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 Spinal Resources Pedicle Screw System
Spine

FDA Clears Spinal Resources Pedicle Screw System

September 15, 2017 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA Clears Spinal Resources Pedicle Screw System
Source: Pixabay
Secondary

With FDA 510(k) clearance of its Swedge pedicle screw system, Florida-based Spinal Resources, Inc. says the company has now transitioned from a design and distribution firm to a full manufacturer of surgical products.

For its first product development effort, the company introduced the Swedge Pedicle Screw System, which has three rod sizes in one tool.

The system offers cobalt/chromium and titanium tulips; double lead and cortical cancellous threads; polyaxial, monoaxial, reduction, and iliac screws; and MIS (minimally invasive spinal surgery) options. Currently, the Swedge system is cleared for a 5.5mm rod; 4.75mm and 5.0mm rods are pending clearance.

The company has been developing the technology since 2005, which accommodates multiple rods in a single-screw tulip with single-locking cap, and effectively locks the tulip’s angle without the presence of a rod.

With the system, the company said it hopes to reduce OR time, costs and inventory management. It does this by “giving clinicians more surgical flexibility in degenerative, deformity, and midline approach surgeries.”

On September 7, 2017, the company’s President and CEO Bernard Bedor said no other screw on the market is quite like the Swedge.

“We believe we’ve done something unique with our product. We’ve taken three different rod sizes, put them into one effective tulip, and can lock them with a one-step locking cap.” He says the system provides surgeons with “greater versatility in the pre-planning and inter-operative stages, effectively reducing the surgical ‘fiddle factor.’”

With the ownership of four patents (and two more under consideration), the company stated, “This FDA clearance, and several other promising products in its pipeline, SRI is standing out as a strong contender in the design and manufacture of innovative solutions that enhance surgical procedures. The company is exploring full commercialization via strategic partnership, license, and/or private/corporate funding.”

Advertisement

Intended Use

The company says the system is intended “to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally-mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), spinal tumor, pseudoarthrosis, and failed previous fusion.

“It is also intended for non-cervical pedicle screw fixation for the following indications: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally-mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft, having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion. It is also intended for the following indications: DDD (degenerative disc disease), trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), spinal stenosis, deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, pseudoarthrosis, and failed previous fusion.”

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