LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Spine/FDA Clears SpineNet’s Cervical Cage
Spine

FDA Clears SpineNet’s Cervical Cage

November 16, 2012 1 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA Clears SpineNet’s Cervical Cage
Courtesy of SpineNet
Secondary

SpineNet, LLC, a manufacturer of spinal fusion implants located in Winter Park, Florida, has received 510(k) clearance from the FDA for its SpineNet ACC anterior cervical cage. The device is made of Zeniva polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods from Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC. SpineNet officials describe Zeniva PEEK as having characteristics very close to those of bone plus toughness and fatigue resistance. They reported that the FDA clearance was based, in part, on Solvay’s well-developed access file for Zeniva PEEK.

“We chose Zeniva® PEEK for its similarity to the modulus of elasticity of bone, radiographic properties, and the widespread commercial and regulatory acceptance of the material, ” said Rick Kitain, vice president of SpineNet.

 SpineNet officials say that the ACC cervical cage is designed to reproduce a tri-cortical iliac crest bone, providing structural support as an interbody spacer for anterior cervical fusions. The superior and inferior surfaces allow for intimate contact with the endplate surfaces for optimum stability and to resist subsidence. The cervical cages are offered in 10x12mm and 12x14mm footprints (5 – 10mm height) with multiple sizing options. The ACC implants have windows which allow bone to grow through the device, fusing the adjacent bony surfaces of the vertebrae. Radiopaque tantalum rod markers allow for improved positioning.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy