ES2363073B1 - CLAMP PLIERS FOR THE EXTRACTION OF FIXING ELEMENTS IN ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY. - Google Patents

Abstract

Jaw pliers with impact piece for the extraction of fixation elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology. # The invention describes pliers (1) of jaw with impact piece (5) for the extraction of fixation elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology. , which comprises two acting arms (2, 3) and a jaw (4), and also comprising an impact piece (5) located next to the distal end (D) of one of the acting arms (2), which It has an impact surface (5a) substantially perpendicular to the actuating arm (2) to which it is fixed, and which allows the fixing element to be removed with the help of a hammer.

Description

Jaw pliers for the extraction of fixation elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology. Object of the invention

The present invention refers to the area of medical instruments, and more specifically to a pressure jaw pliers for the extraction of fixation elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology that allows the use of a hammer or similar tool to aid in the extraction of the element. Background of the invention

Within the medical field, the need to remove nails, cables, or other fixation elements used, for example, for the reduction and treatment of bone fractures is common. For this, a jaw plier is usually used, normally equipped with a locking system, which allows the doctor to pull the fixation element to achieve its extraction. However, sometimes these elements are so firmly attached to the bone or tissues of the patient that it is not possible to achieve their extraction in a clean way.

US 4,669,341 and US 4,307,635 describe conventional pliers comprising a guide on which a cylinder slides. Thus, during an extraction operation the cylinder is used to strike a piece that serves as a stop at the end of the guide opposite the pliers, thus achieving a greater extraction force. However, these devices have the disadvantage of having several pieces. In addition, they are bulky and heavy, since the cylinder is attached to the pliers, and therefore more difficult to handle. Description of the invention

The present invention aims to overcome the aforementioned drawbacks thanks to a jaw pliers equipped with an impact piece that allows the doctor to use a hammer or similar tool to increase the extraction force. The jaw pliers of the invention also have the advantages over the prior art of its simplicity and low production cost, in addition to being easily sterilizable.

Thus, the jaw pliers for the extraction of fixing elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology of the present invention comprise, in addition to two actuating arms and a jaw of conventional pliers, an impact piece located in the vicinity of the distal end of one of the actuating arms, end closest to the patient's body, this impact piece comprising an impact surface, preferably flat, substantially perpendicular to the actuating arm.

It is understood that the impact piece must be made of a sufficiently strong material to withstand the blows of a tool, such as a conventional hammer. Therefore, in preferred embodiments of the invention the impact piece is made of metal.

Note that, during the use of the jaw pliers object of the invention, the jaw will be inside the patient's body, while the acting arms will be outside. Thus, the expression "in the vicinity of the distal end" used in this document refers to a location of the impact piece such that the clearance between the distal end of the actuating arm (and therefore the patient's body) and the impact surface, be wide enough to allow a hammer to strike on said impact surface. According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, said distance is at least 5 cm.

With regard to the term "substantially perpendicular", it is intended to refer to the orientation of the impact surface in relation to the surface of the actuating arm, specifically at the point where the extension of the impact surface cuts the surface of said impact arm. performance. This orientation should be such that it prevents the hammer head from sliding on the impact surface during a striking action. This means that a small inclination is permissible in relation to the perpendicular of the actuator arm, for example of ± 10º. In any case, in order to avoid the sliding of the hammer head, the contact surface is preferably non-slip. For example, it could be formed of roughness or stretch marks, or have an outer layer of a non-slip material.

With regard to the connection between the actuation arm and the impact piece, the present invention contemplates several possibilities:

First, the impact piece can be integrally formed with the actuation arm. A second possibility is that they are two different pieces joined together, preferably through a surface of the impact piece. This fixation could be carried out, in accordance with preferred embodiments of the invention, by welding or by using fixing means.

In a preferred embodiment, the fixing means comprise screws. In yet another preferred embodiment, the fixing means comprise securing lugs that protrude from the fixing surface and which are provided with holes aligned with each other, the actuating arm being located between the two securing lugs, so that a pin passes through the holes in the lugs and a corresponding hole in the actuator arm. Brief description of the drawings

Fig. 1 shows a side view of a particular embodiment of the pliers of the present invention.

