openings defined in the flat side surfaces, and a pair of elongated opposite bone ingrowth slots defined in the cylindrical portions. The bone ingrowth slots have a transverse width that is preferably about half of the effective width of the cylindrical portions within which the slots are defined.
In another embodiment, the interbody fusion device retains the same tapered configuration of the above embodiment, along with the truncated sidew walls and interrupted external threads. However, in this embodiment, the implant is not hollow but is instead solid. Bone ingrowth is achieved by forming the solid tapered implant of a porous high strength material tht permits bone ingrowth into interconnected pores while retaining sufficient material for structural stability in situ. In one preferred embodiment, the material is porous tantalum.
A driving tool is provided for inserting the fusion device within the intra-discal space. In one feature, the driving tool includes a shaft having a pair of opposite tapered tongs situated at one end. The tongs are connected to the shaft by way of a hinge slot that biases the tongs apart to receive a fusion device therebetween. The driving tool is further provided with a sleeve concentrically disposed about the shaft and configured to slide along the shaft and compress the hinge to push the tongs together to grip the fusion device. Alternatively, an internal expanding collet may be used to internally hold the fusion device securely during insertion.
In one aspect of the driving tool, the tapered tongs have an outer surface that takes on the form of the tapered cylindrical portions of the fusion device. The tongs also have a flat inward facing surface to correspond to the flat side surfaces of the fusion device. Thus, when the tongs are compressed against the fusion device, the inward facing surfaces of the tongs contact the flat sides of the fusion device and the outer surface of the tongs complete the conical form of the fusion device to facilitate screw-in insertion. The inward facing surface of the tongs may also be provided with projections to engage openings in the fusion device to permit driving and rotation of the device within the intra-discal space.
In another aspect of the invention, methods are provided for implanting the fusion device between adjacent vertebrae. In one method, the approach is anterior and includes the steps of dilating the disc space and drilling the end plates of the adjacent vertebrae to the minor diameter of the fusion device threads. A sleeve is inserted to provide a working channel for the drilling step and the subsequent step of implanting the fusion device. The implant is engaged with the driving tool, inserted through the sleeve and threaded into the prepared bore. The depth of insertion of the tapered fusion device determines the amount of angular separation achieved for the adjacent vertebrae.
In another inventive method, the insertion site is prepared posteriorly, namely the disc space is dilated and a minor diameter hole is drilled into the vertebral end plates. A sleeve is also arranged to provide a working channel for the drilling and insertion steps. The fusion device is inserted into the drilled hole with the flat side walls facing the adjacent vertebra. The device is then rotated so that the external threads on the cylindrical portion cut into and engage the adjacent vertebrae. In addition, since the fusion device is tapered, the tapered outer surface of the device will angularly separate the adjacent vertebrae to restore the normal anatomic lordosis.
FIG. 1 is a side-elevational view in the sagittal plane of a fusion device of the prior art.
FIG. 2 is an enlarged perspective view of an interbody fusion device according to one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 3 is a side cross-sectional view of the interbody fusion device shown in FIG. 2, taken along line 3—3 as viewed in the direction of the arrows.
FIG. 4 is an end elevational view from the anterior end of the interbody fusion device shown in FIG. 2.
FIG. 5 is a top-elevational view of the interbody fusion device shown in FIG. 2.
FIG. 6 is an A-P lateral view from the anterior aspect of the spine showing two interbody fusion devices according to FIG. 2 implanted within the interbody space between L4 and L5.
FIG. 7 is a sagittal plane view of the interbody fusion device implanted between L4 and L5 shown in FIG. 6.
FIG. 8 is a perspective view of an alternative embodiment of the interbody fusion device according to the present invention.
FIG. 8A is a perspective view of another embodiment of a tapered interbody fusion device according to the present invention.
FIG. 9 is a top-elevational view of an implant driver according to another aspect of the present invention.
FIG. 10 is an enlarged perspective view of the end of the implant driver engaged about an interbody fusion device, as depicted in FIG. 2.
FIG. 11 is an enlarged partial side cross-sectional view showing the implant driver engaging the interbody fusion device, as shown in FIG. 10.
FIG. 12 is an enlarged partial side cross-sectional view showing an implant driver of an alternative embodiment adapted for engaging the interbody fusion device 10.
FIGS. 13(a)-13(d) show four steps of a method in accordance with one aspect of the invention for implanting the interbody fusion device, such as the device shown in FAG. 2.
FIGS. 14(a)-14(d) depict steps of an alternative method for implanting the interbody fusion device, such as the device shown in FIG. 2.
For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope of the invention is thereby intended, such alterations and further modifications in the illustrated device, and such further applications of the principles of the invention as illustrated therein being contemplated as would normally occur to one skilled in the art to which the invention relates.
An interbody fusion device 10 in accordance with one aspect of the present invention is shown in FIGS. 2-5. The device is formed by a solid conical body 11, that is preferably formed of a biocompatible or inert material. For example, the body 11 can be made of a medical grade stainless steel or titanium, or other suitable material having adequate strength characteristics set forth herein. The device may also be composed of a biocompatible porous material, such as porous tantalum provided by Implex Corp. For purposes of reference, the device 10 has an anterior end 12 and a posterior end 13, which correspond to the anatomic position of the device 10 when implanted in the intra-discal space. The conical body 11 defines a hollow interior 15 which is bounded by a body wall 16 and closed at the posterior end 13 by an end wall 17 (see FIG. 3). The hollow interior 15 of the device 10 is configured to receive autograft bone or a bone substitute material adapted to promote a solid fusion between adjacent vertebrae and across the intra-discal space.
In accordance with the invention, the interbody fusion device 10 is a threaded device configured to be screw threaded into the end plates of the adjacent vertebrae. In one embodiment of the invention, the conical body 11 defines a series of interrupted external threads 18 and a complete thread 19 at the leading end of the implant. The complete thread 19 serves as a "starter" thread for screwing the implant into the vertebral endplates at the intra-discal space. The threads 18 and 19 can take several forms known in the art for engagement into vertebral bone. For instance, the threads can have a triangular cross-section or a truncated triangular cross-section. Preferably, the threads have a height of 1.0 mm (0.039 in) in order to provide adequate purchase in the vertebral bone so that the fusion device 10 is not driven out of the intra-discal space by the high loads experienced by the spine. The thread pitch in certain specific embodiments can be 2.3 mm (0.091 in) or 3.0 mm (0.118 in), depending upon the vertebral level at which the device 10 is to be implanted and the amount of thread engagement necessary to hold the implant in position.
In one aspect of the invention, the conical body 11, and particularly the body wall 16, includes parallel truncated side walls 22, shown most clearly in FIG. 4. The side walls are preferably flat to facilitate insertion of the fusion device between the end plates of adjacent vertebrae and provide area between for bony fusion. The truncated side walls extend from the anterior end 12 of the device up to the complete threads 19 at the posterior end 13. Thus, with the truncated side walls 22, the device 10 gives the appearance at its end view of an incomplete circle in which the sides are cut across a chord of the circle. In one specific example, the interbody fusion device 10 has a diameter at its anterior end of 16.0 mm (0.630 in). In this specific embodiment, the truncated side walls 22 are formed along parallel chord lines approximately 12.0 mm (0.472 in) apart, so that the removed arc portion of the circle roughly subtends 90� at each side of the device. Other benefits and advantages provided by the truncated side walls 22 of the fusion device 10 will be described in more detail herein.
The conical body 11 of the device 10 includes a pair of vascularization openings 24 and 25 defined through each of the truncated side walls 22. These openings 24 and 25 are adapted to be oriented in a lateral direction or facing the sagittal plane when the fusion device is implanted within the intra-discal space. The openings are intended to provide a passageway for vascularization to occur between the bone implant material within the hollow interior 15 and the surrounding tissue. In addition, some bone ingrowth may also occur through these openings. The openings 24 and 25 have been sized to provide optimum passage for vascularization to occur, while still retaining a significant amount of structure in the conical body 11 to support the high axial loads passing across the intra-discal space between adjacent vertebrae.
The conical body 11 also defines opposite bone ingrowth slots 27, each of which are oriented at 90� to the truncated side walls 22. Preferably, these slots 27 are directly adjacent the vertebral end plates when the device 10 is implanted. More particularly, as the threads 18 and 19 of the device are screwed into the vertebral endplates, the vertebral bone will extend partially into the slots 27 to contact bone implant material contained within the hollow interior 15 of the device 10. As shown more clearly in FIG. 5, the bone ingrowth slots 27 are configured to provide maximum opening for bone ingrowth, in order to ensure complete arthrodesis and a solid fusion. Preferably, the slots have a lateral width that approximates the effective width of the threaded portions of the body. It has been found that the prior devices which utilize a plurality of small apertures do not promote a rapid and solid arthrodesis of the bone material. Instead, the smaller apertures often lead to pseudo-arthrosis and the generation of fibrous tissue. Since the bone ingrowth slots 27 of the present invention are directly facing the vertebrae, they are not situated in a portion of the device that must bear high loads. Instead, the truncated side walls 22 will bear most of the load passing between the vertebral end plates through the interrupted threads 18 and across the intra-discal space.
In a further feature, the anterior end 12 of the body wall 16 can define a pair of diametrically opposed notches 29, which are configured to engage an implant driver tool as described herein. Moreover, the end wall 17 at the posterior end 13 of the implant can be provided with a tool engagement feature (not shown). For example, a hex recess can be provided to accommodate a hex driver tool, as described further herein.
