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/Company News/BioStructures: 510(k) Clearance for Signafuse
Company News

BioStructures: 510(k) Clearance for Signafuse

March 5, 2014 1 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

BioStructures: 510(k) Clearance for Signafuse
Signafuse / Courtesy: BioStructures, LLC
Secondary

BioStructures, LLC has announced that the FDA has granted 510(k) clearance for Bioactive Bone Graft Putty (Signafuse). Signafuse is indicated for the posterolateral spine, extremities and pelvis as well as a bone graft extender in the posterolateral spine.

Signafuse represents a new class of synthetic biomaterials designed for optimization of cell growth and bone formation. Signafuse is composed of a biphasic mineral and bioactive glass suspended in a resorbable polymer carrier. The company indicates that the patented polymer carrier gives Signafuse exceptional handling characteristics which allow the graft to be easily molded and shaped for the unique size of the bony defect.

Russell Cook, CEO of BioStructures said in the February 18, 2014 news release, “We are very excited and pleased to receive FDA clearance for Signafuse Bioactive Bone Graft Putty. This technology combines our proven biphasic mineral with our patented bioactive and polymer components. We realize the orthobiologic market is crowded with a plethora of commodity offerings, so we wanted to develop a unique and effective device that brings excitement to the surgeon community as well as our distribution partners.”

Cook told OTW, “One year from now we would like to be recognized as the first choice for surgeons when selecting a synthetic bone graft for surgical procedures in the spine.”

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