Fig. 2 shows a perspective view of the impact piece of Fig. 1.

Fig. 3 shows another perspective view of the impact part of the previous figures. Preferred Embodiment of the Invention

An example of a preferred embodiment of the invention is described below with reference to the attached figures. Fig. 1 shows a side view of the pliers (1) of the invention, while Figs. 2 and 3 show in greater detail the impact piece (5).

Specifically, in Fig. 1 the two acting arms (2, 3) and the jaws (4) are shown, the impact piece (5) being fixed to the acting arm (2). In this example, the impact piece (5) is fixed to the actuation arm (2) by means of a pin (9) that passes through the actuation arm (2) and holes (8) made in lugs (7) protruding from the clamping surface (5b). It is also observed how the impact surface (5a) is substantially perpendicular to the outer surface

of the arm (2), to facilitate the striking with a hammer during an extraction operation.

Thus, during an extraction operation, the doctor must first firmly grasp the element to be extracted with the jaws (4) of the pliers (1) of the invention. Then in the pliers

(1) of the example, a locking mechanism is used to fix the position of the jaws (4), so that it is no longer necessary to apply a clamping force on the actuating arms (2, 3) to maintain the grip of the element. Finally, a hammer or a similar tool is used to strike the impact surface (5a) of the impact piece (5) until the element is completely removed.

Claims (13)

1. Jaw pliers (1) for the extraction of fixing elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology, comprising two acting arms (2, 3) and a jaw (4), characterized in that it additionally comprises an impact piece (5) located in the vicinity of the distal end of one of the actuating arms (2), end closest to the patient's body, said impact piece (5) comprising an impact surface (5a) substantially perpendicular to the actuating arm (2) , and where the free space between the distal end of the pliers (1) and the impact surface (5a) is sufficiently wide to allow a striking movement of a hammer or similar tool on said impact surface (5a) to increase the extraction force.

2.

Plier (1) according to claim 1, wherein the impact surface (5a) forms an angle of ± 10 ° in relation to the perpendicular of the actuating arm (2).

3.

Pliers (1) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the impact surface (5a) is flat.

Four.

Pliers (1) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the distance between the distal end (D) of the actuating arm (2) and the impact surface (5a) is greater than 5 cm.

5. Pliers (1) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the impact piece (5) is integrally formed with the actuating arm (2).

6.

Plier (1) according to any of claims 1-4, wherein the impact piece (5) is fixed to the actuation arm (2) through a surface (5b) for fixing said impact part (5) .

7.

Plier (1) according to claim 6, wherein the fixing surface (5b) is welded to the actuating arm (2).

8.

Plier (1) according to claim 6, wherein the fixing surface (5b) is fixed to the arm

(2) acting through means of fixation.

9.

Pliers (1) according to claim 8, wherein the fixing means comprise two securing lugs (7) protruding from the fixing surface (5b) and which are provided with holes (8) aligned with each other, being located the actuating arm (2) between the two securing lugs (7), so that a pin (9) crosses the holes (8) of the lugs (7) and a corresponding hole of the actuating arm (2).

10.

Pliers (1) according to claim 8, wherein the fixing means comprise screws.

eleven.

Pliers (1) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the impact surface (5a) is non-slip.

12.

Pliers (1) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the impact part (5) is metallic.

SPANISH OFFICE OF THE PATENTS AND BRAND Application no .: 200930214 SPAIN Date of submission of the application: 27.05.2009 Priority Date: REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE TECHNIQUE 51 Int. Cl.: A61B17 / 92 (2006.01) RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

Category

Documents cited Claims Affected

X

ES 2205316 T3 (WALDEMARK LINK Gmbh) 01.05.2004, 1-12

column 2, lines 22-24; Figure 1.

TO

US 4669341 A (SMALL) 02.06.1987, 1-3.5-8.12

column 3, lines 43-45.55-58; Figure 1.