In one important feature of the interbody fusion device of the present invention, the body 11 includes a tapered or conical form. In other words, the outer diameter of the device at its anterior end 12 is larger than the outer diameter at the posterior end 13. As depicted in FIG. 3, the body wall 16 tapers at an angle A about the centerline CL of the device 10. The taper of the body wall 16 is adapted to restore the normal relative angle between adjacent vertebrae. For example, in the lumbar region, the angle A is adapted to restore the normal lordotic angle and curvature of the spine in that region. In one specific example, the angle A is 8.794�. It is understood that the implant may have non-tapered portions, provided that the portions do not otherwise interfere with the function of the tapered body.
The taper angle A of the implant, coupled with the outer diameter at the anterior and posterior ends of the fusion device 10, define the amount of angular spreading that will occur between the adjacent vertebrae as the implant is placed or screwed into position. This feature is depicted more clearly in FIGS. 6 and 7 in which a preferred construct employing a pair of fusion devices 10 is shown. In the depicted construct, the devices 10 are disposed between the lower lumbar vertebrae L4 and L5, with the threads 18 and 19 threaded into the end plates E of the two vertebrae. As shown in FIG. 7, as the device 10 is threaded into the end plates E, it advances in the direction of the arrow I toward the pivot axis P of the vertebral level. The pivot axis P is nominally the center of relative rotation between the adjacent vertebrae of the motion segment. As the tapered fusion device 10 is driven further in the direction of the arrow I toward the pivot axis P, the adjacent vertebrae L4 and L5 are angularly spread in the direction of the arrows S. Depth of insertion of the fusion device 10 will determine the ultimate lordotic angle L achieved between the two vertebrae.
In specific embodiments of the implant 10, the outer diameter or thread crest diameter at the anterior end 12 can be 16, 18 or 20 mm, and the overall length of the device 26 mm. The sizing of the device is driven by the vertebral level into which the device is implanted and the amount of angle that must be developed.
In another aspect of the invention, device 10 is sized so that two such cylindrical bodies 11 can be implanted into a single disc space, as shown in FIG. 6. This permits the placement of additional bone graft material between and around the devices 10 in situ. This aspect further promotes fusion across the intra-discal space and also serves to more firmly anchor the devices between the adjacent vertebrae to prevent expulsion due to the high axial loads at the particular vertebral level.
In one specific embodiment of the interbody fusion device 10, the vascularization opening 24 is generally rectangular in shape having dimensions of 6.0 mm (0.236 in) by 7.0 mm (0.276 in). Similarly, the vascularization opening 25 is rectangular with dimensions of 4.0 mm (0.157 in) by 5.0 mm (0197 in). Naturally, this opening is smaller because it is disposed at the smaller posterior end 13 of the device 10. The bone ingrowth slots 27 are also rectangular in shape with a long dimension of 20.0 mm (0.787 in) and a width of 6.0 mm (0.236 in). It has been found that these dimensions of the vascularization openings 24, 25 and slots 27 provide optimum bone ingrowth and vascularization. In addition, these openings are not so large that they compromise the structural integrity of the device or that they permit the bone graft material contained within the hollow interior 15 to he easily expelled during implantation.
As can be seen in FIG. 7, when the device is in position between the L4 and L5 vertebrae, the vascularization openings 24 and 25 are side facing to contact the highly vascularized tissue surrounding the vertebrae. In addition, as can be seen in FIG. 6, the bone ingrowth slots 27 are axially directed so that they contact the vertebral end plates E.
In an alternative embodiment of the invention, shown in FIG. 8, an interbody fusion device 30 is formed of a conical body 31. The body wall 34 defines a hollow interior 33 as with the fusion device 10 of the previous embodiment. However, in this embodiment the truncated side wall 38 does not include any vascularization openings. Moreover, the bone ingrowth slots 39 on opposite sides of the device 30 are smaller. This means that the interrupted threads 36 on the exterior of the device 30 extend a greater length around the implant. Such a design could be utilized if a porous material (e.g., porous tantalum) were used to provide additional surface area for tissue ingrowth and anchorage to the adjacent bone. Also, this interbody fusion device 30 of the embodiment shown in FIG. 8 can have application at certain vertebral levels where the risk of expulsion of the device is greatest. Consequently, the amount of thread contact is increased to prevent such expulsion. Prior to insertion, the hollow interior 15 of the fusion device 10 is filled completely with bone or substitute to facilitate this pre-loading.
In a further embodiment using a porous material, the interbody fusion device 110 of FIG. 8A retains the tapered configuration of the previous embodiments, but is solid instead of hollow. The device 110 comprises a tapered body 111 having an larger outer diameter at its anterior end 112 than at its posterior end 113. The entire body 111 is solid leaving a closed surface, such as surface 115, at both ends of the implant. The device includes the interrupted threads 118, starter threads 119 and truncated side walls 122 of the prior embodiments. A driving tool slot 129 can also be defined in the end surface 115. Alternatively, the starter threads 119 can be eliminated leaving an unthreaded cylindrical portion at the posterior end of the implant. Similarly, the driving tool slot 129 take on many configurations depending upon the design of the tool used to insert the device 110 into the intradiscal space.
The benefits of the embodiment of the fusion device shown in FIG. 8A are especially appreciated by the use of a porous, high strength material to form the solid body 111. In the preferred embodiment, this material is a porous tantalum-carbon composite marketed by Implex Corp. under the tradename HEDROCEL� and described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,282,861 to Kaplan, which description is incorporated herein by reference. Due to the nature of the HEDROCEL� material, the entire exterior surface of the solid body 111 includes pores 130 that are interconnected throughout the body. The substrate of the HEDROCEL� carbon-tantalum composite is a skeleton of vitreous carbon, or a reticulated open cell carbon foam, which defines a network of interconnecting pores. The substrate is infiltrated with a thin film of tantalum.
HEDROCEL� is preferred because it provides the advantages of both metal and ceramic implants without the corresponding disadvantages. HEDROCEL is well suited for the interbody fusion device of the present invention because it mimics the structure of bone and has a modulus of elasticity that approximates that of human bone. The interconnected porosity encourages bone ingrowth and eliminates dead ends which limit vascular support for the bone. The infiltrated metal film provides strength and stiffness without significant weight increase. A HEDROCEL� implant is sufficiently strong to maintain the intervertebral space and normal curvature of the spine at the instrumented motion segment. At the same time, stress shielding is avoided. This composite material is also advantageous because it eliminates the need for allografts or autografts.
One additional advantage of this material is that it does not undergo resorption. This prevents early degradation which can inhibit bone regeneration. A non-resorbable implant is also beneficial where complete bone ingrowth cannot be achieved. Disadvantages of permanent, nonresorbable implants, however, are avoided because of the biocompatibility and osteoconductivity of the composite.
While HEDROCEL� is preferred, it is contemplated that any suitable high strength porous material may be used. Other open-celled substrates and metals are contemplated. For example, the substrate may be other carbonaceous materials, such as graphite, or ceramics, such as tricalcium phosphate or calcium aluminate. Any suitable metal is contemplated, but Group VB elements, such as tantalum and niobium, and their alloys, are preferred. Tantalum is particularly preferred for its good mechanical properties and biocompatibility.
The interbody fusion device 10 can be implanted using an implant driver 50, shown in FIG. 9, according to one aspect of the invention. The implant driver 50 is comprised of a shaft 51 and sleeve 52 concentrically disposed about the shaft. Tongs 54 are formed at one end of the shaft for gripping the interbody fusion device 10 for implantation. The tongs include a tapered outer surface 55 and an opposite flat inner surface 56 adapted to engage the truncated side walls 22 of the interbody fusion device. The tapered outer surface 55 conforms to the root diameter of the interrupted threads 18 so that the tongs 54 essentially complete the full cylindrical shape of the body wall 16. The adaptation of the tong's tapered outer surface 55 facilitates screw insertion of the interbody fusion device 10 since the outer surface 55 will ride within the tapped bore in the vertebral endplates.
Each of the tongs is provided with interlocking fingers 58 and a driving projection 59 extending from the inner surface 56. The function of these components is shown more clearly with reference to FIG. 11. Referring first to FIG. 9, the shaft 51 defines a hinge slot 62 supporting each of the pair of tongs 54. The hinge slot 62 is configured so that the tongs will have a naturally biased position spread sufficiently apart to accept the tapered interbody fusion device 10 therebetween. The shaft 51 defines a conical taper 63 between the hinged slot 62 and each of the tongs 54. This conical taper mates with a conical chamfer 67 defined on the inner wall of the sleeve 52. Thus, as the sleeve 52 is advanced toward the tongs 54, the conical chamfer 67 rides against the conical taper 63 to close or compress the hinge slot 62. In this manner, the tongs 54 are pushed toward each other and pressed into gripping engagement with the interbody fusion device situated between the tongs.
The shaft 51 and sleeve 52 are provided with a threaded interface 65 which permits the sleeve 52 to be threaded up and down the length the shaft. Specifically, the threaded interface 65 includes external threads on the shaft 51 and internal threads on the sleeve 52 having the same pitch so that the sleeve can be readily moved up and down the implant driver 50. The shaft 51 is also provided with a pair of stops 69 which restrict the backward movement of the sleeve 52 to only the extent necessary to allow the tongs 54 to separate a sufficient distance to accept the interbody fusion device 10.
The use of the implant driver 50 is shown with reference to FIGS. 10 and 11. As can be seen in FIG. 10, the outer surface 55 of the tongs 54 reside generally flush with the root diameter of the interrupted threads 18. As seen in FIG. 11, the interlocking fingers 58 can be arranged to fit within the vascularization opening 24 on each of the truncated side walls 22. In a similar fashion, the driving projections 59 engage the driving tool slots 29 at the anterior end 12 of the conical body 11. The combination of the interlocking fingers 58 and driving projections 59 firmly engage the interbody fusion device 10 so that the device can be screw threaded into a tapped or untapped opening in the vertebral bone.
