US 7,108,663 B2Grant

Method and apparatus for cartilage growth stimulation

Issue Date:2006-09-19

•32 Claims

•40 Drawing Sheets

Abstract

The invention relates to apparatus and method for ultrasonically stimulating cartilage growth. The apparatus includes at least one ergonomically constructed ultrasonic transducer configured to cooperate with a placement module or strip for placement in proximity to an area where cartilage growth is desired. The apparatus also utilizes a portable, ergonomically constructed main operating unit constructed to fit within a pouch worn by the patient. In operation, at least one ultrasonic transducer positioned in proximity to an osteochondral site is excited for a predetermined period of time. To ensure that at least one ultrasonic transducer is properly positioned, and to insure compliance with a treatment protocol, a safety interlock is provided to prevent inadvertent excitation of the at least one ultrasonic transducer.

Metadata

Assignee

Exogen, Inc.

Inventors

Roger J. Talish
John P. Ryaby
Emery Rose
Alan A. Winder
Kenneth Urgovitch, Sr.

Application Information

Application Number:US 10/026,290

Filing Date:2001-12-20

Priority Date:1997-02-06

Art Unit:3737

Classifications

IPC:

A61H1/00

Patent Drawings (40 sheets)

Description

[0001] This application is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. Ser. No. 09/436,999 filed on Nov. 9, 1999 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,355,006, which is cip the U.S. national phase of International Application No. PCT/US98/02447 filed on Feb. 6, 1998, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/037,367 filed on Feb. 6, 1997.

Background of the Invention

[0002] 1. Field of the Invention

[0003] The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for therapeutically treating injuries using ultrasound. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and apparatus which utilize an ergonomically constructed ultrasonic transducer assembly configured to cooperate with a placement module for placement in proximity to a cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect to stimulate cartilage growth.

[0004] 2. Description of the Related Art

[0005] The use of ultrasound to therapeutically treat and evaluate bone injuries is known. Impinging ultrasonic pulses having appropriate parameters, e.g., frequency, pulse repetition, and amplitude, for suitable periods of time and at a proper external location adjacent to a bone injury has been determined to accelerate the natural healing of, for example, bone breaks and fractures.

[0006] U.S. Pat. No. 4,530,360 to Duarte describes a basic non-invasive therapeutic technique and apparatus for applying ultrasonic pulses from an operative surface placed on the skin at a location adjacent a bone injury. To apply the ultrasound pulses during treatment an operator must manually hold the applicator in place until the treatment is complete.

[0007] The Duarte patent as well as U.S. Pat. No. 5,520,612 to Winder et al. describe ranges of RF signal for creating the ultrasound, ultrasound power density levels, ranges of duration for each ultrasonic pulse, and ranges of ultrasonic pulse frequencies.

[0008] U.S. Pat. No. 5,003,965 to Talish et al. relates to an ultrasonic body treatment system having a body-applicator unit connected to a remote control unit by sheathed fiber optic lines. The signal controlling the duration of ultrasonic pulses and the pulse repetition frequency are generated apart from the body-applicator unit. Talish et al. also describes a mounting fixture for attaching the body-applicator unit to a patient so that the operative surface is adjacent the skin location.

[0009] While the systems described in these patents relate to therapeutic methods and apparatus for ultrasonic treatment of hard and soft tissue injuries and defects, there is a need for ergonomically configured signal generators and transducers for the treatment of cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects. Further, a need exists for an apparatus which optimizes the treatment of cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects.

[0010] A cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect typically involves damage to the cartilage which lines articulating bones (articular cartilage), such as the bones of the knee, elbow, shoulder and ankle. Osteochondral injuries can be treated by chondral and/or osteochondral drilling causing blood flow at the site. The aim of chondral drilling is to stimulate cartilage regeneration as part of the healing process. However, the resulting nonhyaline or fibrocartilage produced is biomechanically inferior to articular cartilage, does not have comparable proteoglycan content, and may consist primarily of a thin unorganized layer of collagen. Further, it has been observed that degeneration of the new tissue generally occurs over time, requiring the need for additional reconstructive surgical treatment.

[0011] Other methods of treatment include: the transplantation of non-weight bearing cartilage to the injury and/or defect site; inducing a fracture at the injury and/or defect site; placing a carbon fiber matrix to induce cartilage formation; and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). ACI entails removing chondrocytes capable of regenerating hyaline-like cartilage from the body and culturing them for several weeks. During the culture process, the number of cells increases approximately 0.15 times that of the original tissue sample. The cultured cells are then transplanted through an arthrotomy. A small piece of periosteum, the skin covering a bone, is taken from the patient's tibia. The periosteum is then sutured over the defect to provide a protective cover for the cultured cells. The cultured cells are injected under the periosteum into the defect where they will continue to multiply and produce a durable repair tissue. However, ACI increases the healing time since the chondrocytes need to be cultured before they are transplanted to the patient.

[0012] Therefore, there is a further need for a method and apparatus to stimulate cartilage regeneration which produces fibrocartilage which is biomechanically equal or superior to articular cartilage, has comparable proteoglycan content, and consists of a thick organized layer of collagen. Further still, a need also exists for an apparatus which stimulates cartilage regeneration and where the regenerated cartilage does not degenerate over time requiring additional treatment or reconstructive surgery. Further, there is a need for an apparatus which stimulates cartilage regeneration and significantly reduces the healing time.

Summary of the Invention

[0013] The ultrasonic treatment apparatus of the present invention is used for therapeutically treating cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects using ultrasound. The apparatus includes an ergonomically constructed placement module configured for mounting at least one ultrasonic transducer assembly with an integral signal generator which provides excitation signals to at least one ultrasonic transducer within the transducer assembly. Timing control circuitry as well as monitoring circuitry for the proper attachment and operation of the transducer assembly are housed within a portable main operating unit which may be fit within a pouch worn by the patient. In operation, the placement module is positioned against a part of the patient's body such that at least one transducer is positioned over the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect. At least one transducer is then excited for a predetermined period of time to impinge ultrasonic waves against the damaged cartilage area to stimulate the regeneration of new articular cartilage.

[0014] Preferably, the main operating unit has an internal power source for powering the signal generator circuitry, a display coupled to the signal generator circuitry to display treatment sequence data, a keypad coupled to the signal generator circuitry to permit user operation and/or entry of data. The signal generator circuitry includes a processor, means for generating a pulsed control signal, and a switch coupled to the processor for regulating the pulsed control signal. A communication interface may be connected between a communication port and the processor to provide a communication link between the ultrasonic signal generator and an external computer or modem. Preferably, the communication interface is a serial communication interface, however, a parallel interface is also contemplated. An alarm is provided to indicate to the user that the treatment time has expired. The alarm is coupled to the processor such that when ultrasonic treatment is completed the processor activates the alarm and terminates ultrasound generation.

[0015] The present invention also provides a kit for ultrasonically treating cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects. The kit includes an ultrasonic transducer assembly, a placement module configured to be worn by a patient and to receive the ultrasonic transducer assembly, an integrated ultrasonic signal generator located in the ultrasonic transducer assembly, and a main operating unit (MOU) or controller. The MOU has an internal power source thereby providing patient mobility. A MOU envisioned for use with the present invention is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,556,372 to Talish et al. which is hereby incorporated by reference.

[0016] The MOU is electrically coupled to at least one transducer secured to the placement module. The activation of the signal generator corresponding to each transducer excites at least one ultrasonic transducer for impinging ultrasonic waves to the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect.

[0017] A method for ultrasonically treating cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects is also provided. Once the location of the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect is ascertained, the body's own natural healing processes are stimulated adjacent the injury. This can be accomplished by chondral drilling on the defect to form a series of channels to stimulate blood flow and induce the biological reconstructive healing response of the underlying area at the cartilage site. Other methods of stimulating this response includes laser drilling, induce fracture, scraping, chemical or biochemical treatments, etc. Once the healing response has been sufficiently facilitated, a placement module containing an ultrasonic transducer assembly having at least one transducer and one signal generator is positioned adjacent to the injured part of the body such that at least one transducer is in proximity to the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect for the treatment of the injury. The signal generator is then activated to excite the at least one transducer for impinging ultrasonic waves to the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect. The ultrasonic waves impinge upon the injury site to stimulate and accelerate the biological healing properties of the body to regenerate cartilaginous material. The present method can also be used in conjunction with the transplantation of autologous cultured chondrocytes to the injury site to increase the healing time.

[0018] In an alternative embodiment, a placement module is provided for securing a plurality of transducers thereto in a plurality of configurations. The placement module is then secured to a cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect site, for example, at the ankle or wrist, to stimulate cartilage regeneration. Further, the present invention also provides an embodiment having a placement module which contains a locking structure for locking the articulating bones in a particular position. This embodiment prevents the patient from moving his limbs, for example, moving the femur with respect to the tibia, during treatment.

Brief Description of the Drawings

[0019] Preferred embodiments of the invention are described below with reference to the drawings, which are described as follows:

[0020] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a patient wearing a portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus of a first embodiment according to the present invention having a main operating unit or controller and a placement module;

[0021] FIG. 2A is an exploded view of the placement module of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus illustrated by FIG. 1;

[0022] FIG. 2B is a rear underside view of the placement module of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus illustrated by FIG. 1;

[0023] FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view illustrating the transducer assembly impinging ultrasonic waves to articular cartilage within the knee where an ultrasonic conducting gel is positioned between the transducer assembly and the patient's knee;

[0024] FIG. 4A is a block diagram of one embodiment of the circuitry for the ultrasonic transducer assembly;

[0025] FIG. 4B is a block diagram of an alternative embodiment of the circuitry for the ultrasonic transducer assembly;

[0026] FIG. 5 is a perspective view of a second embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus, illustrating a main operating unit or controller and a placement module for treating osteochondral injuries within the elbow region;

[0027] FIG. 6 is a perspective view of a third embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus, illustrating a main operating unit or controller and a placement module for treating osteochondral injuries within the shoulder region;

[0028] FIG. 7 is a perspective view of a fourth embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus illustrating a main operating unit or controller and a placement module;

[0029] FIG. 8 is a perspective view of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus illustrated by FIG. 7 mounted on a patient's ankle;

[0030] FIG. 9 is a perspective view of a fifth embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus, illustrating a main operating unit or controller and a placement module for treating osteochondral injuries within the knee region;

[0031] FIG. 10A is an exploded view of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus illustrated by FIG. 9;

[0032] FIG. 10B is a perspective view of a support member of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus illustrated by FIG. 9;

[0033] FIG. 11A is a flow-chart depicting the steps for stimulating a healing response at the site of an osteochondral injury according to the present invention;

[0034] FIG. 11B is a flow chart depicting the steps of FIG. 11A and an additional step for monitoring the site and regulating at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves;

[0035] FIG. 11C is a flow chart depicting the steps of FIG. 11A and an additional step for changing at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves;

[0036] FIG. 12A is a perspective view showing the drilling of channels within the joint walls of the femur and tibia;

[0037] FIG. 12B is a cross-sectional view showing ultrasonic waves “bouncing off” the channels within the joint walls of the femur and tibia; and

[0038] FIGS. 13A-28B are photomicrographs illustrating the postoperative appearance of cartilage and/or osteochondral defects created at the patellar groove region of rabbits according to studies conducted to demonstrate that daily ultrasound therapy accelerated cartilage and/or osteochondral defect healing as early as four weeks in both gross and histologic analysis.

Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments

[0039] The ultrasonic treatment apparatus of the present invention is used for the surgically non-invasive utilization of ultra high-frequency acoustic energy in the treatment of cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects. Even though this detailed description discusses the treatment of cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects caused by an injury, the ultrasound treatment apparatus can be used to treat osteochondral defects caused by other means, such as medication, infection or metabolic processes.

[0040] The apparatus includes an ergonomically constructed placement module having a strap or other fastening means for being secured adjacent an injured part of a patient's body. At least one ultrasonic transducer assembly is attached or imbedded within the placement module and properly positioned in proximity to the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect. Different types of ultrasonic transducers and signals can be provided, such as those described and schematically depicted in U.S. Pat. No. 5,520,612 to Winder et al. which is hereby incorporated by reference. Particularly, the transducers and arrangements schematically depicted by FIGS. 7-11 of the patent in which at least one transducer is used to provide acoustic energy to the site of the injury. The apparatus may also utilize a portable, ergonomically constructed main operating unit (MOU) worn by the patient which provides control signals to the ultrasonic transducers. The MOU which is utilized is preferably the one described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,556,372 to Talish et al. which is hereby incorporated by reference.

[0041] Turning to the figures, in particular FIG. 1, one embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus 10 of the present invention is shown. The ultrasonic treatment apparatus 10 includes a MOU 12, a placement module 14, and ultrasonic transducer assemblies 16.

[0042] The placement module 14 comprises a placement support 20 which includes at least two or three channels 22 each having an extension 24 mounted therein. Each extension has a transducer pocket 26 at one end for holding one ultrasonic transducer assembly 16. It is contemplated for each extension 24 to have several range of movements besides longitudinal motion, such as articulating motion transverse to the longitudinal motion.

[0043] The placement module 14 further includes a placement band 28 cooperating with slot 30 for securing the placement support 20 to the patient. The placement band 28 is configured to firmly secure the placement module 14 to the patient. A sponge-like material 32 preferably lines the inner surface of the placement support 20 for providing comfort to the patient (FIGS. 2A and 2B). The placement support 20 may be constructed of hard plastics which may be custom molded for a particular body part of the patient.

[0044] With reference to FIGS. 2A and 2B, the extensions 24 are mounted to the placement support 20 via screws 33 and thumb screws 34. The screws 33 are passed through slots 35 and holes 36 on the extensions 24 and are threaded to the thumb screws 34. The extensions 24 can be moved to different positions to accommodate patients of all sizes by unthreading the thumb screws 34 and shifting the screws 33 along the slots 35 and threading the screws 33 to the thumb screws 34 at the new position.

[0045] The transducer assembly 16 may include circuitry, schematically illustrated by FIGS. 4 and 4A and described below, for exciting at least one transducer therein and is coupled to the MOU by cable 37 and wires 39. The wires 39 are coupled to the placement support 20. The cable 37 is preferably a multiconductor cable capable of transmitting relatively low frequency RF or optical signals, as well as digital signals. The cable 37 may include coaxial cable or other types of suitable shielded cable. Alternatively, the cable 37 may include fiber optic cable for transmitting optical signals. The signals may be transmitted continuously or as a series of pulses.

[0046] In operation, the placement module 14 is positioned and secured to the patient's body as shown by FIG. 3, such that each transducer assembly 16 lies over the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect. A locating ring such as the one disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/389,148 may be used for determining the location of injured bone, if the patient desires to have one of the transducer assemblies overlying a bone injury, before the placement module 14 is secured to the patient. Once the placement module 14 is properly positioned, the transducer within the transducer assembly 16 is excited for a pre-determined amount of time. An ultrasound conducting gel 38 is positioned between the transducer assembly 16 and the injured part of the patient's body to prevent attenuation of the ultrasonic waves as they travel to the articular cartilage 40, as shown by FIG. 3.

[0047] It is also contemplated that one or more transducers can be converted to receive reflected diagnostic data from the treatment site. This permits real time evaluation of the injury site and healing process.

[0048] With reference to FIG. 4A, a block diagram of one embodiment of the ultrasonic transducer assembly circuitry is shown. The transducer assembly circuitry 17 includes a receiver/RF oscillator 50 which receives the signals transferred by a signal generator within MOU 12 via cable 37. The receiver/RF oscillator 50 is connected to transducer driver 52 which excites transducer 16. A timing mechanism 18 is included within MOU 12 for automatically disenabling the signal generator after a predetermined period of time to terminate ultrasonic treatment. The timing mechanism 18 prevents or terminates the gating signal from reaching the RF oscillator 50 after the predetermined period of time.

[0049] Further, MOU 12 includes bio-feedback circuitry 19 (see FIG. 4A) for monitoring the condition of the cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects and for regulating the signal characteristics according to the monitored condition. For example, if the bio-feedback circuitry determines that an osteochondral defect is severe and it therefore needs a different dose of acoustic energy to heal, MOU 12 can send a signal to the signal generator instructing the signal generator to increase, e.g., the average signal intensity of the emitted ultrasonic signals directed towards the defect. It is contemplated that the bio-feedback circuitry 19 receives signals from the transducer assembly circuitry 17 which contain reflective diagnostic data transmitted from the transducer 16 as indicated above. The bio-feedback circuitry 19 analyzes the reflective diagnostic data to determine whether to change one or more of the signal characteristics of the emitted ultrasonic waves.

[0050] Further still, MOU 12 includes pre-programmed treatment instructions to automatically change the signal characteristics of the emitted waves, such as the frequency, pulse repetition frequency, the pulse width, the average signal intensity and the average output power, at predetermined intervals during treatment. The pre-programmed instructions are resident within automatic signal driving circuitry (ASDC) 21. The ASDC 21 is preferably coupled to the bio-feedback circuitry 19 and the timing mechanism 18.

[0051] It is contemplated that the ASDC 21 is controlled by the bio-feedback circuitry 19 in order for the former to change at least one signal characteristic according to the monitored condition of the treatment site by the latter. However, it is further contemplated that the ASDC 21 can operate independently of the bio-feedback circuitry 19 to change at least one signal characteristic according to the pre-programmed treatment instructions.

[0052] An alternative embodiment of the transducer assembly circuitry 17 is shown in FIG. 4B. In this embodiment, the ultrasonic transducer assembly 16 includes an internal battery 60 which supplies power to the components within the transducer assembly 16. For example, battery 60 supplies power to signal monitoring circuit 62 and signal driver 66. The signal monitoring circuit 62 provides, preferably, a digital output signal 68 which represents the waveform characteristics of the output of transducer driver 70. These characteristics can be displayed on a digital display and may include, for example, the frequency, pulse repetition frequency, the pulse width, the average signal intensity and the average output power of the transducer 16. The output signal 68 of signal monitoring circuit 62 is transferred to the signal generator within MOU 12 via driver 66 and cable 37.

[0053] The signal generator may include a processor and a switch for regulating the signal characteristics. Alternatively, MOU 12 includes pre-programmed instructions to automatically change the signal characteristics, such as the frequency, pulse repetition frequency, the pulse width, the average signal intensity and the average output power, at predetermined intervals during treatment as discussed above with reference to FIG. 4A. The pre-programmed instructions may be resident within a ASDC similar to the ASDC 21 of FIG. 4A.

[0054] Control signals from MOU 12 are received by receiver 72 via cable 37. Safety or fixture interlock 74, which may include switches on the outer surface of the placement module 14 or transducer assembly 16, ensures that the placement module 14 is properly positioned before providing power to the internal components of the transducer assembly 16.

[0055] A second embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus of the present invention is illustrated by FIG. 5 and designated generally by reference numeral 200. The treatment apparatus 200 includes MOU 12 and transducer assemblies 202 affixed to a placement module 204 via extensions 206 for ultrasonically stimulating the generation of cartilage in the elbow region. Each transducer assembly 202 includes a power transducer 212 connected to the MOU 12 by cable 218. An ultrasonic conducting gel 212 is positioned between the transducer assemblies 202 and the osteochondral injury to prevent attenuation of the ultrasonic waves as they travel to the articular cartilage. In order to accommodate various patients, the extensions 206 can be adjusted to several positions by unthreading thumb screws 220. The circuitry for each transducer assembly 202 may be similar to that disclosed for the first embodiment and schematically illustrated by FIGS. 4 and 4A.

[0056] It is envisioned that the placement module 204 be constructed from suitable conductive plastics, such as conductive ABS plastics with either carbon, stainless steel, nickel or aluminum fibers to forego the use of wires for connecting the transducer assemblies 202 to the cable 218. In such an embodiment, the conductive placement module 204 would be used to electrically connect the transducer assemblies 202 to the MOU 12 via cable 218.

[0057] With reference to FIG. 6, a third embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus of the present invention is illustrated. In this embodiment, the treatment apparatus 300 includes a MOU 12, a placement module 304, and ultrasonic transducer assemblies 306. The placement module 304 is configured for placement on the shoulder region and includes a placement band 310 and a placement support 312. Each transducer assembly 306 is connected to the MOU 12 by cable 318 to power transducer assembly circuitry within each assembly 306. The circuitry (not shown) may be similar to that disclosed for the first and second embodiments and schematically illustrated by FIGS. 4 and 4A.

[0058] In operation, transducers within transducer assemblies 306 are excited for a predetermined period of time to impinge ultrasonic waves to articular cartilage within the shoulder region.

[0059] A fourth embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus of the present invention which is primarily suitable for the treatment of cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects is illustrated by FIGS. 7 and 8. In this embodiment, the apparatus 400 includes at least one ultrasonic transducer assembly 402 positioned within pockets 404 on a strip 406. The transducer assemblies 402 may be arranged in a plurality of configurations within pockets 404 to accommodate many patients' anatomical differences. The strip 406 is secured in proximity to a cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect as shown by FIG. 8 by a self-tieing material 405. The strip 406 is connected via wires 407 and cable 408 to a MOU 12 which contains circuitry for exciting the at least one ultrasonic transducer assembly 402 affixed to the strip 406.

[0060] In operation, at least one transducer assembly 402 is excited to impinge ultrasonic waves to the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect as shown by FIG. 8. It is contemplated that during treatment an ultrasonic conducting gel is positioned between the strip 406 and the patient's body to prevent attenuation of the ultrasonic waves.

[0061] It is also contemplated to manufacture the strip 406 from suitable conductive plastics such as conductive ABS plastics with either carbon, stainless steel, nickel or aluminum fibers to forego the use of wires for electrically connecting the at least one ultrasonic transducer 402 to the cable 408.

[0062] A fifth embodiment of the portable ultrasonic treatment apparatus of the present invention which is primarily suitable for the treatment of cartilage and/or osteochondral injuries and/or defects is illustrated by FIGS. 9-10B. In this embodiment, the apparatus 500 includes a MOU 12 and three ultrasonic transducer assemblies 502 positioned within pockets 504 on an inner surface of a concave plate 506 as shown by FIG. 10B. The concave plate 506 is positioned at one end of a vertical bar 508 having a slot 509 at a lower portion. The apparatus 500 further includes a locking support module 510 having a thigh support 512 and a leg support 514.

[0063] As shown by the exploded view of FIG. 10A, the thigh support 512 includes a thigh support plate 516, a securing band 518, and two horizontal locking extensions 520 affixed to the thigh support plate 516 by screws 522 and thumb screws 524. The leg support 514 includes a leg support plate 526, a securing band 528, and two vertical locking extensions 530 affixed to the leg support plate 526. The vertical bar 508 is configured to mount within a channel 532 on the leg support 514. The vertical bar 508 is secured to the channel 532 by screw 534 and thumb screw 536. The vertical bar 508 can be moved vertically along the channel 532 by unthreading the thumb screw 536 to accommodate various patients.

[0064] The thigh support 512 and the leg support 514 are locked to each other by locking the horizontal locking extensions 520 and the vertical locking extensions 530 by screws 538 and thumb screws 540 to prevent the patient from moving the thigh with respect to the leg during treatment and to ensure that the transducer assemblies 502 remain fixed in their proper positions. The transducer assemblies 502 are connected via a cable 542 which is plugged in to hole 544 to the MOU 12 which contains circuitry for exciting the ultrasonic transducer assemblies 502. It is contemplated that during treatment an ultrasonic conducting gel is positioned between the transducers 502 mounted in concave plate 506 and the patient's body to prevent attenuation of the ultrasonic waves.

[0065] A method for treating a cartilage and/or osteochondral injury and/or defect is depicted by the flow-chart of FIG. 11A. The method entails stimulating blood flow to induce a biological reconstructive healing response of the underlying area at the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury site (step A), irradiating the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury site with ultrasonic waves for a time sufficient to accelerate the healing response (step B), and automatically terminating the irradiation of the ultrasonic waves after the predetermined period of time (step C). Step A entails mechanically drilling, induced fracture, laser drilling, administering chemical or biochemical treatments, scraping the injury site to stimulate the growth of cartilaginous tissue. Step B preferably entails propagating a primary directional lobe of acoustic energy in body tissue and/or fluids about a central or longitudinal axis, and this primary directional lobe is concentrically surrounded by primary shearwave lobes of acoustic energy. Step C entails automatically terminating the treatment after the predetermined period of time, e.g., via the timing mechanism 18, to ensure adequate ultrasonic treatment.

[0066] During step B, the carrier frequency is sufficiently elevated to establish a standing-wave condition in one or more spaces between confronting surfaces adjacent or at the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury site, as long as the space is dimensionally characterized by at least a quarter-wavelength at the carrier frequency, thereby enabling demodulation of the carrier frequency. With reference to FIG. 11B, the method further includes monitoring the condition of the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury site and for regulating at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves emitted by the ultrasonic transducer according to the monitored condition (step B1) using bio-feedback circuitry 19 within the MOU 12 as discussed above. The bio-feedback circuitry 19 is coupled to the timing mechanism 18 and to the ASDC 21. The ASDC 21 automatically changes at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves according to directions provided by the bio-feedback circuitry 19. Additionally, the ASDC 21 can automatically change at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves independently as shown by step B1 of FIG. 11C.

[0067] Within a matter of days, healing proceeds at an accelerated pace in the environment of such demodulation, with resultant cartilage development in reduction of the space; but the pattern of carrier wave propagation in body tissue and/or fluids surrounding the central axis of acoustic propagation is rich in therapeutically beneficial shear waves of acoustic energy.

[0068] It is also contemplated to use the present method in conjunction with the transplantation of autologous cultured chondrocytes to the injury site to increase the healing time.

[0069] With reference to FIGS. 12A and 12B, there are illustrated steps A and B, respectively, of FIGS. 11A, 11B and 11C. FIG. 12A is a perspective view showing the drilling of channels 600 within the defect using a drill 608 to stimulate blood flow and induce the biological reconstructive healing response of the underlying area at the cartilage and/or osteochondral injury site. FIG. 12B is a cross-sectional view showing the ultrasonic waves “bouncing off” the channels 600 within the joint walls 602 of the femur 604 and tibia 606 for a time sufficient to accelerate the healing response.

EXI095-01R and EXI096-01R Studies

[0070] FIGS. 13A-19D are photomicrographs illustrating the postoperative appearance of cartilage and/or osteochondral defects created at the patellar groove region of rabbits according to studies (EXI095-01R and EXI096-01R) conducted to demonstrate that daily ultrasound therapy accelerated cartilage and/or osteochondral defect healing as early as four weeks in both gross and histologic analysis. Defects treated with ultrasound demonstrated more hyaline cartilage properties compared to nontreated sites at four, eight, and twelve weeks postoperative. In addition, greater subchondral bone restoration was also noted.

[0071] The second study, EXI096-01R, confirmed the results of the initial study, EXI095-01R, and added longer term (12 weeks) analysis. The four week postoperative ultrasound treated defects received higher gross and histologic scores compared to the nontreated defects, indicating accelerated tissue regeneration and higher levels of proteoglycan formation and cartilage like morphology and greater integration of the repair cartilage with the surrounding host cartilage. The mean gross grade for the ultrasound treated defects was 6.92/8 versus 4.83/8 for the nontreated defects at four weeks. The mean histologic grade for the ultrasound defects was 15.11/24 versus 9.28/24 for the nontreated defects at four weeks. At eight weeks postoperative, differences were more subtle both grossly and histologically between treated and nontreated defects. The mean gross grade for the ultrasound defects was 7.50/8 compared to 6.33/8 for the nontreated defects at eight weeks. The mean histologic grade for the ultrasound defects was 15.83/24 compared to 13.60/24 for the nontreated defects at eight weeks. However, at twelve weeks postoperative, dramatic differences were observed grossly between the treated and nontreated defects (7.17/8 gross grade for ultrasound defects versus 5.50/8 for nontreated defects). This may represent the initial degeneration of the inferior cartilage produced in the nontreated defects. The mean histologic grade for the ultrasound treated defects was 19.06/24. The mean grade for the nontreated defects was 15.06/24.

[0072] Overall, ultrasound treated sites demonstrated earlier and greater amounts of cartilage and subchondral bone regeneration. With time ultrasound sites demonstrated more extensive subchondral bone regeneration, less degeneration of adjacent cartilage, and greater chondral layer thickness and a greater amount of integration of the repair cartilage with surrounding host cartilage. These characteristics indicate a better quality of repair cartilage, that may be better able to withstand loading and degeneration over time.

[0073] A total of 18 male New Zealand White rabbits weighing five to nine pounds at acquisition were utilized. Specific attention was paid in selecting animals of uniform size to limit variability in loading the osteochondral defects. Bilateral 3 mm diameter by 5 mm deep osteochondral defects were created surgically in the patellar groove of each femur. Daily 20 minute ultrasound therapy was applied to the right knee defects only until sacrifice. The left defects were not treated. In an initial pilot study of six animals (EXI095-01R) three were sacrificed at four weeks postoperative and three were sacrificed at eight weeks postoperative. Each defect was evaluated grossly and histologically for the quality and extent of cartilage regeneration. Based on the four and eight week gross and four week histologic results, a second similar study was undertaken (EXI096-01R) consisting of 12 rabbits. A gross pathologic examination was made of all vital organs and systems. A summary of the surgery and treatment schedule for both studies appears in Table 1.

[0074]

TABLE 1

Treatment Schedule (EXI095-01R and EXI096-01R)
Animal	Right Knee	Left Knee
Number	Treatment	Treatment	Surgery Date	Duration

EXI095-01R:
G200	20 minute daily	none	May 16, 1996	4 weeks
G203	20 minute daily	none	May 16, 1996	4 weeks
G217	20 minute daily	none	May 16, 1996	4 weeks
G198	20 minute daily	none	May 16, 1996	8 weeks
G201	20 minute daily	none	May 16, 1996	8 weeks
G202	20 minute daily	none	May 16, 1996	8 weeks
EXI096-01R:
H155	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	4 weeks
H156	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	4 weeks
H160	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	4 weeks
H152	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	8 weeks
H153	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	8 weeks
H162	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	8 weeks
H154	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	12 weeks
H157	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	12 weeks
H161	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	12 weeks
H163	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	12 weeks
H164	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	12 weeks
H165	20 minute daily	none	Jul. 26, 1996	12 weeks

[0075] The right knees received 20 minute daily ultrasound therapy with the Sonic Accelerated Fracture Healing (SAFHS) device six days weekly beginning on postoperative day four. The left knees received no treatment. SAFHS units were randomly chosen each day for treatment. Due to the large number of animals in the study EXI096-01R, some devices were used twice each day on two different animals. Animals were sedated by intramuscular injection of Ketaset and Rompun (83 mg/ml Ketamine and 17 mg/ml xylazine) at the dosage of 0.3 mg/kg body weight in order to administer the therapy. This dosage is approximately one half the anesthetic dosage intended to provide sedation only. The ultrasound transducer was placed on the distal femur at the lateral condyle with ample ultrasound coupling gel. The sites were periodically shaved to ensure contact between the transducer, coupling gel and skin.

[0076] The SAFHS device is a noninvasive FDA approved external device indicated for the accelerated healing of fresh fractures. SAFHS delivers a low level acoustic pressure wave signal with an intensity of 30 milliwatts per square centimeter (equivalent to the intensity used for diagnostic ultrasound) to the skin at the fracture site for twenty minutes daily.

[0077] Using standard aseptic techniques, surgery was performed under halothane gas anesthesia and was monitored by electrocardiogram and heart rate monitors. Anesthesia was administered by intramuscular injection of Ketaset and Rompun (83 mg/ml Ketamine and 17 mg/ml xylazine) at the dosage of 0.6 mg/kg body weight. Both hind limbs were prepped and draped in sterile fashion. The defect in the knee joint was made though a median parapatellar incision. The connective tissue securing the patella was partially released to dislocate the patella and expose the media] femoral condyle and patellar groove (FIG. 13A). Using a drill bit, a 3 mm diameter by 5 mm deep osteochondral defect in the patellar sulcus of the femur was created (FIG. 13B). After irrigation with saline, the joint was closed in layers (FIG. 13C). Routine anterior-posterior radiographs were taken after surgery to insure proper defect location.

[0078] Butorphanol tartrate (0.2 mg/kg body weight) was administered subcutaneously as required. Animals were administered intramuscular antibiotics for four days postsurgery. Animals were kept in recovery cages postoperatively until fully conscious and demonstrated weight bearing, after which they were transferred to standard cages and allowed unrestricted motion. Halo collars were utilized as needed to prevent the animal from removing sutures.

[0079] Osteochondral healing was evaluated grossly and histologically. Radiographs were utilized as necessary to evaluate healing. Animals were observed daily by qualified personnel for any signs of ill health or adverse reaction to the experimental procedures.

[0080] Both right and left distal femurs were harvested en bloc, carefully labeled, and kept in cool saline until gross grading and microphotography was completed. The specimens were then placed in formalin based fixative and labeled with all necessary identifications. A gross pathological exam of vital organs was conducted by the in-house veterinarian. Microscopic pathologic examination was performed on any tissues determined to be grossly abnormal.

[0081] Each harvested defect knee was graded for gross appearance based upon the scheme of Moran et. al. (The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 74-B, 659-667, 1992) by an observer blinded to the treatment group. This analysis apportions points based upon the formation of intra-articular adhesions, restoration of articular surface, erosion and appearance of the cartilage. A total of eight points is the best possible grade (Table 2).

[0082]

TABLE 2

Gross Grading Scale
	Grades

	Intra-articular adhesions
	None =	2
	Minimal/fine loose fibrous tissue =	1
	Major/dense fibrous tissue =	0
	Restoration of articular surface
	Complete =	2
	Partial =	1
	None =	0
	Erosion of cartilage
	None =	2
	Defect site/site border =	1
	Defect site and adjacent normal cartilage =	0
	Appearance of cartilage
	Translucent =	2
	Opaque =	1
	Discolored or irregular =	0
	TOTAL SCORE	8 possible points

[0083] All specimens were prepared for histologic evaluation. The individual specimens were fixed by immersion in either 10% formalin solution or 4% paraformaldehyde solution. Following fixation, the specimens were slowly decalcified in EDTA. The defect area was bisected across the diameter of the defect. The resulting halves and surrounding tissue were embedded in paraffin and sectioned across the defect site. Three sections, 5-7 um thick, from three levels were cut from each block. Level 1 was closest to the defect center. Level 3 was closest to the defect perimeter and level 2 was centered between levels 1 and 3. Three sections from each level were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Goldner's trichrome, and safranin-O and Fast Green stains (to indicate glycosaminoglycan content in the matrix).

[0084] Decalcified histologic sections were evaluated by an observer blinded to treatment group. Sections were graded base upon the scheme of Moran et. al. which apportion points based upon the nature of the repair cartilage, structural characteristics, and cellular changes (Table 3.)

[0085]

TABLE 3

Histology Grading Scale

NATURE OF THE PREDOMINANT TISSUE:
	Cellular morphology
	Hyaline articular cartilage =	4
	Incompletely differentiated =	2
	Fibrous tissue or bone =	0
	Safranin-O staining of the matrix
	Normal/near normal =	3
	Moderate =	2
	Slight =	1
	None =	0
STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS:
	Surface regularity
	Smooth/intact =	3
	Superficial horizontal lamination =	2
	Fissures, 25-100% of thickness =	1
	Severe disruption, fibrillation =	0
	Structural integrity
	Normal =	2
	Slight disruption, including cysts =	1
	Severe disintegration =	0
	Thickness
	100% of normal cartilage thickness =	2
	50-100% =	1
	0-50% =	0
	Bonding to the adjacent cartilage
	Bonded at both ends of the defect =	2
	Bonded at one end or partially bonded at both ends =	1
	Not bonded =	0
FREEDOM FROM CELLULAR
CHANGES OF DEGENERATION:
	Hypocellularity
	None =	3
	Slight =	2
	Moderate =	1
	Severe =	0
	Chondrocyte clustering
	None =	2
	<25% of cells =	1
	>25% of cells =	0
	Freedom from degenerative changes in adjacent cartilage
	Normal cellularity, no clusters, normal staining =	3
	Normal cellularity, mild clusters, moderate staining =	2
	Mild or moderate hypocellularity, slight staining =	1
	Severe hypocellularity, poor or no staining =	0

[0086] Immunohistochemical staining of cartilage sections from twelve week ultrasound treated and nontreated defects was performed to identify Type I and Type II collagen. Goat antihuman polyclonals obtained from Southern Biotechnology, Inc. were used. Immunohistochemical staining identifies the critical components of articular cartilage necessary for correct regeneration and maintenance of the tissue phenotype. In addition, the presence of other tissues reflective of inappropriate tissue formation is identified. In hyaline articular cartilage Type II collagen should be localized only in the cartilage layer above the subchondral bone. Staining for Type I collagen should be restricted to the subchondral bone region.

[0087] All surgeries were uneventful with no postoperative complications. Pathologic examination of internal organs demonstrated no adverse response to the daily ultrasound treatment or experimental procedures.

[0088] A summary of the gross evaluation grades from studies EXI095-01R and EXI096-01R appears in Table 4. FIGS. 2 through 4 demonstrate the typical gross appearance of the treated and nontreated sites at four, eight, and twelve weeks postoperative.

[0089]

TABLE 4

Mean Gross Evaluation Grade ± standard deviation (n = 6)
	NONTREATED	ULTRASOUND

	4 WEEKS	4.83 ± 1.72	6.92 ± 1.02
	8 WEEKS	6.33 ± 0.82	7.50 ± 0.45
	12 WEEKS	5.50 ± 1.22	7.17 ± 0.98

[0090] At four weeks postoperative, the ultrasound treated defects demonstrated more complete and uniform covering of the defect, although typically the new cartilage had an opaque appearance. Incompletely covered lesions were present at the center of many of the nontreated sites and the tissue regenerated was irregular in color (FIG. 14). FIG. 14A shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the right knee of animal H156 after undergoing SAFHS therapy. This defect received a score of 8 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 14B shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the left knee of animal H156 which was nontreated. This defect received a score of 6 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 14C shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the right knee of animal G217 after undergoing SAFHS therapy. This defect received a score of 7 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 14D shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the left knee of animal G217 which was nontreated. This defect received a score of 3 out of 8 possible points.

[0091] By eight weeks both the ultrasound and nontreated defects were covered uniformly with new tissue. The ultrasound treated defects demonstrated less erosion of the new cartilage and surrounding intact cartilage (FIG. 15). FIG. 15A shows the eight week postoperative gross appearance of the right knee of animal G201 after undergoing SAFHS therapy. This defect received a score of 7.5 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 15B shows the eight week postoperative gross appearance of the left knee of animal G201 which was nontreated. This defect received a score of 5 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 15C shows the eight week postoperative gross appearance of the right knee of animal H153 after undergoing SAFHS therapy. This defect received a score of 8 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 15D shows the eight week postoperative gross appearance of the left knee of animal H153 which was nontreated. This defect received a score of 7 out of 8 possible points.

[0092] At twelve weeks postoperative the defect borders in the ultrasound treated defects were difficult to appreciate and the new cartilage had the appearance of the adjacent tissue (FIG. 16) and it was well integrated with the adjacent host cartilage. New cartilage had a more transparent appearance compared to the nontreated defects and clearly demonstrated significantly less erosion of the adjacent and newly formed cartilage. FIG. 16A shows the twelve week postoperative gross appearance of the right knee of animal H164 after undergoing SAFHS therapy. This defect received a score of 8 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 16B shows the twelve week postoperative gross appearance of the left knee of animal H164 which was nontreated. This defect received a score of 6 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 16C shows the twelve week postoperative gross appearance of the right knee of animal H157 after undergoing SAFHS therapy. This defect received a score of 8 out of 8 possible points. FIG. 16D shows the twelve week postoperative gross appearance of the left knee of animal H157 which was nontreated. This defect received a score of 3 out of 8 possible points.

[0093] A summary of the mean histologic grades from studies EXI095-01R and EXI096-01R appears in Table 5. One half of each twelve week specimen has been submitted for tissue typing analysis aimed at identifying the collagen type and percent tissue composition.