TO

WO 9749349 A1 (KOVAC) 31.12.1997, 1-3.5-8.12

page 5, lines 11-14; claim 6; Figures 1-4.

TO

US 3791012 A (KOMLINE-SANDERSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION) 12.02.1974, 1-3,6,8-9,12

column 2, lines 30-38; column 2, line 61 - column 3, line 8; figure.

TO

DE 2521127 A1 (BODE) 25.11.1976, one

Figure 1.

Category of the documents cited X: of particular relevance Y: of particular relevance combined with other / s of the same category A: reflects the state of the art O: refers to unwritten disclosure P: published between the priority date and the date of priority submission of the application E: previous document, but published after the date of submission of the application

This report has been prepared • for all claims • for claims no:

Date of realization of the report 07.07.2011

Examiner J. Square Prados Page 1/5

REPORT OF THE STATE OF THE TECHNIQUE Minimum documentation sought (classification system followed by classification symbols) A61B, B25B, B25C Electronic databases consulted during the search (name of the database and, if possible, terms of search used) INVENES, EPODOC, WPI, PAJ, ECLA.  WRITTEN OPINION Date of Completion of Written Opinion: 07.07.2011 Statement

Novelty (Art. 6.1 LP 11/1986)

Claims Claims 1-12 IF NOT

Inventive activity (Art. 8.1 LP11 / 1986)

Claims Claims 1-12 IF NOT

The application is considered to comply with the industrial application requirement. This requirement was evaluated during the formal and technical examination phase of the application (Article 31.2 Law 11/1986).  Opinion Base. This opinion has been made on the basis of the patent application as published.  WRITTEN OPINION 1. Documents considered.- The documents belonging to the state of the art taken into consideration for the realization of this opinion are listed below.

Document

Publication or Identification Number publication date

D01

ES 2205316 T3 01.05.2004

D02

US 4669341 A 02.06.1987

D03

WO 9749349 A1 31.12.1997

D04

US 3791012 A 12.02.1974

D05

FROM 2521127 A1 11/25/1976

2. Statement motivated according to articles 29.6 and 29.7 of the Regulations for the execution of Law 11/1986, of March 20, on Patents on novelty and inventive activity; quotes and explanations in support of this statement The invention defined in the first claim is considered not to imply inventive activity as it results from the state of the art in an obvious way for one skilled in the art. Document D01, considered as the closest state of the art, refers to a pliers for surgical use that can be used for the extraction of fixation elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology which, in relation to the technical object defined by the first claim of the application under study, anticipate a (references in brackets apply to that document):

-

Pliers (1) for the extraction of fixation elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology (column 1, line 40) comprising two actuating arms (4, 9) and a jaw (3, 8) and additionally comprising an impact piece (6, 16), said impact piece (6) comprising an impact surface (16 and the other end of the piece or "front surface" column 2, line 22) substantially perpendicular (column 3, line 28) to the arm of actuation (4, 5), and where the clearance between the distal end of the pliers and the impact surface is wide enough to allow a striking movement of a hammer or similar tool on said impact surface to increase the force of extraction (column 2, lines 21-24).

Indeed, in document D01 (see lines 22 to 24 of column 2 and figure 1) it is anticipated that “the percussion head may also have a front hammer percussion surface, which can be used to remove a nail ”, So that the same use is anticipated for the extraction of fixation elements in orthopedic surgery and traumatology, as in the application under study. In addition, it is clear that in document D01 it is fulfilled that "the clearance between the distal end of the pliers and the impact surface is wide enough to allow a striking movement of a hammer or similar tool on said impact surface" , since the possibility of hitting with a hammer to remove the nail is envisaged, so that the impact piece must be located at a distance from the distal end of the arm (closest to the patient) that allows this to be done. Thus, the only possible differences between the technical object of claim one of the application under study and the content of document D01, would be that:

-

in the claim the term "jaw pliers" is used.