An alternative embodiment of the implant driver is shown in FIG. 12. The driver 90 includes a shaft 91, having a length sufficient to reach into the intradiscal space from outside the patient. Connected to the end of shaft 91 is a head which defines a pair of opposite tongs 93, each of which are configured for flush contact with the flat truncated side walls 22 of the fusion device 10. Like the tongs 54 of the previously described implant driver 50, the outer surface of the tongs is cylindrical to correspond to the cylindrical threaded portion of the device.
Unlike the implant driver 50, the driver 90 of the embodiment in FIG. 12 uses an expanding collet assembly to firmly grip the fusion device 10 for insertion into the body. Specifically, the head 92 defines a collet 94 having a central collet bore 95 formed therethrough. The collet 94 terminates in an annular flange 96 that at least initially has a diameter slightly smaller than the inner diameter of the fusion device 10 at its end 12. An expander shaft 97 slidably extends through the collet bore and includes a flared tip 98 situated adjacent and extending just beyond the annular flange 96. The flared tip 98 of the expander shaft 97 starts at a diameter sized to slide within the collet bore 95 and gradually flares to a diameter larger than the bore.
The implant driver 90 includes a puller shaft 99 slidably disposed within a bore 100 defined in the shaft 91. The puller shaft 99 has a locking chamber 101 at its end which engages a locking hub 102 formed at the end of the expander shaft 97. The puller shaft 99 projects beyond the end of shaft 91 for access by the surgeon. When the puller shaft 99 is pulled, it pulls the expander shaft 97 away from the annular flange 96 of the collet 94 so that the flared tip 98 becomes progressively engaged within the collet bore 95. As the tip 98 advances further into the bore 95, the annular flange 96 expands from its initial diameter to a larger second diameter sufficient for firm gripping contact with the interior of the fusion device 10. With the fusion device so engaged, the implant driver can be used to insert the device 10 into the surgical site, after which the expander shaft can be advanced beyond the collet bore to release the flared tip and, consequently, the fusion device.
In accordance with the present invention, two methods for implanting the interbody fusion device 10 are contemplated. First, with reference to FIGS. 12(a)-12(d), an anterior approach is shown. As a preliminary step, it is necessary to locate appropriate starting points for implanting the fusion device, preferably bilaterally. In the first step of the anterior approach, a dilator 75 is disposed between the vertebral end plates E to dilate the disc space between the L4 and L5 vertebrae. (It is understood, of course, that this procedure can be applied at other vertebral levels). In the second step, shown in FIG. 12(b), an outer sleeve 76 is disposed about the disc space. The outer sleeve 76 can be of a known design that is configured to positively engage the anterior aspect of the vertebral bodies to firmly, but temporarily, anchor the outer sleeve 76 in position. In essence, this outer sleeve 76 operates as a working channel for this laproscopic-type approach. In this step of FIG. 12(b), a drill 77 of known design is extended through the outer sleeve and used to drill out circular openings in the adjacent vertebral bodies. The openings can be tapped to facilitate screw insertion of the fusion device, although this step is not necessary.
In the next step shown in FIG. 12(c), the fusion device 10 is engaged by the implant driver 50 and extended through the outer sleeve 76 until the starter thread 19 contacts the bone opening. The implant driver 50 can then be used to screw thread the fusion device into the tapped or untapped opening formed in the vertebral end plate E. It is understood that in this step, other suitable driving tools could be used, such as a screw driver type device to engage the driving tool slots 29 at the anterior end 12 of the device 10. As discussed previously, the degree of insertion of the fusion device 10 determines the amount of lordosis added or restored to the vertebral level. In the final step, the implant driver is removed leaving the fusion device 10 in position. It can be seen that once implanted, the closed end wall 17 is directed toward the posterior aspect of the vertebrae. The hollow interior 15 is open at its anterior end, but can be closed by a plastic or metal material, if necessary.
In a second inventive method, as depicted in FIGS. 13(a)-13(d), a posterior approach is implemented. The first two steps of the posterior approach are similar to that of the prior anterior approach, except that the dilator 75, outer sleeve 76 and drill 77 are introduced posteriorly into the instrumented region. This approach may require decortication and removal of vertebral bone to accept the outer sleeve 76. In the third step of this method, the fusion device 10 is inserted through the outer sleeve 76 into the dilated disc space. It is understood that the disc space is dilated only to the extent necessary to receive the implant with the truncated side walls 22 directly facing the vertebral end plates E. Thus, as shown in FIG. 13(c), the bone ingrowth slot 27 is facing laterally, rather than coronally, as expected for its final implanted position. A suitable driving tool 80 can be provided to project the fusion device 10 through the outer sleeve 76 and into the intra-discal space. In one embodiment, the driving tool 80 includes a projection 81 which is configured to engage a slot opening formed in the end wall 17 at the posterior end 13 of the fusion device 10. An internal thread (not shown) can be used to fix the device 10 to the driver 80.
Once the fusion device 10 has been advanced into the intra-discal space to the appropriate depth relative to the pivot axis P of the vertebrae, the driving tool 80 is used to rotate the implant in the direction of the rotational arrow R in FIG. 13(c). As the driving tool 80 is rotated, the device itself rotates so that the interrupted threads 18 start cutting into the vertebral bone at the end plates E. In this manner, the implant operates as a cam to separate the adjacent vertebrae in the direction of the spreading direction arrows S in FIG. 13(C). This camming approach provides a somewhat easier insertion procedure in that a single rotation is required to lock the implant into the vertebral bone. In contrast, the formerly discussed screw insertion technique requires continuous threading of the device into position.
With either technique, the position of the fusion device 10 with respect to the adjacent vertebrae can be verified by radiograph or other suitable techniques for establishing the angular relationship between the vertebrae. Alternatively, the preferred depth of insertion of the implant can be determined in advance and measured from outside the patient as the implant is positioned between the vertebrae.
It can be seen that the interbody fusion device 10, implant driver 50 and techniques of the present invention provide significant advantages over the prior devices and techniques. Specifically, the fusion device 10 provides a hollow threaded implant that maximizes the potential for bony fusion between adjacent vertebrae, while maintaining the integrity of the implant itself. It is understood that the spine endures significant loads along its axial length, which loads must be supported by the fusion device 10 at least until solid fusion is achieved. The device 10 also provides means for vascularization and tissue ingrowth to occur which speeds up the fusion rate and enhances the strength of the resulting fused bony mass. Another significant aspect is that the tapered shape of the implant allows the surgeon to restore and maintain the proper curvature or relative angle between vertebral bodies. This avoids the significant problems associated with prior devices in which product deformities arise and the spine goes out of balance. A further advantage achieved by the device and its implant driver is the capability for insertion either anteriorly or posteriorly using a laproscopic approach. Depending upon the vertebral level, either approach may be preferred, so it is important that the implant be adapted for insertion from either direction. Controlled insertion of the device is provided by the screw-in technique used for anterior insertion (vs. pounding in) and for the slide-in and cam method used for the posterior technique.
While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description, the same is to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive in character, it being understood that only the preferred embodiment has been shown and described and that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit of the invention are desired to be protected. For example, while the device 10 has been disclosed for use in the spine, the structure and procedures of the present invention can also be used in other joint spaces, such as the ankle, wrist and subtalar joints. Moreover, while the device 10 of the preferred embodiment is shown tapered along its entire length, it is contemplated that a non-tapered or reverse tapered section can be added with the resulting device still falling within the scope of the invention.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|May 22, 1967
|Dec 30, 1969
|Gordon M Morrison
|Orthopedic surgical instrument
|Jun 14, 1972
|Nov 19, 1974
|G Ma
|Method for interbody fusion of the spine
|Nov 13, 1980
|Jan 12, 1982
|Patil Arun A
|Artificial intervertebral disc
|Jun 16, 1980
|Sep 21, 1982
|Kuntz J David
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Feb 21, 1984
|Feb 26, 1985
|Washington State University Research Foundation, Inc.
|Process for fusing bone joints
|Sep 3, 1982
|Oct 8, 1985
|Jacobson Robert E
|Method and instruments for performing a percutaneous lumbar diskectomy
|Oct 5, 1983
|Mar 4, 1986
|Pilling Co.
|Method for decompressing herniated intervertebral discs
|Jun 7, 1985
|Jul 8, 1986
|Doty James R
|Spine stabilization device and method
|Feb 26, 1987
|Dec 22, 1987
|Pfizer Hospital Products Group, Inc.
|Spinal implant
|May 2, 1985
|Apr 12, 1988
|Matej Lipovsek
|Instrument kit and procedure for performing posterior lumbar interbody fusion
|Jan 22, 1987
|May 10, 1988
|Brantigan John W
|Surgical prosthetic implant facilitating vertebral interbody fusion and method
|Sep 9, 1987
|Jul 26, 1988
|Humboldt-Universitaet Zu Berlin
|Intervertebral disc endoprosthesis
|Aug 20, 1987
|Sep 20, 1988
|Cedar Surgical, Inc.
|Prosthetic disc and method of implanting
|Oct 30, 1987
|Apr 11, 1989
|Harms Juergen
|Place holder, in particular for a vertebra body
|Mar 28, 1988
|May 30, 1989
|Brantigan John W
|Prosthetic implant
|Aug 28, 1987
|Sep 5, 1989
|Shepperd John A N
|Spinal implant
|May 24, 1988
|Oct 31, 1989
|Vich Jose M O
|Apparatus for bone graft
|Jan 4, 1989
|Nov 7, 1989
|Brantigan John W
|Surgical prosthetic implant facilitating vertebral interbody fusion
|Jul 14, 1988
|Jan 9, 1990
|Ohio Medical Instrument Company, Inc.
|Vertebral lock
|Aug 4, 1988
|Feb 27, 1990
|A. W. Showell (Surgicraft) Limited
|Spinal implants
|Jun 8, 1988
|Apr 17, 1990
|Sulzer Brothers Limited
|Intervertebral prosthesis
|Oct 16, 1989
|Jun 12, 1990
|Vanderbilt University
|Vertebral prosthesis
|Sep 22, 1989
|Jun 26, 1990
|Bagby George W
|Implant for vertebrae
|Oct 17, 1988
|Oct 9, 1990
|Surgical Dynamics, Inc.
|V-thread fusion cage and method of fusing a bone joint
|Jun 6, 1989
|Mar 26, 1991
|Mecron Medizinische Produkte Gmbh
|Intervertebral disk endoprosthesis
|Jun 13, 1988
|May 14, 1991
|Michelson Gary K
|Threaded spinal implant
|Nov 6, 1989
|Oct 8, 1991
|Surgical Dynamics, Inc.
|Surgically implanting threaded fusion cages between adjacent low-back vertebrae by an anterior approach
|Jan 16, 1990
|Nov 5, 1991
|University Of Florida
|Axially-fixed vertebral body prosthesis and method of fixation
|Nov 21, 1990
|Dec 10, 1991
|Acromed Corporation
|Artificial disc
|Oct 24, 1990
|Sep 15, 1992
|Downey Ernest L
|Vertebra prosthesis
|Mar 22, 1991
|Mar 9, 1993
|Brantigan John W
|Surgical prosthetic implant for vertebrae
|Jan 10, 1992
|May 4, 1993
|Collagen Corporation
|Method for improving implant fixation
|Oct 10, 1991
|Aug 17, 1993
|Midas Rex Pneumatic Tools, Inc.
|Vertebral body prosthesis
|May 23, 1990
|Nov 2, 1993
|Collagen Corporation
|Method for improving implant fixation
|Mar 11, 1992
|Feb 1, 1994
|Open cell tantalum structures for cancellous bone implants and cell and tissue receptors
|Sep 3, 1991
|Mar 1, 1994
|Artificial vertebral body
|Jul 22, 1991
|Apr 26, 1994
|Calcitek, Inc.
|Spinal disk implant
|May 4, 1992
|Apr 26, 1994
|Calcitek, Inc.
|Spinal disk implant and implantation kit
|Aug 27, 1992
|Apr 26, 1994
|Man Ceramics Gmbh
|Vertebral prosthesis
|Sep 29, 1992
|Sep 20, 1994
|Smith & Nephew Richards Inc.
|Osteoinductive bone screw
|Jul 29, 1993
|Nov 1, 1994
|Lin Chih I
|Intervertebral locking device
|Oct 12, 1993
|Mar 14, 1995
|Danek Medical, Inc.
|Anterior interbody fusion device
|Feb 16, 1993
|Apr 11, 1995
|Hednerson; Fraser C.
|Fusion stabilization chamber
|Jul 29, 1993
|Jun 13, 1995
|Lin; Chih I.
|Intervertebral locking device
|Nov 25, 1994
|Jun 13, 1995
|Lin; Chih-I
|Intervertebral fusing device
|Sep 20, 1993
|Jun 20, 1995
|Brantigan; John W.
|Prosthetic implant for intervertebral spinal fusion
|Mar 9, 1993
|Aug 8, 1995
|Shapiro Partners Limited
|Method and instruments for performing arthroscopic spinal surgery
|Oct 1, 1993
|Aug 22, 1995
|Acromed Corporation
|Method for using spinal implants
|Jan 26, 1994
|Aug 22, 1995
|Implex Corporation
|Vertebral body prosthetic implant with slidably positionable stabilizing member
|Nov 6, 1992
|Oct 17, 1995
|Spine-Tech, Inc.
|Non-threaded spinal implant
|Jun 10, 1993
|Jan 16, 1996
|Michelson; Gary K.
|Apparatus and method of inserting spinal implants
|Sep 1, 1994
|Feb 6, 1996
|Spine-Tech, Inc.
|Spinal stabilization surgical method
|Sep 1, 1994
|Feb 6, 1996
|Spine-Tech, Inc.
|Spinal implant
|Jun 7, 1995
|Apr 9, 1996
|Michelson; Gary K.
|Apparatus and method of inserting spinal implants
|Dec 9, 1993
|Apr 16, 1996
|Osteotech, Inc.
|Shaped materials derived from elongate bone particles
|Jan 14, 1994
|May 7, 1996
|Heggeness; Michael H.
|Prosthetic intervertebral devices
|Oct 17, 1994
|Oct 8, 1996
|Raymedica, Inc.
|Method for surgical implantation of a prosthetic spinal disc nucleus
|Mar 15, 1995
|Jan 7, 1997
|Kuslich; Stephen D.
|Spinal fixation device
|Feb 17, 1995
|Jan 14, 1997
|Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.
|Interbody spinal fusion implants
|Jun 7, 1995
|Feb 11, 1997
|Pisharodi; Madhavan
|Apparatus for spondylolisthesis reduction
|Jun 7, 1995
|Mar 11, 1997
|Michelson; Gary K.
|Lordotic interbody spinal fusion implants
|Jan 11, 1996
|Mar 11, 1997
|Spine-Tech, Inc.
|Spinal implant
|Apr 15, 1996
|Jul 8, 1997
|Smith & Nephew, Inc.
|Spinal fusion device with porous material
|Oct 27, 1995
|Aug 19, 1997
|Jbs S.A.
|Rehabitable connecting-screw device for a bone joint, intended in particular for stabilizing at least two vertebrae
|Mar 30, 1995
|Sep 23, 1997
|Danek Medical, Inc.
|Interbody fusion device and method for restoration of normal spinal anatomy
|Sep 29, 1995
|Nov 4, 1997
|Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
|Fusion mass constrainer
|Jul 27, 1994
|Nov 4, 1997
|Advanced Technical Fabrication
|Intersomatic vertebral column implant
|Jan 24, 1995
|Jun 16, 1998
|Osteonics Corp.
|Interbody spinal prosthetic implant and method
|Jan 16, 1996
|Jun 16, 1998
|Surgical Dynamics, Inc.
|Spinal fusion device
|Oct 30, 1996
|Jan 19, 1999
|Michelson; Gary Karlin
|Translateral spinal implant
|Sep 5, 1997
|Mar 30, 1999
|Synthesis (U.S.A.)
|Implant for intervertebral space
|Jan 15, 1997
|May 25, 1999
|Surgical Dynamics, Inc.
|Conically shaped anterior fusion cage and method of implantation
|Jun 3, 1994
|Dec 31, 1996
|Sofamor Danek Properties, Inc.
|Interbody spinal implant
|Jun 3, 1994
|Dec 31, 1996
|Sofamor Danek Properties, Inc.
|Interbody spinal implant
|Feb 18, 1985
|Jun 5, 1986
|Jose Manuel Otero Dr Vich
|Screw-type surgical implant for cervical bones
|Oct 4, 1982
|Apr 20, 1983
|Brian Norman Atkins
|Vertebrae spreader
|Sep 25, 1985
|Apr 30, 1986
|Pierre Kehr
|Vertebral prosthesis, in particular for cervical vertebrae
|Jul 8, 1994
|Jan 25, 1995
|ESKA Implants GmbH & Co.
|Dowel for fusing vertebral bodies
|Aug 1, 1994
|Feb 8, 1995
|ADVANCED TECHNICAL FABRICATION (Soci�t� Anonyme)
|Interbody implant for the spine
|Oct 4, 1994
|Apr 5, 1995
|Acromed Corporation
|Spinal implant
|Title not available
|May 14, 1987
|Dec 30, 1987
|S + G Implants Gmbh
|Implant for securing two adjacent vertebrae
|Jun 28, 1989
|Jan 11, 1990
|Michelson Gary K
|Artificial spinal fusion implants
|Sep 18, 1990
|May 16, 1991
|Surgical Dynamics, Inc.
|Surgical method and apparatus for fusing adjacent bone structures
|Feb 21, 1992
|Sep 3, 1992
|Pisharodi Madhavan
|Middle expandable intervertebral disk implant and method
|Nov 16, 1993
|May 26, 1994
|Kaali Steven G
|Visually directed trocar and method
|Sep 20, 1994
|Mar 30, 1995
|Synthes Ag, Chur
|Implant for the intervertebral space
|Dec 2, 1994
|Jun 8, 1995
|Calcitek, Inc.
|Spinal disk implant and kit
|Jan 23, 1996
|Aug 1, 1996
|Stryker Corporation
|Interbody cavity type implant, and instrumentation and method for positioning same
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Aug 3, 2001
|Dec 2, 2003
|Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
|Artificial intervertebral disc
|Sep 30, 2002
|Mar 30, 2004
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Laminoplasty cage
|Feb 12, 2003
|May 4, 2004
|Frank H. Boehm, Jr.
