Technical Briefs

Managing Design Excellence Tools During the Development of New Orthopaedic Implants

[+] Author and Article Information
Henri J. P. Défossez

Staff Senior Bioengineer
DePuy Synthes Spine,
Johnson & Johnson,
Chemin Blanc 36,
LeLocle 2400, Switzerland
e-mail: henridefossez@hotmail.com

Hassan Serhan

Distinguished Eng. Fellow
DePuy Synthes Spine,
Johnson & Johnson,
325 Paramount Drive,
Raynham, MA 02767
e-mail: hserhan@its.jnj.com

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Manuscript received July 16, 2012; final manuscript received August 13, 2013; accepted manuscript posted September 6, 2013; published online October 1, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Sean S. Kohles.

J Biomech Eng 135(11), 114506 (Oct 01, 2013) (11 pages) Paper No: BIO-12-1289; doi: 10.1115/1.4025323 History: Received July 16, 2012; Revised August 13, 2013; Accepted September 06, 2013

Design excellence (DEX) tools have been widely used for years in some industries for their potential to facilitate new product development. The medical sector, targeted by cost pressures, has therefore started adopting them. Numerous tools are available; however only appropriate deployment during the new product development stages can optimize the overall process. The primary study objectives were to describe generic tools and illustrate their implementation and management during the development of new orthopaedic implants, and compile a reference package. Secondary objectives were to present the DEX tool investment costs and savings, since the method can require significant resources for which companies must carefully plan. The publicly available DEX method “Define Measure Analyze Design Verify Validate” was adopted and implemented during the development of a new spinal implant. Several tools proved most successful at developing the correct product, addressing clinical needs, and increasing market penetration potential, while reducing design iterations and manufacturing validations. Cost analysis and Pugh Matrix coupled with multi generation planning enabled developing a strong rationale to activate the project, set the vision and goals. improved risk management and product map established a robust technical verification-validation program. Design of experiments and process quantification facilitated design for manufacturing of critical features, as early as the concept phase. Biomechanical testing with analysis of variance provided a validation model with a recognized statistical performance baseline. Within those tools, only certain ones required minimum resources (i.e., business case, multi generational plan, project value proposition, Pugh Matrix, critical To quality process validation techniques), while others required significant investments (i.e., voice of customer, product usage map, improved risk management, design of experiments, biomechanical testing techniques). All used techniques provided savings exceeding investment costs. Some other tools were considered and found less relevant. A matrix summarized the investment costs and generated estimated savings. Globally, all companies can benefit from using DEX by smartly selecting and estimating those tools with best return on investment at the start of the project. For this, a good understanding of the available company resources, background and development strategy are needed. In conclusion, it was possible to illustrate that appropriate management of design excellence tools can greatly facilitate the development of new orthopaedic implant systems.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Justiano, J. M., and Gopalaswamy, V., 2005, Six Sigma for Medical Device Design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Justiano, J. M., and Gopalaswamy, V., 2003, Practical Design Control Implementation for Medical Devices, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Voor, M. J., Mehta, S., Wang, M., Zhang, Y. M., Mahan, J., and Johnson, J. R., 1998, “Biomechanical Evaluation of Posterior and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques,” J. Spinal Disord., 11(4), pp. 328–334. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Harris, B. M., Hilibrand, A. S., Savas, P. E., Pellegrino, A., Vaccaro, A. R., Siegler, S., and Albert, T. J., 2004, “Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Effect of Various Instrumentation Techniques on the Flexibility of the Lumbar sSpine,” Spine, 29(4), pp. E65–E70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ames, C. P., Acosta, F. L., Chi, J., Iyengar, J., Muiru, W., Emre, A., and Puttlitz, C., 2005, “Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed at 1 and 2 Levels,” Spine, 30(19), pp. E562–E566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lund, T., Oxland, T. R., Jost, B., Cripton, P., Grassmann, S., Etter, C., and Nolte, L. P., 1998, “Interbody Cage Stabilisation in the Lumbar Spine: Biomechanical Evaluation of Cage Design, Posterior Instrumentation and Bone Density,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 80(2), pp. 351–359. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tuli, J., Tuli, S., Eichler, M. E., and Woodard, E. J., 2007, “A Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Translaminar Facet Screw Fixation and Pedicle Screw Fixation: A Prospective Study,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, 7, pp. 287–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yamamoto, I., Panjabi, M. M., Crisco, J. J., and Oxland, T., 1989, “Three-Dimensional Movements of the Whole Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Joint,” Spine, 14(11), pp. 1256–1260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stonecipher, T., and Wright, S., 1989, “Posterior Lumbar interbody Fusion With Facet-Screw Fixation,” Spine, 14(4), pp. 468–471. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Evans, J. H., 1985, “Biomechanics of Lumbar Fusion,” Clin. Orthop., 193, pp. 38–46.
Best, N. M., and Sasso, R. C., 2006, “Efficacy of Translaminar Facet Screw Fixation in Circumferential Interbody Fusions as Compared to Pedicle Screw Fixation,” J. Spinal Disord. Tech., 19, pp. 98–103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jang, J. S., Lee, S. H., 2005, “Clinical Analysis of Percutaneous Facet Screw Fixation After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, 3, pp. 40–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kang, H. Y., Lee, S. H., Jeon, S. H., and Shin, S. W., 2007, “Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Facet Screw Fixation in the Lumbar Spine. Technical Note,” J. Neurosurg. Spine, 7, pp. 95–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Phillips, F. M., Cunningham, B., Carandang, G., Ghanayem, A., Voronov, L., Havey, R., and Patwardhan, A., 2004, “Effect of Supplemental Translaminar Facet Screw Fixation on the Stability of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages Under Physiologic Compressive Preloads,” Spine, 29, pp. 1731–1736. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mark, B., Kabins, M. D., and Weistein, J., 1991, “The History of Vertebral Screw and Pedicle Screw Fixation,” Iowa Orthop. J., 11, pp. 127–136.
Akbay, A., Inceoğlu, S., Milks, R., Schlenk, R., Palaoglu, S., and Benzel, E.C., 2005, “Thoracic Transfacet Pedicle Screw Fixation: A New Instrumentation Technique,” J. Neurosurg., 3, pp. 224–229.
Ferrara, L. A., Secor, J. L., Jin, B. H., Wakefield, A., Inceoglu, S., and Benzel, E. C., 2003, “A Biomechanical Comparison of Facet Screw Fixation and Pedicle Screw Fixation,” Spine, 28(12), pp. 1226–1234. [PubMed]
Mahar, A., Kim, C., Oka, R., Odell, T., Perry, A., Mirkovic, S., and Garfin, S., 2006, “Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Percutaneous Transfacet Device and a Traditional Posterior System for Single Level Fusion,” J. Spinal Disord. Tech., 19, pp. 591–594. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beaubien, B. P., Mehbod, A. A., Kallemeier, P. M., Lew, W. D., Buttermann, G. R., Transfeldt, E. E., and Wood, K. B., 2004, “Posterior Augmentation of an Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Spine, 29(19), pp. E406–E412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kiapour, A., Kiapour, A. M., Serhan, H., Garfin, S., Allen, T., and Goel, V. K., “Effect of Different Fixation Techniques on Segmental Kinematics and Load Sharing of Lumbar Spine: A FEM Study,” ASME 2012 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and B. Fajardo, Puerto Rico, June 20–23, 2012, Paper No. SBC2012-80882, pp. 1127–1128.
Molina, C., Kretzer, R. M., Hu, N., Umekoji, H., Cunningham, B. W., and Serhan, H., “A Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Facet Screw vs. Pedicle Screw Fixation to Augment Lateral Interbody Spinal Arthrodesis. An In-Vitro Human Cadaveric Model” Spine (submitted).


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Spine specimen radiograph including Viper F2 (a) and Viper 2 (b) systems

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Design excellence “DMADVV” and new product development processes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Viper F2 screw and washer implants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Residual plots analysis of the snap-fit mechanism



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In