Silicon nitride orthopedic and spine device maker Amedica Corporation is hoping to raise $35 million in an initial public offering (IPO).
IPO for Amedica

The Salt Lake City, Utah-based company filed papers with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on November 8, 2013 to raise the funds. The company had initially filed the SEC documents confidentially in September. It’s not the first attempt at an IPO, as the company previously filed for an IPO in May 2007, before withdrawing the offering three months later based on market conditions.
Founded in 1996, the company had sales of $23 million for the 12 months ended June 30, 2013.
The plans are to list on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol AMDA.
Amedica uses its silicon nitride technology platform to develop, manufacture and sell a broad range of spine medical devices and is developing products for use in total hip and knee joint replacements. The company operates an ISO 13485 certified manufacturing facility, and, its spine products are FDA cleared, CE marked, and are currently marketed in the U.S. and select markets in Europe and South America.
The company claims its devices offer doctors and patients an alternative to PEEK and titanium that is osteopromotive, anti-infective and may result in faster fusion. It is the only company in the world that has FDA clearance to manufacture and distribute silicon nitride implants.
Earlier this year, Amedica released the Valeo II AL interbody fusion device in the U.S.; and signed a distribution agreement with K2M to get its silicon nitride-based implants into the European market.
In February 2006, the company received FDA 510(k) clearance for the first load-bearing ceramic spinal device, and in 2007, for its Valeo Interbody Fusion Devices, Cervical Plating System and Pedicle Screw System. In its product development pipeline, the company points to a ceramic cervical disc, and hip and knee implants that make full use of silicon nitride technology’s material properties.

Discussion
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?
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.
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.