|Device and method for lumbar interbody fusion
|Jul 8, 2003
|Dec 27, 2005
|Ricardo Sasso
|Instrumentation and method for performing image-guided spinal surgery using an anterior surgical approach
|Jan 22, 2004
|Feb 14, 2006
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Method for implanting a laminoplasty
|Sep 26, 2003
|Oct 31, 2006
|Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
|Artificial intervertebral disc
|May 18, 2001
|Nov 6, 2007
|Ldr Medical
|Intersomatic cage with unified grafts
|May 3, 2002
|Feb 5, 2008
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis and fitting tools
|Apr 4, 2005
|Feb 24, 2009
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Jul 8, 2005
|Apr 14, 2009
|Orthopedic Development Corporation
|Implant device used in minimally invasive facet joint hemi-arthroplasty
|Jul 12, 2002
|Sep 29, 2009
|Ldr Medical
|Vertebral cage device with modular fixation
|Jul 13, 2005
|Dec 15, 2009
|Ldr Medical
|Instrumentation and methods for inserting an intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Sep 30, 2003
|Feb 2, 2010
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Vertebral fusion device and method for using same
|May 4, 2004
|Mar 16, 2010
|Biopro, Inc.
|Subtalar implant
|Oct 31, 2003
|Mar 23, 2010
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Jul 15, 2003
|Apr 13, 2010
|Spinal Generations, Llc
|Spinal disc prosthesis system
|Apr 18, 2005
|Apr 13, 2010
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Sep 22, 2005
|May 4, 2010
|Minsurg International, Inc.
|Spinal plug for a minimally invasive facet joint fusion system
|Jan 23, 2007
|Jul 6, 2010
|Zimmer Trabecular Metal Technology, Inc.
|Prosthetic disc and vertebral body replacement device having pyrolytic carbon bearing members
|Sep 14, 2004
|Sep 21, 2010
|Aeolin, Llc
|System and method for spinal fusion
|Jan 16, 2007
|Nov 2, 2010
|Perez-Cruet Miquelangelo J
|Minimally invasive interbody device
|Mar 30, 2004
|Nov 23, 2010
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Devices and methods for facilitating controlled bone growth or repair
|Jan 27, 2006
|Nov 30, 2010
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Oct 31, 2007
|Dec 7, 2010
|Perez-Cruet Miguelangelo J
|Minimally invasive interbody device assembly
|Mar 23, 2005
|Aug 23, 2011
|Isoflux, Inc.
|Radiopaque coating for biomedical devices
|Sep 25, 2008
|Sep 20, 2011
|Minsurg International, Inc.
|Methods and surgical kits for minimally-invasive facet joint fusion
|Mar 6, 2008
|Oct 25, 2011
|MoiRai Orthopaedic, LLC
|Cartilage implants
|Jul 30, 2008
|Dec 20, 2011
|Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.
|Device and method for lumbar interbody fusion
|Dec 19, 2008
|Mar 13, 2012
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Methods and devices for expanding a spinal canal
|Sep 27, 2006
|Mar 27, 2012
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Devices and methods for facilitating controlled bone growth or repair
|Apr 17, 2007
|Apr 3, 2012
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Instrumentation kit for delivering viscous bone filler material
|Oct 13, 2008
|Apr 3, 2012
|Globus Medical, Inc.
|Intervertebral spacer
|Jul 10, 2006
|May 29, 2012
|Mcluen Design, Inc.
|Bone fusion device
|Feb 28, 2011
|Jul 24, 2012
|Zimmer Spine S.A.S.
|Method of implanting intervertebral disk prosthesis
|Feb 15, 2007
|Aug 14, 2012
|Ldr Medical
|Transforaminal intersomatic cage for an intervertebral fusion graft and an instrument for implanting the cage
|Jan 26, 2009
|Sep 4, 2012
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Apr 15, 2009
|Sep 18, 2012
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Mar 11, 2010
|Dec 25, 2012
|Spinal Generations, Llc
|Spinal disc prosthesis system
|Jun 6, 2008
|Jan 1, 2013
|Ldr Medical
|Intersomatic cage, intervertebral prosthesis, anchoring device and implantation instruments
|Mar 17, 2006
|Apr 2, 2013
|Ldr Medical
|Transforaminal intersomatic cage for an intervertebral fusion graft and an instrument for implanting the cage
|May 5, 2009
|May 14, 2013
|Ldr Medical
|Instrumentation and methods for inserting an intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Feb 10, 2012
|May 28, 2013
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Methods and devices for expanding a spinal canal
|Feb 16, 2007
|Jun 18, 2013
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis insertion assemblies
|May 22, 2007
|Jul 9, 2013
|Zimmer Spine, Inc.
|Spinal implant system and method
|Mar 5, 2012
|Sep 3, 2013
|Depuy Synthes Products Llc
|Devices and methods for facilitating controlled bone growth or repair
|Jul 16, 2010
|Oct 22, 2013
|Aeolin Llc
|System and method for spinal fusion
|Jan 20, 2012
|Nov 26, 2013
|Moirai Orthopedics, Llc
|Methods of use of cartilage implants
|May 29, 2012
|Dec 3, 2013
|Neuropro Technologies, Inc.
|Bone fusion device
|Feb 5, 2009
|Dec 10, 2013
|Showa Ika Kohgyo Co., Ltd.
|Oct 12, 2010
|Dec 31, 2013
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Devices and methods for facilitating controlled bone growth or repair
|Jun 22, 2007
|Jan 7, 2014
|Ldr Medical
|Intersomatic cage with unified grafts
|Apr 6, 2012
|Mar 25, 2014
|5K Ip-1 Llc
|Interbody cage for spinal fusion and method of implanting interbody cages into spines
|Feb 4, 2005
|Oct 14, 2014
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Apr 13, 2012
|Nov 4, 2014
|Moirai Orthopaedics, Llc
|Articular cartilage implants
|Apr 13, 2012
|Nov 4, 2014
|Moirai Orthopaedics, Llc
|Methods of articular cartilage implants
|Jun 28, 2005
|Nov 25, 2014
|Isoflux, Inc.
|Porous coatings for biomedical implants
|Jul 30, 2013
|Dec 9, 2014
|DePuy Synthes Products, LLC
|Devices and methods for facilitating controlled bone growth or repair
|Jun 3, 2010
|Feb 10, 2015
|Nauronano AB
|Microelectrode and multiple microelectrodes
|Jan 28, 2014
|May 19, 2015
|5K Ip-1 Llc
|Interbody cage for spinal fusion and method of implanting interbody cages into spines
|Feb 22, 2013
|May 26, 2015
|Ldr Medical
|Anchoring device and system for an intervertebral implant, intervertebral implant and implantation instrument
|Jun 29, 2012
|Jun 2, 2015
|Ldr Medical
|Anchoring device and system for an intervertebral implant, intervertebral implant and implantation instrument
|Feb 28, 2012
|Sep 22, 2015
|Globus Medical, Inc.
|Intervertebral spacer
|Apr 9, 2015
|Oct 13, 2015
|5K Ip-1, Llc
|Interbody cage for spinal fusion and method of implanting interbody cages into spines
|Oct 30, 2013
|Nov 17, 2015
|Neuropro Technologies, Inc.
|Bone fusion device
|Apr 23, 2015
|Dec 22, 2015
|Pinnacle Spine Group, Llc
|Intervertebral implants and related tools
|Aug 27, 2013
|Feb 16, 2016
|Globus Medical, Inc.
|Articulating spacer
|Feb 24, 2006
|Feb 23, 2016
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis and instrumentation for insertion of the prosthesis between the vertebrae
|Mar 13, 2012
|Mar 8, 2016
|DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.
|Instrumentation kit for delivering viscous bone filler material
|Feb 4, 2008
|May 10, 2016
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis, surgical methods, and fitting tools
|Aug 9, 2012
|Jun 7, 2016
|Neuropro Spinal Jaxx, Inc.
|Bone fusion device, apparatus and method
|Nov 1, 2012
|Jul 5, 2016
|Pinnacle Spine Group, Llc
|Retractor devices for minimally invasive access to the spine
|Aug 31, 2011
|Jul 5, 2016
|DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.
|Devices and methods for cervical lateral fixation
|Jan 12, 2015
|Oct 11, 2016
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral implant having extendable bone fixation members
|Jun 29, 2007
|Dec 27, 2016
|Neuropro Technologies, Inc.
|Percutaneous system for dynamic spinal stabilization
|Mar 15, 2013
|Jan 3, 2017
|Neuropro Technologies, Inc.
|Bone fusion device
|Jul 11, 2014
|Jan 3, 2017
|Neuronano Ab
|Microelectrode and multiple microelectrodes
|Aug 14, 2012
|Apr 4, 2017
|Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
|Wedge shaped fracture fixation devices and methods for using the same
|Apr 23, 2015
|May 16, 2017
|Pinnacle Spine Group, Llc
|Methods of post-filling an intervertebral implant
|May 23, 2016
|Jun 13, 2017
|Samy Abdou
|Devices and methods for minimally invasive spinal stabilization and instrumentation
|Aug 31, 2011
|Aug 8, 2017
|DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.
|Devices and methods for cervical lateral fixation
|Apr 10, 2015
|Oct 10, 2017
|Globus Medical, Inc.
|Intervertebral spacer
|May 22, 2014
|Oct 17, 2017
|Nuvasive, Inc.
|Expandable fusion implant and related methods
|Dec 21, 2012
|Oct 17, 2017
|Pinnacle Spine Group, Llc
|Spinal implant
|Aug 11, 2014
|Oct 31, 2017
|Nuvasive, Inc.
|Lordotic expandable interbody implant
|Mar 15, 2002
|Sep 18, 2003
|Rodgers Murray Steven
|Self-shadowing MEM structures
|Mar 11, 2003
|Dec 18, 2003
|Landry Michael E.
|Instrumentation and procedure for implanting spinal implant devices
|Jul 8, 2003
|May 13, 2004
|Ricardo Sasso
|Instrumentation and method for performing image-guided spinal surgery using an anterior surgical approach
|Nov 1, 2002
|Jun 3, 2004
|Lieberson Robert E.