[0094]

TABLE 5

Mean Histologic Grades for the four, eight, and twelve weeks
postoperative sites ± standard deviation (sample size)
for both EXI095-01R and EXI096-01R.
	4 Weeks Postoperative	8 Weeks Postoperative	12 Weeks Postoperative
	Nontreated	Ultrasound	Nontreated	Ultrasound	Nontreated	Ultrasound

Nature of the	1.11 ± 1.02	4.06 ± 2.44	3.87 ± 1.77	3.72 ± 1.81	3.50 ± 2.09	5.61 ± 1.20
Predominant	(18)	(18)	(15)	(18)	(18)	(18)
Tissue
Structural	5.78 ± 1.86	6.78 ± 1.29	6.27 ± 1.49	7.28 ± 1.07	6.22 ± 1.99	7.17 ± 1.65
Characteristics	(18)	(18)	(15)	(18)	(18)	(18)
Freedom From	2.39 ± 1.72	4.28 ± 1.67	3.47 ± 1.73	4.83 ± 1.79	5.33 ± 2.52	6.28 ± 1.02
Cellular	(18)	(18)	(15)	(18)	(18)	(18)
Changes of
Degeneration
TOTAL	9.28 ± 3.61	15.11 ± 4.80	13.60 ± 3.68	15.83 ± 2.81	15.06 ± 6.30	19.06 ± 2.73
(out of 24	(18)	(18)	(15)	(18)	(18)	(18)
possible points)

[0095] FIGS. 17, 18, and 19 demonstrate the typical histologic appearance of both treated and nontreated defects at four, eight, and twelve weeks postoperative.

[0096] At four weeks postoperative differences between the ultrasound treated and nontreated defects were substantial. Intense safranin-O staining of the matrix, extensive chondroblast activity, and earlier subchondral bone formation in the ultrasound treated defects was in sharp contrast with the lack of activity and chondroblast phenotype present in the nontreated defects. Early degenerative changes of the nontreated defects was also evident.

[0097] With reference to FIG. 17A, there is shown a low power view of an ultrasound treated defect (right knee of animal G217) at four weeks postoperative. Compared to the nontreated defects, there is a dramatic increase in safranin-O staining throughout the repair tissue indicating production of matrix proteoglycans. There is significant chondroblast activity and early evidence of columnar arrangement of chondrocytes at the defect interfaces. There has also been some restoration of subchondral bone. FIG. 17B shows a low power view of a nontreated defect (left knee of animal G217) at four weeks postoperative. Throughout the defect and at the defect margins there is little safranin-O stain present indicating absence of matrix proteoglycans. A thin layer of maturing fibrous tissue covers the surface of the defect. In addition, there has been little subchondral bony restoration.

[0098] FIG. 17C shows a low power view of an ultrasound treated defect (right knee of animal H156) at four weeks postoperative. Similar to the right knee of animal G217, intense safranin-O staining throughout the repair tissue indicates production of matrix proteoglycans. There is significant chondroblast activity and early evidence of columnar arrangement of chondrocytes throughout the defect. The subchondral bone is almost completely restored. Although the interface between the repair and the adjacent intact cartilage has undergone some degenerative changes, the repair cartilage is well-bonded at the interface. (The large tear at the center of the defect occurred during sectioning.) FIG. 17D shows a low power view of a nontreated defect (left knee of animal H156) at four weeks postoperative. Similar to the left knee of animal G217, there is no safranin-O stain present indicating absence of matrix proteoglycans. A thin layer of maturing fibrous tissue covers the surface of the defect. Some subchondral bony has been restored.

[0099] At eight weeks the histologic results were similar to the gross results. Generally, safranin-O staining was not as intense at eight weeks postoperative in both the ultrasound treated and nontreated defects. However, subchondral bone regeneration was complete in the ultrasound treated sites and the repair cartilage showed less signs of degenerative changes. The nontreated sites showed less subchondral bone regeneration and organization of the repair tissue.

[0100] With reference to FIG. 18A, there is shown a low power view of an ultrasound treated defect (right knee of animal G198) at eight weeks postoperative. Compared to the nontreated defect, the new cartilage is well-bonded to the adjacent intact cartilage. There is significant chondroblast activity and evidence of columnar arrangement of chondrocytes. The new tissue layer is thicker than the adjacent intact cartilage. Clustering of chondrocytes is minimal and limited to the interfaces. FIG. 18B shows a low power view of a nontreated defect (left knee of animal G198) at eight weeks postoperative. Although safranin-O staining is present within the repair tissue, degradation of the interfaces and the surface of the repair is more advanced than in the right defect. Less subchondral bone formation is apparent and columnar organization of chondrocytes is not present.

[0101] FIG. 18C is a low power view of an ultrasound defect (right knee of animal H153) at eight weeks postoperative. The subchondral bone has been completely restored. However, the repair tissue is thinner than the adjacent intact cartilage and does not show evidence of proteoglycan content in the matrix. The repair is well-bonded at the defect interfaces. FIG. 18D is a low power view of a nontreated defect (left knee of animal H153) at eight weeks postoperative. In contrast with the right defect, the subchondral bone has not yet been completely restored. Early degeneration of the interfaces has occurred and hypocellular regions are present at the center of the defect.

[0102] Again at twelve weeks the ultrasound treated site had greater mean histologic scores than the nontreated defects. In most cases, subchondral bone regeneration was complete. However, the chondral layer repair tissue in ultrasound treated sites demonstrated more articular cartilage characteristics than the nontreated sites. The majority of the nontreated sites were covered with superficial layer of maturing fibrous tissue. The intensity of safranin-O stain was slight or not present in the surface repair layer of nontreated defects. Adjacent intact cartilage was hypocellular and in several cases large clusters of greater than 20 chondrocytes were present at the junction between the repair tissue and the host cartilage. Safranin-O staining was more intense in the ultrasound treated sites, however, variations within the repair cartilage of individual defects were observed. Regions of columnar arrangement of chondrocytes, near normal chondral layer thickness and safranin-O staining intensity were present in ultrasound treated defects.

[0103] With reference to FIG. 19A, there is shown a low power view of an ultrasound treated defect (right knee of animal H164) at twelve weeks postoperative. Safranin-O staining intensity of the repair tissue is nearly identical to the adjacent intact cartilage. Chondrocytes within the middle layer of the repair cartilage have a columnar arrangement, are plump and actively producing proteoglycans. FIG. 19B shows a low power view of a nontreated defect (left knee of animal H164) at twelve weeks postoperative. In contrast with the contralateral ultrasound treated defect, there is little safranin-O staining within the repair tissue in this section. The repair cartilage thickness is approximately 50% of the adjacent intact cartilage. The chondrocytes have a random arrangement.

[0104] FIG. 19C is a low power view of an ultrasound treated defect (right knee of animal H157) at twelve weeks postoperative. The repair tissue has near normal cartilage morphology, although a small area has more randomly arranged chondrocytes. The repair is well-bonded to the adjacent intact cartilage and little deterioration has occurred. FIG. 19D shows a low power view of a nontreated defect (left knee of animal H157) at twelve weeks postoperative. Only a superficial layer of fibrous tissue covers the subchondral bone. A large fissure through the fibrous tissue into the subchondral bone remains. There is no evidence of any active cartilage regeneration.

[0105] Strong Type II collagen staining of the newly regenerated cartilage layer was found in ultrasound treated defects that showed good repair, whereas nontreated defects sections with poor repair showed less intensive staining or staining of cartilage deep within the defect reflective of inappropriate tissue formation.

[0106] Positive staining for Type I collagen in the regenerated bone showed very little or no localization in the regenerated cartilage layer of the ultrasound treated samples. Presence of Type I collagen in the non-bone areas would be an indication of fibrosis or formation of fibrocartilage.

[0107] An additional study, EXI097-01R, was conducted on 66 rabbits which received bilateral osteochondral defects in the femurs according to the study design described above. A summary of the gross grading results from this study pooled with those from studies EXI095-01R and EXI096-01R are presented in “Gross Grading Results” in Table 6.

[0108]

TABLE 6

Gross Grading Results
Treatment Group	Evaluation Period		TOTAL

Abrasion Defects	4 weeks	Mean	5.7
20 mins. ultrasound		Std. Dev.	1.0
		Sample Size	6
Control		Mean	4.8
		Std. Dev.	0.8
		Sample Size	6
Medial Condyle	4 weeks	Mean	4.9
Defects		Std. Dev.	1.4
20 mins. ultrasound		Sample Size	6
Control		Mean	4.8
		Std. Dev.	0.6
		Sample Size	6
Patellar Groove	4 weeks	Mean	5.5
Defects		Std. Dev.	1.0
20 mins. ultrasound		Sample Size	6
Control		Mean	5.8
(paired)		Std. Dev.	0.3
		Sample Size	6
Patellar Groove	4 weeks	Mean	6.7
Defects		Std. Dev.	1.0
20 mins. ultrasound		Sample Size	6
5 mins. ultrasound		Mean	5.8
		Std. Dev.	1.0
		Sample Size	6
Patellar Groove	4 weeks
Defects		ONGOING
20 mins. ultrasound
5 mins. ultrasound
Patellar Groove	4 weeks
Defects		ONGOING
20 mins. ultrasound
10 mins. ultrasound
Patellar Groove	4 weeks
Defects		ONGOING
20 mins. ultrasound
40 mins. ultrasound
Patellar Groove	4 weeks	Mean	6.6
Defects		Std. Dev.	1.0
20 mins. ultrasound (pooled)		Sample Size	18
Control		Mean	5.3
(pooled)		Std. Dev.	1.3
		Sample Size	18
Patellar Groove	4 weeks	Mean	6.6
Defects		Std. Dev.	1.0
20 mins. ultrasound		Sample Size	12
Control		Mean	5.0
(paired)		Std. Dev.	1.5
		Sample Size	12
Patellar Groove	8 weeks	Mean	7.0
Defects		Std. Dev.	1.2
20 mins. ultrasound (paired)		Sample Size	11
Control		Mean	5.8
(paired)		Std. Dev.	1.4
		Sample Size	11
Patellar Groove	12 weeks	Mean	6.5
Defects		Std. Dev.	1.1
20 mins. ultrasound (paired)		Sample Size	11
Control		Mean	5.6
(paired)		Std. Dev.	1.1
		Sample Size	11
Patellar Groove	24 weeks
Defects		ONGOING
20 mins. ultrasound for first
12 weeks postoperative
Control
(paired)
Patellar Groove	24 weeks
Defects		ONGOING
20 mins. ultrasound for
first 18 weeks postoperative
Control
(paired)

Additional Studies (EXI098-03R and EXI098-04R)
A. EXI098-03R

[0109] A total of twelve adult male New Zealand white rabbits weighing approximately 4.4 kilograms received bilateral 3 mm diameter by 5 mm deep osteochondral defects in the patellar groove of each knee. The right knees of six rabbits received 20 minute daily therapy with the standard SAFHS 30 mW/cm²signal intensity ultrasound device. The left knees of these rabbits received 20 minute daily therapy with a 57 mW/cm²signal intensity ultrasound device. In the remaining six rabbits, the right knees received 20 minute daily therapy with the 57 mW/cm²signal intensity ultrasound device and the left knees were untreated controls. Defect healing was evaluated at four weeks postoperative by visual gross analysis of the appearance of the repair tissue and by histologic analysis aimed at characterizing the nature of the repair tissue.

[0110] The results of this study did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in the gross and histologic appearance of the repair tissue in ultrasound treated defects when compared to untreated controls. However, all ultrasound treated defects had mean gross and histologic scores greater than untreated controls. There was no statistical difference in gross or histologic appearance between the defects treated with the 30 mW/cm²and 57 mW/cm²signal intensity ultrasound devices. The ultrasound treated sites had a more normal translucent appearance grossly and histologically greater subchondral bone restoration and better incorporation of the repair tissue with the host cartilage. A summary of the surgery and treatment schedule for the EXI098-03R study appears in Table 7.

[0111]

TABLE 7

Treatment Schedule (EXI098-03R)
Animal	Right Knee	Left Knee
Number	Treatment	Treatment	Surgery Date	Duration

J131	20 minute daily	none	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J132	20 minute daily	none	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J133	20 minute daily	none	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J134	20 minute daily	none	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J135	20 minute daily	none	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J136	20 minute daily	none	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J137	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J138	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J139	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J140	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J141	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J142	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Nov. 5, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)

[0112] The knees received 20 minute daily ultrasound therapy with the standard 30 mW/cm²ultrasound device or the 57 mW/cm²ultrasound device signal and were treated six days weekly beginning on the postoperative day four. The ultrasound transducer was placed on the distal femur at the lateral condyle with ample ultrasound coupling gel. The sites were periodically shaved to ensure contact between the transducer, coupling gel and skin.

[0113] Using standard aseptic techniques, surgery was performed under isofluorance gas anesthesia and was monitored by electrocardiogram and heart rate monitors. Anesthesia was administered by intramuscular injection of Ketaset and Rompun (83 mg/ml Ketamine and 17 mg/ml xylazine) at the dosage of 0.6 mg/kg body weight. Both hind limbs were prepped and draped in sterile fashion. The defect in the knee joint was made though a median parapatellar incision. The connective tissue securing the patella was partially released to dislocate the patella and expose the media] femoral condyle and patellar groove (FIG. 13A). Using a drill bit, a 3 mm diameter by 5 mm deep osteochondral defect in the patellar sulcus of the femur was created (FIG. 13B). After irrigation with saline, the joint was closed in layers (FIG. 13C). Routine anterior-posterior radiographs were taken after surgery to insure proper defect location.

[0114] Butorphanol tartrate (0.2 mg/kg body weight) was administered subcutaneously as required. Animals were administered intramuscular antibiotics for four days postsurgery. Animals were kept in recovery cages postoperatively until fully conscious and demonstrated weight bearing, after which they were transferred to standard cages and allowed unrestricted motion. Halo collars were utilized as needed to prevent the animal from removing sutures.

[0115] Osteochondral healing was evaluated grossly and histologically. Radiographs were utilized as necessary to evaluate healing. Animals were observed daily by qualified personnel for any signs of ill health or adverse reaction to the experimental procedures.

[0116] Both right and left distal femurs were harvested en bloc, carefully labeled, and kept in cool saline until gross grading and microphotography was completed. The specimens were then placed in formalin based fixative and labeled with all necessary identifications.

[0117] Each harvested defect knee was graded for gross appearance based upon the scheme of Moran et. al. (The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 74-B, 659-667, 1992) by an observer blinded to the treatment group. This analysis apportions points based upon the formation of intra-articular adhesions, restoration of articular surface, erosion and appearance of the cartilage. A total of eight points is the best possible grade (see Table 2 above).