� If this term, which does not seem to define a specific type of pliers in a unique and universal way, is intended to indicate the use of a pliers equipped with a locking system, it may seem that this characteristic is not appreciated in D01. This possible difference is considered a lack of inventive activity for an expert in the field, as it seems a mere choice between different design possibilities of pliers, and also the possible technical effect that is obtained with that request is not indicated or hinted at throughout the application. particular pliers or the technical problem to be solved with it, but on the contrary, in several parts of the description it is indicated that this type is the pliers normally used in this area (page 2, lines 18-19 “is usually used a jaw pliers ”, line 26“ conventional pliers ”or page 3, line 17“ jaw of conventional pliers ”). It is therefore apparent that the pliers are themselves conventional and the allegedly novel is the incorporation of the impact piece, and therefore, this characteristic lack of inventive activity is considered.

-

The claim indicates that the impact piece is "located in the vicinity of the distal end of one of the actuating arms (end closest to the patient's body)".

� The impact piece of document D01 is instead located at the rear end of the arm, opposite the jaw (see figure 1), that is, in what would be the proximal end of the tool (the furthest from the patient's body , according to the terminology used in the application). This difference in the position of the impact piece placement (in the "proximities" of the distal end instead of the proximal end)  WRITTEN OPINION it is considered devoid of inventive activity for an expert in the field, since that specific position seems a mere selection between different possibilities, and also the possible technical effect obtained with that particular position is not indicated or hinted at throughout the application, nor the technical problem that is intended to be solved with it. The applicant does not explain why this position proposed in his application is not only one possibility among several, which should be considered out of reach for a person skilled in the art due to a special technical effect not derived from the state of the art. Thus, it seems clear that one skilled in the art would estimate as possible, without resorting to an inventive activity, the placement of the impact piece somewhat closer (in the vicinity) of the distal end, from the already known position by document D01. In addition, since there is a limitation that the impact piece cannot be placed next to the distal end for proper use of the tool, since it must be ensured that “the clearance between the distal end of the pliers and the surface of the impact is wide enough to allow a striking movement of a hammer or similar tool on said impact surface ”, it seems unclear a technical justification that invites to bring the position of this piece to the distal end, since the closer it is located , it seems that the use of the tool will be more uncomfortable. The rest of claims 2-12, depending on the main one, are equally devoid of inventive activity because they only add minor details or design features, making them mere obvious particular executions and which are considered lacking in inventive activity for an expert in the field. These claims seem a mere selection among different possibilities, and also the possible technical effects obtained with them or the technical problems that are intended to be resolved are not indicated or implied throughout the application. The characteristic of claim two is considered obvious because what is intended is to achieve an "orientation such that the hammer head is prevented from sliding on the impact surface during a striking action (page 4, lines 13-14)". Any person skilled in the art when designing the impact surface would place it substantially perpendicular to the actuation arm (or the element to be extracted) to achieve the objective of maximizing the effectiveness of the striking. It is also considered within the reach of any expert seeking that result that the impact surface is flat, as indicated in claim three. It also seems obvious, in view of Figure 1 of document D01 and of the intended use of that instrument for the extraction of fasteners, that the impact surface (6) for removing nails is at a distance greater than 5 centimeters from the distal end of the actuation arm, since a smaller distance would make it difficult to use a hammer to strike due to lack of space between the patient's body and the impact surface. Thus, the object of claim four is considered to be devoid of inventive activity. Claims 5 to 10 give a series of possible alternatives with regard to the connection between the actuating arm and the impact piece. All these alternatives seem a mere selection between different possibilities available to any expert in the field faced with the challenge of how to design the union between these two pieces. The possible technical effects that are obtained with them or the technical problems that are intended to be resolved are not indicated or implied throughout the application. In fact, in the description itself, these alternatives are referred to as "various possibilities" (page 4, line 23). Thus, claims 5 to 10 are considered to be lacking in inventive activity. It is also obvious to a person skilled in the art seeking to maximize the impact of the impact on the impact surface by including the features of claims 11 and 12 that the impact surface is non-slip and that the impact piece is metallic (the Document D01 itself cites stainless steel as a possible material for the pliers). The rest of documents D02 to D05 cited in the Report, although reflecting the state of the art, have not been considered relevant because their intended use is in another area of action.