|Apparatus and method for creating a surgical channel
|Jan 22, 2004
|Aug 5, 2004
|Depuy Acromed, Inc.
|Laminoplasty cage
|Sep 26, 2003
|Sep 9, 2004
|Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
|Artificial intervertebral disc
|Jul 12, 2002
|Oct 7, 2004
|Christian Louis
|Vertebral cage device with modular fixation
|May 3, 2003
|Dec 2, 2004
|Jacques Beaurain
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis and fitting tools
|Jul 15, 2003
|Jan 20, 2005
|Spinal Generations
|Spinal disc prosthesis system
|Aug 27, 2003
|Mar 3, 2005
|Jackson Roger P.
|Threaded device for implantation between vertebrae
|Sep 30, 2003
|Mar 31, 2005
|Depuy Acromed, Inc.
|Vertebral fusion device and method for using same
|Jan 21, 2005
|Jul 28, 2005
|Glocker David A.
|Radiopaque coating for biomedical devices
|Mar 23, 2005
|Aug 25, 2005
|Glocker David A.
|Radiopaque coating for biomedical devices
|Mar 11, 2004
|Sep 15, 2005
|Boehm Frank H.Jr.
|Device and method for lumbar interbody fusion
|May 4, 2004
|Nov 10, 2005
|Biopro. Inc.
|Subtalar implant
|Jun 28, 2005
|Jan 5, 2006
|Glocker David A
|Porous coatings for biomedical implants
|Jul 13, 2005
|Jan 19, 2006
|Glocker David A
|Porous coatings on electrodes for biomedical implants
|Oct 13, 2005
|Feb 16, 2006
|Medtronic, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for temporarily immobilizing a local area of tissue
|Oct 7, 2005
|Feb 23, 2006
|Biopro, Inc.
|Subtalar implant
|Jul 8, 2005
|May 25, 2006
|Orthopedic Development Corporation
|Implant device used in minimally invasive facet joint hemi-arthroplasty
|Jul 8, 2005
|May 25, 2006
|Orthopedic Development Corporation
|Metallic prosthetic implant for use in minimally invasive acromio-clavicular shoulder joint hemi-arthroplasty
|Apr 18, 2005
|Jun 22, 2006
|Ldr Medical
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis
|Jul 10, 2006
|Nov 9, 2006
|Mcluen Design, Inc.
|Bone fusion device
|Jul 13, 2005
|Jan 18, 2007
|Ldr Medical
|Instrumentation and methods for inserting an intervertebral disc prosthesis
|May 18, 2006
|Feb 1, 2007
|Varner Signe E
|Insertion instrument for non-linear medical devices
|Jan 23, 2007
|May 24, 2007
|Zimmer Trabecular Metal Technology, Inc.
|Prosthetic disc and vertebral body replacement device having pyrolytic carbon bearing members
|Feb 24, 2006
|Jul 12, 2007
|Ralph Rashbaum
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis and instrumentation for insertion of the prosthesis between the vertebrae
|Feb 9, 2007
|Aug 9, 2007
|Isoflux, Inc.
|Formation of nanoscale surfaces for the atttachment of biological materials
|Mar 17, 2006
|Nov 22, 2007
|Reginald James Davis
|Transforaminal intersomatic cage for an intervertebral fusion graft and an instrument for implanting the cage
|Dec 18, 2007
|Jun 26, 2008
|Robert David Labrom
|Joint implant and a surgical method associated therewith
|Oct 18, 2006
|Jul 3, 2008
|Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.
|Intervertebral Implant with Porous Portions
|Jan 16, 2007
|Jul 17, 2008
|Mi4Spine, Llc
|Minimally Invasive Interbody Device
|Oct 31, 2007
|Jul 17, 2008
|Mi4Spine, Llc
|Minimally Invasive Interbody Device Assembly
|Feb 4, 2008
|Sep 25, 2008
|Jacques Beaurain
|Intervertebral disc prosthesis, surgical methods, and fitting tools
|Aug 5, 2008
|Dec 4, 2008
|Isoflux, Inc.
|Method for the formation of surfaces on the inside of medical devices
|Sep 25, 2008
|Mar 19, 2009
|Petersen David A
|Methods and surgical kits for minimally-invasive facet joint fusion
|Jan 23, 2008
|Jul 23, 2009
|Metcalf Jr Newton H
|Spinal implant having a resorbable anchor device for temporarily securing an interbody device to adjacent upper and lower vertebrae
|Feb 5, 2009
|Aug 13, 2009
|Showa Ika Kohgyo Co., Ltd.
|May 5, 2009
|Aug 27, 2009
|Ldr Medical
|Instrumentation and Methods for Inserting an Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis
|Feb 15, 2007
|Sep 3, 2009
|Reginald James Davis
|Transforaminal intersomatic cage for an intervertebral fusion graft and an instrument for implanting the cage
|Mar 6, 2008
|Sep 10, 2009
|Peter Strzepa
|Cartilage implants and methods of use
|Apr 17, 2007
|Jan 28, 2010
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Instrumentation kit for delivering viscous bone filler material
|Jul 9, 2007
|Feb 18, 2010
|Gorman James R
|Methods for preventing, postponing or improving the outcome of invasive spinal procedures
|Jul 9, 2007
|Feb 25, 2010
|Gorman James R
|Novel regimens for treating diseases and disorders
|Oct 13, 2008
|Apr 15, 2010
|Noah Hansell
|Intervertebral Spacer
|Dec 19, 2008
|Jun 24, 2010
|Depuy Spine, Inc.
|Methods and devices for expanding a spinal canal
|Mar 11, 2010
|Jul 1, 2010
|Spinal Generations, Llc
|Spinal disc prosthesis system
|Mar 8, 2010
|Sep 2, 2010
|Petersen David A
|Spinal plug for a minimally invasive joint fusion system
|Jul 16, 2010
|Nov 4, 2010
|Aeolin, Llc
|System and method for spinal fusion
|Feb 28, 2011
|Jun 30, 2011
|Karl Belliard
|Method of Implanting Intervertebral Disk Prosthesis
|May 29, 2012
|Nov 29, 2012
|Mcluen Gary R
|Bone fusion device
|Aug 14, 2012
|Aug 15, 2013
|Arnold-Peter C. Weiss
|Wedge shaped fracture fixation devices and methods for using the same
|Jul 26, 2010
|Jan 27, 2011
|Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.
|Implantable medical devices
|U.S. Classification
|623/17.16, 623/17.11
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|Jan 21, 2000
Owner name: SDGI HOLDINGS, INC., DELAWARE
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:DANEK MEDICAL, INC.;REEL/FRAME:010551/0082
Effective date: 19970626
Owner name: DANEK MEDICAL, INC., TENNESSEE
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:ZDEBLICK, THOMAS;RAY, EDDIE, III;BOYD, LAWRENCE M.;REEL/FRAME:010551/0088;SIGNING DATES FROM 19950303 TO 19950314
|Sep 27, 2005
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
|Sep 22, 2009
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
|Oct 23, 2013
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 12


text:
Founded in September 2000 and headquartered in Charlotte, NC, T Tech offers a full suite of electronic check processing, check guarantee and ACH services to financial institutions, merchant acquirers, merchant processors and their customers.
What began as a wholly-owned subsidiary of a leading financial institution has transformed into a leader in secure electronic payments technology. At T Tech, we have the right solutions designed to meet those demands. Our solutions process transactions for thousands of businesses, enabling them to streamline their processes and maximize their resources.
Recent News
- May 22, 2013
NACHA Study: Direct Payment via ACH is the Leading Consumer Bill Payment Method. Direct Payments for Bill Pay Exceed Both Credit Card and Mailed Payments. Read More
- Jan 24, 2013
NACHA's Council for Electronic Billing and Payment Issues Final Guidelines for Use of Quick Response (QR) Codes in Consumer Bill Payment. Read More


text:
We only wanted a light lunch, and we found the menu at Le Winch was ideal for our needs. I had a Salad Nordique, which was very copious, and my husband had Smoked Salmon. Even though the restaurant was very crowded, the service was good....More
1 - 10 of 43 reviews
We only wanted a light lunch, and we found the menu at Le Winch was ideal for our needs. I had a Salad Nordique, which was very copious, and my husband had Smoked Salmon. Even though the restaurant was very crowded, the service was good....More
Nice friendly restaurant , good for day and evening meals. Gets a bit busy but that's not a bad thing nice food
Great mussels. Great location. Located on the main harbour. Nice varied menu. Would definitely go again.
The oysters as a shared starter were excellent and the Normanque Seafood salad was fresh and delicious. Unfortunately, we had to wait too long for both courses and therefore this spoiled our experience of the meal. Would recommend employing some more waiting staff as the...More
We ate twice here this year and have been in previous years. Excellent food (and good value) and really good service. The Fisk and seafood was outstanding. Wine was also good. The kids really enjoyed the food too, whilst only two choices on the kids...More
With such a massive choice in the area for restaurants we stumbled upon la winch whilst walking along the harbour wall . The environment and atmosphere was good and the staff were great with our two young girls , which always helps. The food was...More
We always visit this restaurant when we visit Ile de Noirmoutier. The menu of the day has good choices and the food is always beautifully presented and delicious. The place was buzzing with a fantastic atmosphere on the Thursday lunchtime we visited. The staff are...More
On a hot day we sat on the covered patio and enjoyed the beautiful view towards the harbour. The staff is very nice and hat enough patience to wait until my children ordered their meals in french language. The Moules a la creme au curry...More
We ate here once, the food was ok, nothing special but reasonable. The service however was very poor, indifferent and inattentive waiters. We went for the set menu but weren't allowed to wait to order desserts but had to order everything at the same time....More
Food was good but variable, with a wide range of home made plates. Unfortunately the service was terrible. The restaurant was not overly busy but the service was slow and rude, with irritable responses when requesting water, coffee or condiments. Maybe better on another day.


text:
What evidence is there that Gertrude was innocent of complicity in poisoning her King Hamlet in Act III, Scene 4 of Hamlet?
- print Print
- list Cite
When Hamlet is engaged in a discussion with Gertrude, they are sparring with words. She is talking about one thing, he another. She tells him he has offended his father very much (meaning Claudius, who is not his father), and he tells her that, no, madame, it is you who have offended my father - meaning by marrying Claudius. He then proceeds to say that it is an offense to have murdered a king, and she does not know what he is talking about - "Is the king dead?" she asks. She seems to be totally unaware that Hamlet is insinuating that Claudius has killed his father, and Gertrude's former husband. Hamlet has not been sure whether or not his mother knows about the murder, and in this scene, it indicates that although she is a huge air-head, she really did not know about Claudius' misdeeds. We are never really sure whether Gertrude has some knowledge of what happened, whether she is mentally unbalanced and is in denial, or she is just a huge airhead (this is my view). She truly seems not to know that her first husband has been poisoned by her current husband. Also, she does not know why Hamlet is so upset and if she knew about the poisoning, she would understand his strange behavior.
The purpose of this conversation between Gertrude and Hamlet is for Gertrude to try and determine what is going on with Hamlet. She starts out on the offensive, accusing him of offending his (step-) father, Claudius. Hamlet is already in high spirits having just missed an opportunity to kill Claudius before he enters his mother's rooms, and he is ready to say everything and anything that comes to mind. He even claims he wishes she were not his mother. When he mistakenly kills Polonius the Queen exclaims, "What a rash and bloody deed is this!" Hamlet seizes this opportunity to put out the idea of his father being killed and then watches Gertrude's reaction to the statement. By her reaction, he may be able to judge whether she has knowledge of Claudius' crime. He says, "Almost as bad...As kill a king, and marry with his brother." Gertrude's immediate response is, "As kill a king?" What she means is, "What are you talking about?" Because Hamlet doesn't pursue this topic further, we can conclude that he judges his mother to be innocent of the murder of King Hamlet. He proceeds to try and convince his mother to leave Claudius; he doesn't even hint to her about his knowledge of Claudius' actions.


text:
Sameul Enis (Enos?) m. Catherine GRAY, Feb. 18, 1858, Hardeman Co., TN
I am trying to find anyone who has information on a Samuel ENIS who married Catherine GRAY, February 18, 1858 in Hardeman Co., TN.Catherine was the daughter of Hugh GRAY.
I have not been able to find anything at all on these two people after the marriage record.The name ENIS could be spelled differently.Please, I need help in finding these people.
Ruby Gray Wallace


text:
Nice new property with excellant staff. Were helpful and responsive. Only problem was with hotel design in that you could here people walking on floor above you. First night hot water wasn't as good as it was the second night.
- Official Description (provided by the hotel):
- Best Western Plus Omaha Airport Inn and Suites in Carter Lake, Iowa is conveniently located to Eppley Airfield, Downtown Omaha, CenturyLink Center, TD Ameritrade Ballpark, Old Market and Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo. Best Western Plus Omaha Airport also provides complimentary airport shuttle to and from the Airport every half hour as scheduled starting as early as 3:30 a.m., seven days a week. We also offer a complimentary local shuttle within a 5 mile radius of the hotel. Best Western Plus Omaha Airport Inn and Suites offers a 24 hour business center in the lobby, indoor pool, hot tub and 24 hour fitness center and on site sundry shop. All guest rooms are non-smoking and feature either one king or two queen size beds, microwave, mini refrigerator, premium cable television programming, flat screen color televisions, a desk chair & workstation and comfortable seating area in each room. Suites, with the one king or two queen bed configurations offer additional space and a separate seating area for entertaining. The oversized living space features a sofa sleeper convertible bed, additional flat screen color television, microwave and refrigerator. Additionally, Best Western Plus Omaha Airport is ADA compliant and guests have easy access to the hotel, the guest rooms, hotel amenities and hotel function spaces. Our hotel has accessible standard rooms and suites, including suites with one king or two queen size beds, including both physical impairment and/or hearing impairment units. Sorry no pets, but service animals are, of course, welcomed. Start your day early with our continental breakfast of cereal, milk, yogurt, hard boiled eggs, yogurt, fresh fruit, assorted breakfast bars and breads and beverages such as juice, coffee and/or hot chocolate. The continental is served as early as 3:30 a.m., seven days a week. Each guest is invited to enjoy our free hot breakfast is served from 6:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. daily, in the centrally located breakfast room. Our Downtown area features such attractions as the CenturyLink Center Omaha Convention Center, the TD Ameritrade Ballpark, the Freedom Park Navy Museum, the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge, the Historic Old Market restaurant and bar district, and nearby attractions such as the Joslyn Art Museum, Durham Museum, and the Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo. The City of Council Bluffs and area shopping is only a short drive (only 10 - 15 minutes away). Council Bluffs offers 3 world class casinos, the Mid-America Center, additional shopping & dining opportunities, a Go Kart track and a luxury movie theater. The hotel shuttle will take guests to the Council Bluffs Mid-America Center, nearby restaurants, shopping and Casinos (within 5 mile radius). Some of the other notable businesses and attractions are University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO), Creighton University, Gallup, The Nebraska Medical Center, the Children's Hospital, Offutt Air Force Base, Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha Steaks, Omaha World-Herald newspaper, First Data and Oriental Trading Company. ... more less
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with HotelQuickly and Hotels.com so you can book your Best Western Plus Omaha Airport Inn reservations with confidence. We help millions of travellers each month to find the perfect hotel for both holiday and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.
- Also Known As:
- Holiday Inn Carter Lake
- Carter Lake Holiday Inn


text:
The Goiky Canal is a canal featured in Battle for Dream Island. It was featured in "Take the Plunge: Part 2" when the teams had to cross over it. Flower was also seen flying over it in episode 2. In BFDIA 2, in an attempt to go to Yoyleland to get yoyleberries for the yoylestew, Gelatin and Needle were crossing it while riding Puffball to Yoyleland, but Book, Spongy and Ice Cube were thrown out by Gelatin, who doesn't need them. In reaction, Needle said "but!?". In It's a Monster, The FreeSmarters went through the Goiky Canal and finished in The Long-lost Yoyle City.
In Total Firey Points, it was called the Pamana Canal, which is based on a real life location, the Panama Canal.
- It was confirmed by Bubble in "It's a Monster" that the Goiky Canal is over 500 miles wide.
- Real life canals cannot be that wide, so it may be called a strait or sea.


text:
Yes, I've seen every episode multiple times. Yes, I own the DVDs. STILL happy about #FriendsOnNetflix
Wow- great server but horrible kitchen service @LongHornSteaks Wilmington NC for my Mom's birthday.
So excited for all receiving that pixie-dusted invite to #DisneySMMC It is truly a lovely, amazing experience!
Wow, time flies! @Gary_Jerry just tweeted about the 2015 #DisneyMP search! Wishing all hopefuls the best of luck, believe in your dreams!


text:
Beşiktaş welcome reigning champions and rivals to their temporary home of the Atatürk Olympic stadium for Istanbul derby.
The Black Eagles were dumped out of the Europa League by Sporting Lisbon after Tolga Zengin had a meltdown in goal.
Beşiktaş boss Şenol Güneş has decided to leave Zengin out the squad following a number of costly errors and Günay is expected to get the nod.
Galatasaray were also knocked out of the Champions League, but will face Lazio the Europa League Round of 32 after finishing third in their group.
Beşiktaş have no major injury concerns other than long term absentee Tolgay Arslan and Veli Kavlak.
Galatasaray meanwhile will have to make do without on-loan Manchester City defender Jason Denayer and full-back Lionel Carol. The missing defensive players could prove costly against one of the leagues most dangerous attacking based sides – 32 goals already this season.
Beşiktaş are currently second in the league just one point behind league leaders Fenerbahçe and will go top with a win. Galatasaray meanwhile are fourth – 7 points behind Fenerbahçe – and in danger of losing touch with the leading pack should they lose.
Galatasaray have been inconsistent recently which is to be expected considering Mustafa Denizli only replaced Hamza Hamzaoğlu as manager just over a fortnight ago.
Beşiktaş are in better form going into the tie but have yet to win a single derby game in their last 10 tries.
The Black Eagles have been flying high in the league and scoring for fun but as they showed against Sporting they have a soft underbelly and are prone to imploding even when in control of a game.
The leagues two highest scoring sides go head to head in what is likely to be a heated Istanbul derby so expect plenty of goals.
Predicting Over 2.5 goals
Stadium: Olimpiyat
Referee: Mete Kalkavan
Kick-Off: 20:00 (Local Time)
Predicted Starting Line-ups
Beşiktaş: Günay, Beck, Rhodolfo, Ersan, İsmail, Gökhan, Atiba, Oğuzhan, Sosa, Quaresma, Gomez.
Manager: Şenol Güneş
Galatasaray: Muslera, Sabri, Hakan, Semih, Olcan, Chedjou, Selçuk, Podolski, Yasin, Sneijder, Burak.
Manager: Mustafa Denizli


text:
Shopping for groceries has gotten ridiculously expensive. I spent almost 10 dollars on just a gallon of milk and carton of eggs not long ago.
Saving money would be nice, but I can't see myself using coupons because I live in an area where the stores don't double coupons and there really are no competitors for sales. Yes folks, small towns do have their downfalls.