[0118] All specimens were prepared for histologic evaluation. The individual specimens were fixed by immersion in either 10% formalin solution or 4% paraformaldehyde solution. Following fixation, the specimens were slowly decalcified in EDTA. The defect area was bisected across the diameter of the defect. The resulting halves and surrounding tissue were embedded in paraffin and sectioned across the defect site. Three sections, 5-7 um thick, from three levels were cut from each block. Level 1 was closest to the defect center. Level 3 was closest to the defect perimeter and level 2 was centered between levels 1 and 3. Three sections from each level were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Goldner's trichrome, and safranin-O and Fast Green stains to indicate glycosaminoglycan content in the matrix.

[0119] Histologic sections were evaluated by an observer blinded to treatment group. Sections were graded based upon the scheme of Caplan et al. (Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 342, pp. 254-269, 1997) which apportions points based upon the nature of the repair cartilage, structural characteristics, and cellular changes. A total of 16 points is possible (see Table 3 above).

[0120] All surgeries were uneventful with no immediate postoperative complications. One animal (J133) died at two weeks postoperative of complications unrelated to the ultrasound therapy. Gross and histologic data from this animal were excluded from the analysis. A summary of the mean gross evaluation grades appears in Table 8.

[0121]

TABLE 8

Mean Gross Evaluation Grades ± standard deviation
(sample size) for EXI098-03R.
			p value
	Nontreated	57 mW/cm²	(paired)

Control vs. 57 mW/cm²	6.2 ± 0.8	6.6 ± 0.9	NS
	(5)	(5)
30 mW/cm²vs. 57 mW/cm²	6.5 ± 1.0	6.3 ± 0.5	NS
	(6)	(6)
Pooled 57 mW/cm²		6.5 ± 0.7
		(11)
Pooled Ultrasound		6.5 ± 0.8
(30 mW/cm²+ 57 mW/cm²)		(17)

[0122] FIGS. 20A-21B demonstrate the typical gross appearance of the 30 mW/cm²and 57 mW/cm²ultrasound treated and nontreated control defects at four weeks postoperative. FIG. 20A shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the left untreated knee of animal J132. FIG. 20B shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the right 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J132. FIG. 21A shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the left 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J140. FIG. 21B shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the right 30 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J140.

[0123] There were no statistically significant differences observed among the paired gross grading results, although all ultrasound treated groups had mean gross scores greater than untreated controls. Pooled comparison of all ultrasound device treated defects (6.5±0.8, n=17) and untreated control defects (6.2±0.8, n=5) did not reveal a statistically significant difference in gross scores (p=0.5175).

[0124] There was no marked difference in gross appearance between any group at four weeks postoperative. All defects were in the early stage of repair. At the defect borders there was little erosion of the surrounding host cartilage. The increased gross scores in ultrasound treated groups was primarily a reflection of a more translucent and normal articular cartilage appearance of the repair tissue.

[0125] A summary of the mean histologic grades appears in Table 9. FIGS. 22 and 23 demonstrate the typical histologic appearance of 30 mW/cm²and 57 mW/cm²ultrasound treated and nontreated control defects at four weeks postoperative. FIG. 22A shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the left untreated knee of animal J132. FIG. 22B shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the right 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J132 (safranin-O fast green stain). FIG. 23A shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the left 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J140. FIG. 23B shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the right 30 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J140 (safranin-O fast green stain).

[0126]

TABLE 9

Mean Histologic Grade ± standard deviation for EXI098-03R.

Control vs. 57 mW/cm²(n = 5)
	Control	57 mW/cm²	p value (paired)

Cell Morphology	1.2 ± 0.8	1.4 ± 0.5	NS
Reconstruction of	1.0 ± 0.7	1.2 ± 0.4	NS
Subchondral Bone
Matrix Staining	1.4 ± 0.9	1.2 ± 0.4	NS
Cartilage Defect Filling	0.6 ± 0.5	1.0 ± 0.0	NS
Surface Regularity	1.0 ± 0.0	0.8 ± 0.4	NS
Bonding	1.6 ± 0.5	1.2 ± 0.8	NS
TOTAL	6.8 ± 2.5	6.8 ± 2.2	NS
(out of 16 possible points)

30 mW/cm²vs. 57 mW/cm²(n = 6)
	30 mW/cm²	57 mW/cm²	p value (paired)

Cell Morphology	1.7 ± 0.8	1.7 ± 0.5	NS
Reconstruction of	1.8 ± 0.4	1.5 ± 0.5	NS
Subchondral Bone
Matrix Staining	1.8 ± 1.2	1.8 ± 0.8	NS
Cartilage Defect Filling	1.0 ± 0.0	1.0 ± 0.0	NS
Surface Regularity	0.8 ± 0.4	0.7 ± 0.5	NS
Bonding	1.7 ± 0.5	1.3 ± 0.5	NS
TOTAL	8.8 ± 2.6	8.0 ± 2.1	NS
(out of 16 possible points)

NS = not statistically significant, p value > 0.05.

[0127] There were no statistically significant differences observed among the total histologic scores or individual categories of the scoring in paired comparisons of group means. All ultrasound treated groups achieved greater mean histologic scores than untreated controls with 30 mW/cm²ultrasound treated group achieving the greatest mean score. The mean total histologic grade for pooled ultrasound treated sites (7.9±2.3, n=17) was not statistically greater than the mean grade of untreated controls (6.8±2.5, n=5) (p=0.3497).

[0128] Defect healing was in the early stage in all groups. Subchondral bone regeneration was more advance in ultrasound treated sites compared to control sites. In most defects the newly generated repair tissue layer appeared thicker than the adjacent host cartilage layer. Overall, the repair tissue in the ultrasound treated defects stained more intensely with safranin-O indicating a greater glycosaminoglycan content in the matrix and was better incorporated at the host cartilage interfaces.

[0129] This study focusing on the use of the standard SAFHS ultrasound device on full thickness osteochondral defect healing in rabbits indicates that ultrasound therapy improves the quality of repair tissue. Statistically significant improvement in both the gross and histologic appearance of the repair tissue was observed with the use of daily ultrasound therapy. The purpose of this study was to characterize the ability of ultrasound therapy to improve the repair of osteochondral defects in the rabbit model using a signal with a greater energy intensity and compare the results to that obtained with the standard ultrasound signal.

B. EXI098-04R

[0130] A total of twelve adult male New Zealand white rabbits were utilized weighing approximately 4.4 kilograms. Trephine was used to create the study model in the patellar groove of each femur. The autologous plug created by the trephine was left in place to ensure flush replacement of the graft with the host cartilage separated by an approximate 1 mm circumferential gap created by the wall thickness of the trephine. The right knees of six rabbits were treated for 20 minutes daily with the standard SAFHS 30 mW/cm²ultrasound device. The contralateral left knees of these rabbits received 20 minute daily therapy with a 57 mW/cm²signal intensity ultrasound device. In the remaining six rabbits, the right knees received 20 minute daily therapy with the 57 mW/cm²signal intensity ultrasound device and the left knees were untreated controls. Defect healing was evaluated at four weeks postoperative by visual gross analysis of the appearance of the repair tissue and by histologic analysis aimed at characterizing the nature of the repair tissue. Histologic sections were prepared and assigned a numeric grade based upon the structural integrity, the nature of the repair tissue and the extent of the degradation of the adjacent articular cartilage. A summary of the surgery and treatment schedule for the EXI098-03R study appears in Table 10.

[0131]

TABLE 10

Treatment Schedule (EXI098-04R)
Animal	Right Knee	Left Knee
Number	Treatment	Treatment	Surgery Date	Duration

J112	20 minute daily	none	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J150	20 minute daily	none	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J151	20 minute daily	none	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J152	20 minute daily	none	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J153	20 minute daily	none	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J154	20 minute daily	none	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(57 mW/cm²)
J144	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J145	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J146	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J147	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J148	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)
J149	20 minute daily	20 minute daily	Dec. 7, 1998	4 weeks
	(30 mW/cm²)	(57 mW/cm²)

[0132] The knees received 20 minute daily ultrasound therapy with the standard 30 mW/cm²ultrasound device or the 57 mW/cm²ultrasound device signal and were treated six days weekly beginning on the postoperative day four. The ultrasound transducer was placed on the distal femur at the lateral condyle with ample ultrasound coupling gel. The sites were periodically shaved to ensure contact between the transducer, coupling gel and skin.

[0133] Using standard aseptic techniques, surgery was performed under isofluorance gas anesthesia and was monitored by electrocardiogram and heart rate monitors. Anesthesia was administered by intramuscular injection of Ketaset and Rompun (83 mg/ml Ketamine and 17 mg/ml xylazine) at the dosage of 0.6 mg/kg body weight. After induction, anesthesia was maintained by isofluorance gas inhalation. Both hind limbs were prepped and draped in sterile fashion. The knee joints were approached through a median parapatellar incision. The connective tissue securing the patellae were partially released to dislocate the patellae and expose the medial femoral condyles and patellar groove. The surgical model utilized Smith and Nephew mosaicplasty osteochondral grafting instruments. A 3.5 mm trephine was used to create the model defects. The osteochondral plugs were left in place in order to ensure flush placement of the graft with the host cartilage (FIG. 24). The plugs were separated from the adjacent cartilage by the approximate 1 mm gap created by the wall thickness of the trephine. The gap extended through the subchondral bone. After irrigation with saline, the joint was closed in layers. Routine anterior-posterior radiographs were taken after surgery to ensure proper defect location.

[0134] Butorphanol tartrate (0.2 mg/kg body weight) was administered subcutaneously as required. Animals were administered intramuscular antibiotics for four days post-surgery. Animals were kept in recovery cages postoperatively until fully conscious and demonstrated weight bearing, after which they were transferred to standard cages and allowed unrestricted motion. Halo collars were utilized as needed to prevent the animal from removing sutures.

[0135] Osteochondral healing was evaluated grossly and histologically. Radiographs were utilized as necessary to evaluate healing. Animals were observed daily by qualified personnel for any signs of ill health or adverse reaction to the experimental procedures.

[0136] Both right and left distal femurs were harvested en bloc, carefully labeled, and kept in cool saline until gross grading and microphotography was completed. The specimens were then placed in formalin based fixative and labeled with all necessary identifications.

[0137] Each harvested defect knee was graded for gross appearance based upon the scheme of Moran et. al. (The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 74-B, 659-667, 1992) by an observer blinded to the treatment group. This gross analysis apportions points based upon the formation of intra-articular adhesions, restoration of articular surface, erosion of host cartilage and appearance of the repair tissue. A total of eight points is the best possible grade (see Table 2 above). In addition, the extent and quality of healing at the graft-host cartilage interface was noted.

[0138] All specimens were prepared for histologic evaluation. The individual specimens were fixed by immersion in either 10% formalin solution or 4% paraformaldehyde solution. Following fixation, the specimens were slowly decalcified in EDTA. The defect area was bisected across the diameter of the defect. The resulting halves and surrounding tissue were embedded in paraffin and sectioned across the defect site. Three sections, 5-7 um thick, from three levels were cut from each block. Level 1 was closest to the defect center. Level 3 was closest to the defect perimeter and level 2 was centered between levels 1 and 3. Three sections from each level were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Goldner's trichrome, and safranin-O and Fast Green stains to indicate glycosaminoglycan content in the matrix.

[0139] Histologic sections were evaluated by an observer blinded to treatment group. Sections were graded based upon the scheme of Caplan et al. (Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 342, pp. 254-269, 1997) which apportions points based upon the nature of the repair cartilage, structural characteristics, and cellular changes. A total of 16 points is possible (see Table 3 above).

[0140] All surgeries were uneventful with no immediate postoperative complications. A summary of the mean gross evaluation grades appears in Table 11.

[0141]

TABLE 11

Mean Gross Evaluation Grades ± standard deviation
(sample size) for EXI098-04R.
			p value
	Nontreated	57 mW/cm²	(paired)

Control vs. 57 mW/cm²	6.8 ± 0.8	7.6 ± 0.9	NS
	(5)	(5)
30 mW/cm²vs. 57 mW/cm²	6.9 ± 0.8	7.3 ± 0.4	NS
	(5)	(5)

[0142] FIGS. 25A-26B demonstrate the typical gross appearance of the 30 mW/cm²and 57 mW/cm²ultrasound treated and nontreated control defects at four weeks postoperative. FIG. 25A shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the untreated knee of animal J152. FIG. 25B shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the right 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J152. FIG. 26A shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the left 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J145. FIG. 26B shows the four week postoperative gross appearance of the right 30 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J145.

[0143] There were no statistically significant differences observed among the total scores or individual components of the score. However, all ultrasound treated groups (30 and 57 mW/cm²) had mean gross scores greater than untreated controls. It should be noted that the number of specimens in each group (5) was small which may have masked differences present. Differences among the groups were subtle at four weeks postoperative. The autologous plug/host cartilage gap was completely filled in most cases by repair tissue. The small gap size made visualization of differences among the specimens difficult. Overall the ultrasound treated sites appeared to have better filling of gap space with a more normal appearing cartilage repair tissue.

[0144] A summary of the mean histologic grades appears in Table 12. FIGS. 27 and 28 demonstrate the typical histologic appearance of 30 mW/cm²and 57 mW/cm²ultrasound treated and nontreated control defects at four weeks postoperative. FIG. 27A shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the left untreated knee of animal J152. FIG. 27B shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the right 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J152 (safranin-O fast green stain). FIG. 28A shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the left 57 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J145. FIG. 28B shows the four week postoperative histologic appearance of the right 30 mW/cm²ultrasound therapy treated knee of animal J145 (safranin-O fast green stain).

[0145]

TABLE 12

Mean Histologic Grade ± standard deviation for EXI098-04.

Control vs. 57 mW/cm²(n = 6)
	Control	57 mW/cm²	p value (paired)

Cell Morphology	1.7 ± 0.8	1.3 ± 1.0	NS
Reconstruction of	0.5 ± 0.5	1.7 ± 1.4	NS
Subchondral Bone
Matrix Staining	1.3 ± 0.8	1.2 ± 1.0	NS
Cartilage Defect Filling	0.7 ± 0.5	0.7 ± 0.5	NS
Surface Regularity	0.5 ± 0.5	0.3 ± 0.5	NS
Bonding	0.7 ± 0.5	1.3 ± 0.5	NS
TOTAL	5.3 ± 2.4	6.5 ± 2.1	NS
(out of 16 possible points)

30 mW/cm²vs. 57 mW/cm²(n = 6)
	30 mW/cm²	57 mW/cm²	p value (paired)

Cell Morphology	1.2 ± 1.2	1.3 ± 0.8	NS
Reconstruction of	1.7 ± 1.0	0.8 ± 0.4	NS
Subchondral Bone
Matrix Staining	1.2 ± 1.2	1.2 ± 1.0	NS
Cartilage Defect Filling	0.7 ± 0.5	0.7 ± 0.5	NS
Surface Regularity	0.5 ± 0.5	0.7 ± 0.5	NS
Bonding	1.0 ± 0.9	1.0 ± 0.6	NS
TOTAL	6.2 ± 2.6	5.7 ± 2.3	NS
(out of 16 possible points)

NS = not statistically significant

[0146] There were no statistically significant differences observed among the total or individual components of the histologic score in paired comparisons of group means. All ultrasound treated groups achieved a greater mean total histologic score than untreated controls. A statistically significant increase in subchondral bone regeneration was almost observed (p=0.0586) when comparing 57 mW/cm²ultrasound treated and untreated controls in the paired test. The means total histologic grade for pooled ultrasound treated sites (6.0±2.3, n=18) was not statistically greater than untreated controls (5.3±2.4, n=6). This is most likely due to the small number of samples.

[0147] Differences in histologic appearance between ultrasound treated and control sites were limited to greater reconstruction of the subchondral bone and better incorporation of the new repair tissue at the host cartilage interface. All sites were in the early stages of repair. There was little difference in the amount of defect filling which was not complete or in the degree of matrix staining.

[0148] This study focusing on the use of the standard SAFHS ultrasound device on full thickness osteochondral defect healing in rabbits indicates that ultrasound therapy improves the quality of repair tissue. Statistically significant improvement in both the gross and histologic appearance of the repair tissue was observed with the use of daily ultrasound therapy. The purpose of this study was to characterize the ability of ultrasound therapy to improve the repair and incorporation of autologous osteochondral plugs in a rabbit model using the standard SAFHS ultrasound device as well as an ultrasound device with a signal of greater energy intensity.

[0149] It will be understood that various modifications can be made to the various embodiments of the present invention herein disclosed without departing from its spirit and scope. For example, various modifications may be made in the structural configuration of the placement modules and the configuration of the components used to excite the ultrasonic transducer. Therefore, the above description should not be construed as limiting the invention but merely as presenting preferred embodiments of the invention. Those skilled in the art will envision other modifications within the scope and spirit of the present invention as defined by the claims presented below.

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A kit for ultrasonically stimulating cartilage growth, which comprises:

means for initiating a biological healing response at or adjacent a cartilaginous site;

an ultrasonic transducer assembly having at least one ultrasonic transducer;

a placement module configured to be worn by a patient, said placement module being configured to receive said transducer assembly such that when said placement module is worn said at least one ultrasonic transducer is positioned in proximity to the channels;

an ultrasonic signal generator positioned in said ultrasonic transducer assembly and operative between a signal generating mode and a non-signal generating mode, wherein at said signal generating mode the ultrasonic signal generator emits ultrasonic signals;

timing means for automatically placing the ultrasonic signal generator from said signal generating mode to said non-signal generating mode after a predetermined period of time; and

a main operating unit.

2. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the timing means is within the main operating unit and the predetermined period of time is approximately 20 minutes.

3. The kit according to claim 1, further comprising automatic signal driving means for automatically changing at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic signals emitted by the ultrasonic signal generator while in said signal generating mode.

4. The kit according to claim 3, wherein said at least one signal characteristic is the average signal intensity of the emitted ultrasonic signals.

5. The kit according to claim 4, wherein said automatic signal driving means automatically changes the signal intensity of the emitted ultrasonic signals from approximately 30 mW/cm²to approximately 57 mW/cm²and vise versa.

6. The kit according to claim 1, further comprising bio-feedback circuitry for monitoring the condition of the cartilage and for regulating at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic signals emitted by the ultrasonic signal generator according to the monitored condition.

7. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the means for initiating the biological healing response includes a drill assembly.

8. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the means for initiating the biological healing response includes a laser drill assembly.

9. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the means for initiating the biological healing response includes a scraping assembly.

10. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the means for initiating the biological healing response includes a chemical substance for irradiating the cartilaginous site.

11. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the means for initiating the biological healing response includes a trephine.

12. The kit according to claim 1, wherein said ultrasonic signal generator includes signal generator circuitry and an internal power source connected to said signal generator circuitry, a display coupled to said signal generator circuitry to display treatment sequence data, and said signal generator circuitry including a processor and means for generating a pulsed RF signal.

13. The kit according to claim 1, further comprising safety interlock means to prevent inadvertent excitation of said at least one ultrasonic transducer.

14. The kit according to claim 1, wherein said placement module includes a locking mechanism which when worn by the patient prevents the patient from bending or extending the limbs.

15. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the placement module is constructed from a conductive material and said at least one ultrasonic transducer is provided on said placement module is electrically coupled to said main operation unit via said conductive material.

16. The kit according to claim 1, wherein the placement module is custom molded for a particular joint of the patient.

17. The kit according to claim 1, wherein at least one ultrasonic transducer includes means for receiving reflected diagnostic data.

18. A method for ultrasonically stimulating a healing response for the regeneration of cartilage comprising the following steps:

initiating a biological healing response at or adjacent a cartilaginous site;

providing a main operating unit having an internal power source coupled to an ultrasonic transducer assembly, said ultrasonic transducer assembly includes at least one ultrasonic transducer, an ultrasonic signal generator and signal generator circuitry therein;

providing a placement module configured to receive said transducer assembly such that when said placement module is secured to a patient's body said at least one ultrasonic transducer is positioned in proximity to the channels;

exciting said at least one ultrasonic transducer to impinge ultrasonic waves towards the cartilaginous site;

providing a timing mechanism for clocking the amount of time said at least one ultrasonic transducer is excited; and

automatically turning off said at least one ultrasonic transducer after said timing mechanism has clocked a predetermined period of time.

19. The method according to claim 18, further comprising the step of providing an automatic signal driving mechanism for automatically changing at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves emitted by the ultrasonic transducer.

20. The kit according to claim 19, wherein said step of providing said automatic signal driving mechanism for automatically changing at least one signal characteristic automatically changes the signal intensity of the emitted ultrasonic waves from approximately 30 mW/cm²to approximately 57 mW/cm²and vise versa.

21. The method according to claim 18, further comprising the step of providing bio-feedback circuitry for monitoring the condition of the cartilage and for regulating at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves emitted by the ultrasonic transducer according to the monitored condition.

22. The method according to claim 18, wherein the step of initiating the biological healing response includes drilling at least one channel within the bone joint walls at the cartilaginous site.

23. The method according to claim 18, wherein the step of initiating the biological healing response is selected from the group consisting of scraping the cartilaginous site, applying a chemical substance to the cartilaginous site, and inducing a fracture at the cartilaginous site.

24. The method according to claim 18, further comprising the step of transplanting non-weight bearing cartilage to the cartilaginous site prior to treatment.

25. The method according to claim 18, further comprising the step of transplanting autologous cultured chondrocytes to the cartilaginous site prior to treatment.

26. The method according to claim 18, further including the step of receiving reflected diagnostic data by said at least one ultrasonic transducer.

27. The method according to claim 18, wherein the step of exciting said at least one ultrasonic transducer to impinge ultrasonic waves towards the cartilaginous site causes the regenerated cartilage to integrate with the non-regenerated cartilage present at the cartilaginous site.

28. A method for ultrasonically stimulating a healing response for the regeneration of cartilage comprising the following steps:

initiating a biological healing response at or adjacent a cartilaginous site;

releasably securing at least one ultrasonic transducer coupled to a signal generator to a band;

affixing the band on a patient such that said at least one transducer is in proximity to an area where the regeneration of cartilage is desired;

exciting said at least one ultrasonic transducer by actuating said signal generator to impinge ultrasonic waves towards the cartilaginous site;

providing a timing mechanism for clocking the amount of time said at least one ultrasonic transducer is excited; and

automatically turning off said at least one ultrasonic transducer after said timing mechanism has clocked a predetermined period of time.

29. The method according to claim 28, further comprising the step of providing an automatic signal driving mechanism for automatically changing at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves emitted by the ultrasonic transducer.

30. The method according to claim 28, further comprising the step of providing bio-feedback circuitry for monitoring the condition of the cartilage and for regulating at least one signal characteristic of the ultrasonic waves emitted by the ultrasonic transducer according to the monitored condition.

31. The method according to claim 28, further including the step of:

connecting said at least one ultrasonic transducer to an operating unit, said operating unit having an internal power source.

32. The method according to claim 28, further including the step of receiving reflected diagnostic data by said at least one ultrasonic transducer.

Patent Citations (297)