I've considered growing my own vegetables using the container method, since I've been saving containers and seeds from already bought vegetables and household food containers I can't bare to throw away.
I've also stockpiled on produce that the local store sells cheap because it's been sitting on the shelves for more than a week. The produce can easily be frozen to preserve it.
Still. I'm thinking I can really save money by growing my own,naturally without spending a dime.
Right now I have bell pepper, jalapeno and tomatilo seeds to start from vegetables I bought on sale at the local store. I'd like to expand to some other vegetables and maybe fruits too.
I think I'll start doing more research on container gardening and start something this year. Time to start saving money. I'll need it.
Eventually, I'd like to expand my money saving ideas on things like water, electric and gas as well. Maybe gather water from the rain we get for the garden or from excess shower and cooking water.
I'd also like to start a scrap composte to cut down on waste and create some great soil.
Right now, I'm just really excited about starting a container garden. Or I was. I wanted to use the soil from mother earth, but was just told that's not an option.
Really? I'd like to know, why not? I was really looking forward to this project. Now I'm simply depressed.
So many things I'd like to do, but now I'm no longer so sure.


text: San Francisco - Zynga is building a game-themed social network in a move that promises to reduce its dependence on Facebook as it prepares for a billion-dollar debut in the stock market.Zynga on Tuesday provided a glimpse at "Project Z", an online community where people could play the social gaming star's globally popular titles without having to go to Facebook."For two years we have been building out products that we hope will enable a platform for direct relationships with consumers," Zynga co-founder Mark Pincus said during the first press event at the startup's new San Francisco offices."Whether on the web or on mobile, we can give you a whole sandbox and create socialness around the games and not just in the games," he continued in reference to a platform informally referred to as Zynga Direct.More than 232 million people play Zynga games each month, with most of the activity taking place between friends in the world's leading social network, Facebook.The launch of a Zynga online community could help the company get unleashed from Facebook or other social networks."When it launches, it will be the most connected social gaming site in the world," said Zynga chief operating officer John Schappert, who was a top executive at videogame titan Electronics Arts before joining Zynga this year."You can start a game on Facebook and continue it on Project Z, or vice versa," he continued, careful not to bite the hand of the social networking giant that has fed Zynga.Social gaming Zynga on Tuesday also showed off a host of new games, including an edgy Mafia 2 title and a rich CastleVille addition to a franchise that includes popular CityVille and FarmVille games.Zynga also introduced an Internet Age version of Bingo and a Hidden Chronicles game that invites friends to work together to solve puzzles and hunt for hidden objects."We believe in social gaming," Pincus said."It is going to be mobile, more of that World of Warcraft feeling packaged up in something you can understand in three clicks and five or 15 minutes," he continued.Zynga invited players to visit zynga.com to claim "zTags", names by which they will be known in the game-themed online community.Players must use Facebook accounts to sign into Project Z in a sign that the startup is not severing its ties to the ruling social network that has provided a stage on which Zynga has prospered.Zynga games are free to play but the startup makes money by selling virtual in-game goods to players and serving up advertising.According to its SEC filing, Zynga enjoyed $235.4m in revenue in the first three months of the year, compared to just $100.9m in the same period of 2010.The company turned profitable last year, with a net income of $27.9m on total annual revenues of $597.5m.Addictive games Zynga filed paperwork in July for an initial public offering aiming to raise about $1bn from the markets.Media reports have suggested the company could sell about 10 percent of its shares and command a market valuation of between $15 and $20bn or even higher.Founded in 2007, the San Francisco-based software company makes notoriously addictive games which run on top of social networking site Facebook, including Zynga Poker and Mafia Wars.More than 2 000 employees work at Zynga developing games such as FarmVille, which allows users to run virtual farms with crops and livestock, including unusual creatures such as purple sheep.Among the games unveiled on Tuesday was Dream Zoo, which lets players create, visit, and care for collections of animals including fantasy creatures of their own imaginings.


text:
Bespoke management education
A joint venture between a Swiss University and company offers courses on CSR and Sustainability aimed at business executives with a strong focus on interactivity and business concerns. Because it is a demand-led course facilitated by a private company required changes to the curriculum can be made at short notice.
Towards an economy that serves each individual
A public interest organisation in Switzerland believes that globalization can and should serve and enhance the common good. At an international summit hosted annually they bring together over 200 entrepreneurs, economists, politicians and NGO representatives for the purpose of bringing more humanity into the process of globalization and making practical recommendations to leaders for an economy serving the human person and the common good. They aim to inspire and equip an emerging generation of leaders who may implement key recommendations from these Summit meetings through a number of selected projects.


text:
Two River Times
Huffington Post
NWNL interview & photo exhibit
NWNL at Beacon Inst.
"Following Rivers" photography exhibit
Water Symposium
NWNL visits Belle River
Terralingua Langscape
Raritan Headwaters Association
China Dialogue
International Rivers
NWNL on a Green Mission
NWNL at Hurricane Sandy Benefit
Sea Speak Sphere
African Rainforest Conservancy
Soc. of Environmental Journalists
iLCP Interviews
NANPA Expressions '11
NYC Sierra Club '10
Ladue News
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
St. Louis Beacon
Discovery's Planet Green
Expedition News '09
Conservation Board, Huntington NY '09
World Rivers Review '09
Mara River Flows '09
Hunterdon County Democrat
Hunterdon Review
Darien News
Darien Times
Invermere Valley Echo
Boston Globe
Castlegar News
Alive Magazine
Jackson Free Press
Columbia River
Connecticut Post
in the NWNL Store:
Hydro-Graphics 2016
Riparian Forests 2015
Wetlands 2014
Waters of Africa 2008
On Watersheds:
Missouri River Country
Atchafalaya Basin
The Raritan River
Our National Parks
On Photography Skills:
Conservation Photography Handbook
Think Like a Photographer
Photo Collections:
Environmental Photographer of the Year
The Loupe
Stories & Narratives:
They Lived to Tell the Tale
Africa Geographic '11
Conservation – NWNL '11
Explorers Log '11
NANPA Currents '11
Explorers Journal '10
World Rivers '10
NANPA Currents '09
World Ark Mag. '08
S. R. Observer
Photographer's Forum
American Rivers '14
Int'l Rivers, July '10
Home ·
About Us
Educational Tools ·
Blog ·
Calendar ·
Newsletters ·
Videos ·
Books ·
Links ·
Our Store
New Jersey's Upper Raritan River rambles through historic hamlets, passes under one-lane bridges and offers a bucolic, misty contrast to the Lower Raritan's industrialized, urban reaches. As homes increased along these tranquil tributaries, inadequate protection of wetlands and steep, forested slopes brought increased roads, asphalt driveways and commercial parking lots. The spread of these impervious surfaces further exacerbates destructive floods and resulting biological impairment caused by increasingly intense storms and snowmelt.
Reprinted from The Huffington Post, June 3, 2011.
AS WATER WARS loom locally and globally, No Water No Life ® is dedicated to combining the powers of photography, science and stakeholder knowledge to raise awareness of the values of freshwater, consequences of watershed degradation and opportunities for sustainable water-resource management. The focus for this expedition-based project is on six watersheds: three in Africa (the Nile, Mara and Omo River Basins) and three in North America (the Columbia, Mississippi, and Raritan River Basins). Within developed and developing nations, No Water No Life documents the availability, usage and quality of critical freshwater resources, educates stakeholders via publications, lectures, exhibits and educational tools; and fosters partnerships within and across geopolitical regions.
Worldwide issues found within No Water No Life case-study watersheds include climate change, infrastructure development, resource extraction, pollution and habitat degradation. Each watershed highlights different issues. For instance, New Jersey's Raritan River is the largest drainage in the United States' most densely populated state and thus suffers from urban storm drainage issues, as well as two centuries of severe industrial pollution. There are 200 contaminated sites adjacent or draining into the Raritan River, twenty-four of which have become Superfund clean-up sites. To reveal positive watershed management solutions No Water No Life interviews scientists, stewards and stakeholders about environmental restoration, increasing efficiencies in water use, community-based conservation education and trans-boundary agreements. No Water No Life teams include photographers, scientists, educators and interns. Their backgrounds cover natural resource management, conservation biology, restoration ecology, forest ecology, conservation photography, videography and environmental education. NWNL has carried expedition flags from The Explorers Club and WINGS WorldQuest. The Scott Pearlman Field Award and generous private donations support the project's expeditions. The project's fiscal sponsor is WINGS WorldQuest, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation.
Alison Jones is the International League of Conservation Photographers (ILCP) May Photographer of the Month because of her passion and contribution to conservation through photographic excellence.
Alison M. Jones, NWNL Director · 330 East 79th Street · New York, NY 10075 USA
Home Page · Phone/Fax: 212-861-6961


text:
Deck The Halls
Well I'm out of town for a few days, but am so giddy about decorating my first apartment for the holidays that I might burst! So I'm getting out my Christmas excitement with some jolly bling. This Crimson Mollie Pearls and Ribbon Bracelet ($14.50) by Twilly Pop is reminiscent of some of the ornaments I'll be putting on my tree this coming weekend (crossing my fingers I'll be able to get a small tree then and begin my decoration frenzy!). This bracelet is adjustable in size, too! Just tie the ribbons in a bow as tight or loose as you like.
PS - This is available in several different colors in the store in bracelet and necklace forms, as well as in multiple strands or tiers!
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Does Apple TV work if I don't have a HD TV?
Hi, my TV isn't and HDTV I don't think. It is still fairly new and modern but I wondered whether it would work with Apple TV?
- Asked by Amy C from London
No Answers have been submitted
Be the first to answer this question. Answer now