Patent	Date	Inventor	Cited By
US1604870(A)	1926-10-01	Asman	Applicant
US3134451(A)	1964-05-01	Hanssen	Applicant
US3193034(A)	1965-07-01	Hutchinson et al.	Applicant
US3304036(A)	1967-02-01	Davis	Applicant
US3310049(A)	1967-03-01	Clynes	Applicant
US3433663(A)	1969-03-01	Underwood	Applicant
US3499437(A)	1970-03-01	Balamuth	Applicant
US3550586(A)	1970-12-01	Balamuth	Applicant
US3594993(A)	1971-07-01	Heyse	Applicant
US3701352(A)	1972-10-01	Bosworth	Applicant
US3760799(A)	1973-09-01	Crowson	Applicant
US3767195(A)	1973-10-01	Dimick	Applicant
US3828769(A)	1974-08-01	Mettler	Applicant
US3855638(A)	1974-12-01	Pilliar	Applicant
US3961380(A)	1976-06-01	Garr	Applicant
US3986212(A)	1976-10-01	Sauer	Applicant
US4037592(A)	1977-07-01	Kronner	Applicant
US4105017(A)	1978-08-01	Ryaby et al.	Applicant
US4108165(A)	1978-08-01	Kopp et al.	Applicant
US4127125(A)	1978-11-01	Takemoto et al.	Applicant
US4164794(A)	1979-08-01	Spector et al.	Applicant
US4170045(A)	1979-10-01	Estes	Applicant
US4176664(A)	1979-12-01	Kalish	Applicant
US4206516(A)	1980-06-01	Pilliar	Applicant
US4216766(A)	1980-08-01	Duykers et al.	Applicant
US4227111(A)	1980-10-01	Cross et al.	Applicant
US4233477(A)	1980-11-01	Rice et al.	Applicant
US4269797(A)	1981-05-01	Mikiya et al.	Applicant
US4296753(A)	1981-10-01	Goudin	Applicant
US4312536(A)	1982-01-01	Lloyd	Applicant
US4315503(A)	1982-02-01	Ryaby et al.	Applicant
US4351069(A)	1982-09-01	Ballintyn et al.	Applicant
US4355428(A)	1982-10-01	Deloison et al.	Applicant
US4358105(A)	1982-11-01	Sweeney, Jr.	Applicant
US4361154(A)	1982-11-01	Pratt, Jr.	Applicant
US4365359(A)	1982-12-01	Raab	Applicant
US4383533(A)	1983-05-01	Bhagat et al.	Applicant
US4421119(A)	1983-12-01	Pratt, Jr.	Applicant
US4431038(A)	1984-02-01	Rome	Applicant
US4440025(A)	1984-04-01	Hayakawa et al.	Applicant
US4441486(A)	1984-04-01	Pounds	Applicant
US4446586(A)	1984-05-01	Reed et al.	Applicant
US4452326(A)	1984-06-01	Hanssen et al.	Applicant
US4476874(A)	1984-10-01	Taenzer et al.	Applicant
US4511921(A)	1985-04-01	Harlan et al.	Applicant
US4530360(A)	1985-07-01	Duarte	Applicant
US4536894(A)	1985-08-01	Galante et al.	Applicant
US4542539(A)	1985-09-01	Rowe, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US4542744(A)	1985-09-01	Barnes et al.	Applicant
US4550714(A)	1985-11-01	Talish	Applicant
US4556066(A)	1985-12-01	Semrow	Applicant
US4570640(A)	1986-02-01	Barsa	Applicant
US4573996(A)	1986-03-01	Kwiatek et al.	Applicant
US4594662(A)	1986-06-01	Devaney	Applicant
US4612160(A)	1986-09-01	Donlevy et al.	Applicant
US4627429(A)	1986-12-01	Tsuk	Applicant
US4630323(A)	1986-12-01	Sage et al.	Applicant
US4644942(A)	1987-02-01	Sump	Applicant
US4669483(A)	1987-06-01	Hepp et al.	Applicant
US4677438(A)	1987-06-01	Michiguchi et al.	Applicant
US4687195(A)	1987-08-01	Potts	Applicant
US4708127(A)	1987-11-01	Abdelghani	Applicant
US4710655(A)	1987-12-01	Masaki	Applicant
US4726099(A)	1988-02-01	Card	Applicant
US4763661(A)	1988-08-01	Sommer et al.	Applicant
US4770184(A)	1988-09-01	Greene, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US4774959(A)	1988-10-01	Palmer et al.	Applicant
USRE32782(E)	1988-11-01	Pratt, Jr.	Applicant
US4782822(A)	1988-11-01	Ricken	Applicant
US4787070(A)	1988-11-01	Suzuki et al.	Applicant
US4787888(A)	1988-11-01	Fox	Applicant
US4792336(A)	1988-12-01	Hlavacek et al.	Applicant
US4802477(A)	1989-02-01	Gabbay	Applicant
US4830015(A)	1989-05-01	Okazaki	Applicant
US4836316(A)	1989-06-01	Carnevale et al.	Applicant
US4855911(A)	1989-08-01	Lele et al.	Applicant
US4858599(A)	1989-08-01	Halpern	Applicant
US4867169(A)	1989-09-01	Machida et al.	Applicant
US4891849(A)	1990-01-01	Robinson	Applicant
US4905671(A)	1990-03-01	Senge et al.	Examiner
US4913157(A)	1990-04-01	Pratt, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US4917092(A)	1990-04-01	Todd et al.	Applicant
US4926870(A)	1990-05-01	Brandenburger	Applicant
US4932951(A)	1990-06-01	Liboff et al.	Applicant
US4933230(A)	1990-06-01	Card et al.	Applicant
US4936303(A)	1990-06-01	Detwiler et al.	Applicant
US4941474(A)	1990-07-01	Pratt, Jr.	Applicant
US4947853(A)	1990-08-01	Hon	Applicant
US4979501(A)	1990-12-01	Valchanov et al.	Applicant
US4982730(A)	1991-01-01	Lewis, Jr.	Applicant
US4986275(A)	1991-01-01	Ishida et al.	Applicant
US4993413(A)	1991-02-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US4995883(A)	1991-02-01	Demane et al.	Applicant
US5000183(A)	1991-03-01	Bonnefous	Applicant
US5000442(A)	1991-03-01	Dalebout et al.	Applicant
US5003965(A)	1991-04-01	Talish et al.	Applicant
US5004476(A)	1991-04-01	Cook	Applicant
US5016641(A)	1991-05-01	Schwartz	Applicant
US5018285(A)	1991-05-01	Zolman et al.	Applicant
US5046484(A)	1991-09-01	Bassett et al.	Applicant
US5054490(A)	1991-10-01	Rossman et al.	Applicant
US5067940(A)	1991-11-01	Liboff et al.	Applicant
US5080672(A)	1992-01-01	Bellis	Applicant
US5088976(A)	1992-02-01	Liboff et al.	Applicant
US5099702(A)	1992-03-01	French	Applicant
US5100373(A)	1992-03-01	Liboff et al.	Applicant
US5103806(A)	1992-04-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US5106361(A)	1992-04-01	Liboff et al.	Applicant
US5107853(A)	1992-04-01	Plyter	Applicant
US5108452(A)	1992-04-01	DeMane et al.	Applicant
US5133420(A)	1992-07-01	Smith	Applicant
US5134999(A)	1992-08-01	Osipov	Applicant
US5139498(A)	1992-08-01	Astudillo Ley	Applicant
US5140988(A)	1992-08-01	Stouffer et al.	Applicant
US5143069(A)	1992-09-01	Kwon et al.	Applicant
US5143073(A)	1992-09-01	Dory	Applicant
US5163598(A)	1992-11-01	Peters et al.	Applicant
US5172692(A)	1992-12-01	Kulow et al.	Applicant
US5178134(A)	1993-01-01	Vago	Applicant
US5181512(A)	1993-01-01	Viebach et al.	Applicant
US5184605(A)	1993-02-01	Grzeszykowski	Applicant
US5186162(A)	1993-02-01	Talish et al.	Applicant
US5191880(A)	1993-03-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US5197475(A)	1993-03-01	Antich et al.	Applicant
US5201766(A)	1993-04-01	Georgette	Applicant
US5209221(A)	1993-05-01	Riedlinger	Applicant
US5211160(A)	1993-05-01	Talish et al.	Applicant
US5230334(A)	1993-07-01	Klopotek	Applicant
US5230345(A)	1993-07-01	Curran et al.	Applicant
US5230921(A)	1993-07-01	Waltonen et al.	Applicant
US5235981(A)	1993-08-01	Hascoet et al.	Applicant
US5254123(A)	1993-10-01	Bushey	Applicant
US5259384(A)	1993-11-01	Kaufman et al.	Applicant
US5269306(A)	1993-12-01	Warnking et al.	Applicant
US5273028(A)	1993-12-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US5284143(A)	1994-02-01	Rattner	Applicant
US5285788(A)	1994-02-01	Arenson et al.	Applicant
US5295931(A)	1994-03-01	Dreibelbis et al.	Applicant
US5301683(A)	1994-04-01	Durkan	Applicant
US5307284(A)	1994-04-01	Brunfeldt et al.	Applicant
US5309898(A)	1994-05-01	Kaufman et al.	Applicant
US5310408(A)	1994-05-01	Schryver et al.	Applicant
US5314401(A)	1994-05-01	Tepper	Applicant
US5316000(A)	1994-05-01	Chapelon et al.	Applicant
US5318561(A)	1994-06-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US5318779(A)	1994-06-01	Hakamatsuka et al.	Applicant
US5322067(A)	1994-06-01	Prater et al.	Applicant
US5323769(A)	1994-06-01	Bommannan et al.	Applicant
US5327890(A)	1994-07-01	Matura et al.	Applicant
US5330481(A)	1994-07-01	Hood et al.	Applicant
US5330489(A)	1994-07-01	Green et al.	Applicant
US5334214(A)	1994-08-01	Putnam	Applicant
US5339804(A)	1994-08-01	Kemp	Applicant
US5340510(A)	1994-08-01	Bowen	Applicant
US5351389(A)	1994-10-01	Erickson et al.	Applicant
US5363850(A)	1994-11-01	Soni et al.	Applicant
US5366465(A)	1994-11-01	Mirza	Applicant
US5367500(A)	1994-11-01	Ng	Applicant
US5376065(A)	1994-12-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US5380269(A)	1995-01-01	Urso	Applicant
US5386830(A)	1995-02-01	Powers et al.	Applicant
US5393296(A)	1995-02-01	Rattner	Applicant
US5394878(A)	1995-03-01	Frazin et al.	Applicant
US5398290(A)	1995-03-01	Brethour	Applicant
US5400795(A)	1995-03-01	Murphy et al.	Applicant
US5405389(A)	1995-04-01	Conta et al.	Applicant
US5409446(A)	1995-04-01	Rattner	Applicant
USRE34959(E)	1995-05-01	Potts	Applicant
US5413550(A)	1995-05-01	Castel	Applicant
US5415167(A)	1995-05-01	Wilk	Applicant
US5417215(A)	1995-05-01	Evans et al.	Applicant
US5424550(A)	1995-06-01	Kawano et al.	Applicant
US5431612(A)	1995-07-01	Holden	Applicant
US5434827(A)	1995-07-01	Bolorforosh	Applicant
US5441051(A)	1995-08-01	Hileman et al.	Applicant
US5441058(A)	1995-08-01	Fareed	Applicant
US5448994(A)	1995-09-01	Iinuma	Applicant
US5460595(A)	1995-10-01	Hall et al.	Applicant
US5466215(A)	1995-11-01	Lair et al.	Applicant
US5468220(A)	1995-11-01	Sucher	Applicant
US5476438(A)	1995-12-01	Edrich et al.	Applicant
US5478306(A)	1995-12-01	Stoner	Applicant
US5492525(A)	1996-02-01	Gibney	Applicant
US5495846(A)	1996-03-01	Uehara et al.	Applicant
US5496256(A)	1996-03-01	Bock et al.	Applicant
US5501657(A)	1996-03-01	Feero	Applicant
US5507800(A)	1996-04-01	Strickland	Applicant
US5507830(A)	1996-04-01	DeMane et al.	Applicant
US5509933(A)	1996-04-01	Davidson et al.	Applicant
US5520612(A)	1996-05-01	Winder et al.	Examiner
US5524624(A)	1996-06-01	Tepper et al.	Applicant
US5526815(A)	1996-06-01	Granz et al.	Applicant
US5541489(A)	1996-07-01	Dunstan	Applicant
US5547459(A)	1996-08-01	Kaufman et al.	Examiner
US5556372(A)	1996-09-01	Talish et al.	Applicant
US5578060(A)	1996-11-01	Pohl et al.	Applicant
US5615466(A)	1997-04-01	Safari et al.	Applicant
US5626554(A)	1997-05-01	Ryaby et al.	Applicant
US5626630(A)	1997-05-01	Markowitz et al.	Applicant
US5630837(A)	1997-05-01	Crowley	Applicant
US5648941(A)	1997-07-01	King	Applicant
US5656016(A)	1997-08-01	Ogden	Applicant
US5680863(A)	1997-10-01	Hossack et al.	Applicant
US5690608(A)	1997-11-01	Watanabe et al.	Applicant
US5691960(A)	1997-11-01	Gentilman et al.	Applicant
US5699803(A)	1997-12-01	Carodiskey	Applicant
US5702353(A)	1997-12-01	Guzzini et al.	Applicant
US5702389(A)	1997-12-01	Taylor et al.	Applicant
US5706818(A)	1998-01-01	Gondo	Applicant
US5708236(A)	1998-01-01	Shaanan et al.	Applicant
US5721400(A)	1998-02-01	Haraldsson et al.	Applicant
US5725482(A)	1998-03-01	Bishop	Applicant
US5728095(A)	1998-03-01	Taylor et al.	Applicant
US5730705(A)	1998-03-01	Talish et al.	Applicant
US5738625(A)	1998-04-01	Gluck	Applicant
US5741317(A)	1998-04-01	Ostrow	Applicant
US5743862(A)	1998-04-01	Izumi	Applicant
US5752924(A)	1998-05-01	Kaufman et al.	Examiner
US5755746(A)	1998-05-01	Lifshey et al.	Applicant
US5762616(A)	1998-06-01	Talish	Applicant
US5779600(A)	1998-07-01	Pape	Applicant
US5785656(A)	1998-07-01	Chiabrera et al.	Applicant
US5818149(A)	1998-10-01	Safari et al.	Applicant
US5829437(A)	1998-11-01	Bridges	Applicant
US5868649(A)	1999-02-01	Erickson et al.	Applicant
US5871446(A)	1999-02-01	Wilk	Applicant
US5886302(A)	1999-03-01	Germanton et al.	Applicant
US5891143(A)	1999-04-01	Taylor et al.	Applicant
US5899425(A)	1999-05-01	Corey, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US5904659(A)	1999-05-01	Duarte et al.	Applicant
US5957814(A)	1999-09-01	Eschenbach	Applicant
US5962790(A)	1999-10-01	Lynnworth et al.	Applicant
US5971984(A)	1999-10-01	Taylor et al.	Applicant
US5997490(A)	1999-12-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US6019710(A)	2000-02-01	Dalebout et al.	Applicant
US6022349(A)	2000-02-01	McLeod et al.	Applicant
US6030386(A)	2000-02-01	Taylor et al.	Applicant
US6050943(A)	2000-04-01	Slayton et al.	Applicant
US6068596(A)	2000-05-01	Weth et al.	Applicant
US6080088(A)	2000-06-01	Petersen et al.	Applicant
US6086078(A)	2000-07-01	Ferez	Applicant
US6093135(A)	2000-07-01	Huang	Applicant
US6165144(A)	2000-12-01	Talish et al.	Applicant
US6179797(B1)	2001-01-01	Brotz	Applicant
US6190336(B1)	2001-02-01	Duarte et al.	Examiner
US6206843(B1)	2001-03-01	Iger et al.	Applicant
US6213958(B1)	2001-04-01	Winder	Applicant
US6258020(B1)	2001-07-01	Lopez	Applicant
US6261221(B1)	2001-07-01	Tepper et al.	Applicant
US6261249(B1)	2001-07-01	Talish et al.	Applicant
US6273864(B1)	2001-08-01	Duarte	Applicant
US6355006(B1)	2002-03-01	Ryaby et al.	Examiner
US6360027(B1)	2002-03-01	Hossack et al.	Applicant
US6394955(B1)	2002-05-01	Perlitz	Applicant
AU199950292	2000-02-01		Applicant
CA1328485	1994-04-01		Applicant
DE3639263(A1)	1987-06-01		Applicant
DE19613425	1997-01-01		Applicant
DE29811185(U1)	1998-12-01		Applicant
DE4111055(A1)	2001-10-01		Applicant
EP181506(A2)	1986-05-01		Applicant
EP331348(A1)	1989-09-01		Applicant
EP536875(A1)	1993-04-01		Applicant
EP679371(A1)	1995-11-01		Applicant
EP695559	1996-02-01		Applicant
EP965839(A1)	1999-12-01		Applicant
GB2156983(A)	1985-10-01		Applicant
GB2277448(A)	1994-11-01		Applicant
GB2303552(A)	1997-02-01		Applicant
JPSHO62-47359	1987-03-01		Applicant
JPHEI4-82567	1992-03-01		Applicant
JPHEI4-82568	1992-03-01		Applicant
JPHEI4-82569	1992-03-01		Applicant
JPHEI5-269159	1993-10-01		Applicant
WO85/03449	1985-08-01		Applicant
WO88/00845	1988-02-01		Applicant
WO88/02250	1988-04-01		Applicant
WO90/06720	1990-06-01		Applicant
WO94/13411	1994-06-01		Applicant
WO95/03744	1995-02-01		Applicant
WO95/33416	1995-12-01		Applicant
WO96/25112	1996-08-01		Applicant
WO96/25888	1996-08-01		Applicant
WO97/33649	1997-09-01		Applicant
WO98/10729	1998-03-01		Applicant
WO98/34578	1998-08-01		Applicant
WO98/47570	1998-10-01		Applicant
WO99/18876	1999-04-01		Applicant
WO99/22652	1999-05-01		Applicant
WO99/48621	1999-09-01		Applicant
WO99/56829	1999-11-01		Applicant
WO99/58080	1999-11-01		Applicant
WO/03663	2000-01-01		Applicant
WO/28925	2000-05-01		Applicant
WO/67846	2000-11-01		Applicant
WO/71207	2000-11-01		Applicant
WO/76406	2000-12-01		Applicant

Non-Patent Literature (77)

Abstract, Proceedings of the 11th Int'l. Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering, “Ultrasonic Stimulation of Fracture Healing,” one page (1976).Applicant
Abstract, Proceedings of the III Congress on Biomedical Engineering,“Ultrasonic Action on Callus Formation in Bones”, one page (1975).Applicant
Abstract, Proceedings of the IV Brazilian Congress on Biomedical Engineering, “Ultrasound in the Treatment of Fractures”, one page (1977).Applicant
ASTM Designation: D790M-93 Metric, “Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials [Metric]”, pp. 176-184, (Dec. 1993).Applicant
ASTM Designation: C1161-90, “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Advanced Ceramics at Ambient Temperature,” pp. 324-330.(Feb. 1991).Applicant
Brochure: “The Science Behind the Technology,” distributed by Smith & Nephew for EXOGEN, six pages (undated).Applicant
Arai et al., “The Effect of Ultrasound Stimulation on Disuse Osteoporosis”, BRAGS 17 (1993).Applicant
Berridge, M.J., “Inositol Triphosphate and Calcium Signalling”, Nature (1993), 361: 315-325.Applicant
Clarke, P.R. et al., “Physical and Chemical Aspect of Ultrasonic Disruption of Cells”, JASA (1969), 47(2): 649-653.Applicant
Duarte, L.R., “The Stimulation of Bone Growth by Ultrasound”, Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg (1983), 101: 153-159.Applicant
Dyson, M., “Therapeutic Applications of Ultrasound”, Biological Effects of Ultrasound (1985), Nyborg, W.L. and Ziskin, M.C., eds; Churchill Livingstone Inc., New York, Chapter 11.Applicant
Goodship, A.E. et al., “The Influence of Induced Micromovement Upon the Healing of Experimental Tibial Fractures”, J. Bone and Joint Surg. (1985), 67-B(4): 650-655.Applicant
Heckman, J.D. et al., “Acceleration of Tibial Fracture Healing by Non-Invasive Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound”, J. Bone and Joint Surg. (1994), 76-A(1): 26-34.Applicant
Hill, C.R., “Ultrasonic Exposure Thresholds for Changes in Cells and Tissues”, JASA (1972), 52(2): 667-672.Applicant
Howkins, S.D., “Diffusion Rates and the Effect of Ultrasound”, Ultrasonics (1969), 129-130.Applicant
Kristiansen, T.K. et al., “Accelerated Healing of Distal Radial Fractures with the Use of Specific, Low-Intensity Ultrasound”, J. Bone and Joint Surg. (1997), 79-A(7) 961-973.Applicant
Marluce Hilario, “Low-Intensity Ultrasound Radiation in the Tissue Repair of Trophic Leg Ulcers”, 1983, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos School of Engineering, pp. 1-125 (Thesis).Applicant
Pethica, B.A., et al., Abstract, “The Dose-Response Relationship in PEMP Therapy of Ununited Fractures,” Transactions of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectrical Repair and Growth Society (BRAGS), Washington, D.C., one page (Jun. 1998).Applicant
Phoenix (Business Wire), Jul. 8, 1997 via CompanyLink—OrthoLogic Corp., one page.Applicant
“Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, Does RSD Exist?” www.arbon.com (Jun. 4, 1997), eight pages.Applicant
“Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy: The Pain That Doesn't Stop,” tcc.cc.nc.us/pages/students/barlowd/index.htm, six pages (Jun. 4, 1997).Applicant
RSDnet.org “Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy,” www.rsdnet.org, , four pages (Jun. 4, 1997).Applicant
RSDnet.org “Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Frequently Asked Questions” www.rsdnet.org , six pages (Jun. 4, 1997).Applicant
Ter Haar, G., et al., “Basic Physics of Therapeutic Ultrasound”, Physiotherapy (1987), 73(3): 110-113.Applicant
Wallace, et al., “The Vascular Response to Fracture Micromovement”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1994), 301: 281-290.Applicant
Wang, S.J. et al., “Low-Intensity Ultrasound Treatment Increases Strength in a Rat Femoral Fracture Model”, J. Ortho Research (1994), 12: 40-47.Applicant
Webster, D.F. et al., “The Role of Ultrasound-Induced Cavitation in the ‘In Vitro’ Stimulation of Collagen Synthesis in Human Fibroblasts”, Ultrasonics (1980), 33-37.Applicant
Yang, K.H. et al., “Exposure to Low-Intensity Ultrasound Treatment Increases Aggrecan Gene Expression In a Rat Femur Fracture Model”, J. Ortho Research (1996), 14:802-809.Applicant
Summary Report Treatment of Osteochondral Defects In Rabbits with SAFHS—Parts I and II, EX1095-01R, EX1096-01R Prepared by Stephen D. Cook, Ph.D. and Samantha L. Salkeld, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, pp. 1-41 (Jan. 9, 1997).Applicant
Progress Report—Treatment of Osteochondral Defects in Rabbits with SAFHS—Part III, EX1097-01R, 11 pages (Aug. 26, 1997).Applicant
Final Report “Treatment of Osteochondral Defects in Rabbits with SAFHS—A Mosaicplasty Model”—EX1098-04R, Prepared by Stephen D. Cook, Ph.D. and Laura P. Patron, B.S.E., Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, pp. 1-22 (Aug. 12, 1999).Applicant
Lord, “Acoustic Emission—An Update,” (1981) Physical Acoustics, vol. XV, pp. 295-360.Applicant
Hanagud, et al., “Acoustic Emission and Diagnosis of Osteoporosis,” (1974) Ultrasonic Symposium Proceedings (IEEE), pp. 77-81.Applicant
Hanagud, et al., “Acoustic Emission in Bone Substance,” (1973) Biomechanics Symposium Proceedings (ASME), pp. 79-81.Applicant
Pollock, “Acoustic Emission Inspection,” (1992) ASM Handbook Nondestructive Evaluation and Quality Control, vol. 17, pp. 278-293.Applicant
Hanagud, et al., “Acoustic Emission Techniques in the Development of a Diagnostic Tool for Osteoporosis,” (1975) Ultrasonic Symposium Proceedings (IEEE), pp. 41-45.Applicant
Grabec, et al., “Application of an intelligent signal processing system to acoustic emission analysis,” (1989) J. Acoustic Society of America, pp. 1226-1235.Applicant
Grabec, “Application of correlation techniques for localization of acoustic emission sources,” (1978) Ultrasonics pp. 111-115.Applicant
Comejo, et al., “Large-Area Flexible-Array Piezoelectric Ceramic/Polymer Composite Transducer for Bone Healing Acceleration,” presented at ISAFXI, Montreux, Switzerland (1998).Applicant
Simmons and Clough, “Theory of Acoustic Emission,” Metallurgy Division, Natural Bureau of Standards, 17 pages. (undated).Applicant
Fritton, et al., “Whole-Body Vibration in the Skeleton: Development of a Resonance-Based Testing Device,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 25, pp. 831-839 (1997).Applicant
Goodship, et al., “Low magnitude high frequency mechanical stimulation of endochondral bone repair” 43rd Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, vol. 22, Sec. 1, , one page (Feb. 9-13, 1997).Applicant
J. Kenwright, et al., “Controlled Mechanical Stimulation in the Treatment of Tibial Fractures,” Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research (1989) 241:36-47.Applicant
Jankovich, “The Effects of Mechanical Vibration on Bone Development in the Rat,” J. Biomechanics, 1972, vol. 5, pp. 241-250.Applicant
Ko, “Preform Fiber Architecture for Ceramic-Matrix Composites,”Ceramic Bulletin, vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 401-414(1989).Applicant
McLeod, et al., “Improved Postural Stability Following Short Term Exposure to Low Level Whole Body Vibration,” 44th Annual Meeting, Orthopaedic Research Society, Mar. 16-19, 1998, New Orleans, Louisiana, p. 89-15.Applicant
Newnham, et al., Connectivity and Piezoelectric-Pyroelectric Composites, Med. Res. Bull., vol. 13, pp. 525-536 (1978).Applicant
Pauer, “Flexible Piezoelectric Material,” pp. 1-5, (undated) (Gould, Inc., Advanced Development Division, Cleveland, Ohio).Applicant
Pilgrim, et al., “An Extension of the Composite Nomenclature Scheme,” Med. Res. Bull., vol. 22, pp. 677-684 (1987).Applicant
Powell, et al., “A Performance Appraisal of Flexible Array Structures Using a Facet Ensemble Scattering Technique,” (1991) Ultrasonics Symposium, pp. 753-766.Applicant
Powell, et al., “Flexible Ultrasonic Transducer Arrays for Nondestructive Evaluation Applications—Part I: The Theoretical Modeling Approach,”IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 43, No. 3, May 1996, pp. 385-392.Applicant
Powell, et al., “Flexible Ultrasonic Transducer Arrays for Nondestructive Evaluation Applications—Part II: Performance Assessment of Different Array Configurations,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 43, No. 3, May 1996, pp. 393-402.Applicant
Sarvazyan, “Some General Problems of Biological Action of Ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics, vol. 30, No. 1, Jan. 1983, pp. 1-12.Applicant
Bloch, “Ultrasound as a Tool for Investigating Bone: Fundamental Principles and Perspectives for Use in Osteoporosis,” (1993) Expansion Scientifique Francaise, pp. 787-791.Applicant
Y. Quin, et al., “Correlation of In Vivo Bone Adaptation and Mechanical Parameters Using Low Magnitude, High Frequency Loading,” 41st Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Soc., vol. 20—Sec. 1, Feb. 13-16, 1995, one page.Applicant
Bascom, “Other Continuous Fibers”, In: Engineered Materials Handbook, vol. 1 Composites, edited by C.A. Dostal.Applicant
Bascom, “Other Discontinuous Forms”.In: Engineered Materials Handbook, vol. 1, Composites.Applicant
Cass, “Fabrication of Continuous Ceramic Fiber by the Viscous Suspension Spinning Process,” Ceramic Bulletin, vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 424-429 (1991).Applicant
“Development of Flexible Piezoelectric Transducers and Matching Layers for EXOGEN Incorporated,” Final Report, Covering Period Apr. 1, 1997 to Feb. 28, 1998, Submitted by Rutgers University, Ceramic & Materials Engineering, Piscataway, New Jersey.Applicant
Grewe, et al., “Acoustic Properties of Particle/Polymer Composite for Ultrasonic Transducer Backing Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, (1990) vol. 37(6):506-514.Applicant
Grewe, Martha G., “Acoustic Matching And Backing Layer for Medical Ultrasonic Transducers,” A Thesis in Solid State Science, The Pennsylvania State University; (May 1989), The Center for Ceramic Research, Rutgers.Applicant
Gururaja, T., “Piezoelectric Composite Materials for Ultrasonic Transducer Applications,” A Thesis in Solid State Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 1984.Applicant
Gururaja, “Piezoelectrics for Medical Ultrasonic Imaging,” Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull., vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 50-55 (May 1994).Applicant
Hall, et al., “The design and evaluation of ultrasonic arrays using 1-3 connectivity composites,” SPIE, pp. 216-227, vol. 1733 (1992).Applicant
Niemczewski, B., “A Comparison of Ultrasonic Cavitation Intensity in Liquids,” Ultrasonics, vol. 18, pp. 107-110, 1980.Applicant
Pilla, et al., “Non-Invasive Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Accelerates Bone Healing in the Rabbit.” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 246-253 (1990).Applicant
Safari, “Development of piezoelectric composites for transducers,” J. Phys III.France, 4:1129-1149 (1994).Applicant
Selfridge, “Approximate Material Properties in Isotropic Materials,” IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics, pp. 381-394 (May 9, 1985).Applicant
Souquet, et al., “Design of Low-Loss Wide-Band Ultrasonic Transducers for Noninvasive Medical Application,” IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics, pp. 75-81, vol. SU-26, No. 2, Mar. 1979.Applicant
Walier, et al., “Poling of Lead Zirconate Titanate Ceramics and Flexible Piezoelectric Composites by the Corona Discharge Technique,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 72(2):322-24 (1989).Applicant
Winder, Alan, “Synthetic Structural Imaging and Volume Estimation of Biological Tissue Organs,” ,Acoustic Sciences Associates, Dec. 1995.Applicant
Winder, Alan, “Acoustic Emission Monitoring for the Detection, Localization and Classification of Metabolic Bone Disease,” Acoustic Sciences Associates, Dec. 1995.Applicant
Wu and CubberiEy, “Measurement of Velocity and Attenuation of Shear Waves in Bovine Compact Bone Using Ultrasonic Spectroscopy,” Ultrasound in Med. & Biol., vol. 23, No. 1,129-134, 1997.Applicant
Tavakoli and Evans, “The Effect of Bone Structure on Ultrasonic Attenuation and Velocity,” Ultrasonics, vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 389-395 (1992).Applicant
International Search Report in related PCT/US02/24389.Applicant
Caplan, et al., “Principles of Cartilage Repair and Regeneration,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 342:254-269 (1997).Applicant
Moran, et al., “Biological Resurfacing of Full-Thickness Defects in Patellar Articular Cartilage of the Rabbit,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 74-B:659-667 (1992).Applicant