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/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/FDA Clears Pro Macrophage Spinal Implant
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA Clears Pro Macrophage Spinal Implant

November 15, 2019 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA Clears Pro Macrophage Spinal Implant
Source: Wikimedia Commons and Jiatao Li, Jean Tan, Mikaël M. Martino and Kathy O. Lui
#510clearanceSecondary#difusiontechnologies#biomaterial

Titanium might have worked just fine when Biomet Founder Dane Miller implanted it into his own arm decades ago. But he didn’t bake into that implant the concept of immune response and, famously, had his own implant removed several weeks later.

Pro Macrophage Implant

On November 1, 2019, a young emerging growth company, Austin, Texas-based DiFusion Technologies, Inc., announced that the FDA had cleared for commercial sale in the United States a pro-macrophage spinal implant named Xiphos-ZF.

The implant was developed by DiFusion (a 2018 winner of the Best Technology Spine Award from Orthopedics This Week) and is based on the company’s biomaterial, ZFUZE. The material is, according to the company, “the first load bearing biomaterial that elicits a pro-reparative rather than a pro-inflammatory phenotype.”

Achieving a Goal No One Dared Undertake

Company Founder and CEO Derrick Johns says that the concept of immune response has only recently been understood among medical device industry executives as a vitally important consideration in the design and development of implantable medical devices.

“The current orthopedic spinal surgery market only offers surgeon customers feeble attempts to cobble PEEK and titanium together in hybrid Frankenstein designs, or to acid etch titanium and rebrand it as a ‘nano-surface’ or to simply bubble holes into PEEK. This is not Advanced Material Science, it is big companies taking short-cuts.”

“After 10 years of research, hundreds of in vitro cell assays and three major animal studies, we achieved a goal no large company would dare to even undertake.”

Advertisement

Stephen Badylak, D.V.M., M.D., Ph.D., Deputy Director of the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, conducted a third-party study on ZFUZE.

Badylak said he and his team have evaluated the immune response to biomaterials for more than 20 years and “ZFUZE is the first load bearing biomaterial we have seen” that elicits the pro-reparative macrophage phenotype rather than a pro-inflammatory phenotype.

“I was beginning to believe that this was not possible,” added Badylak.

Paul Kraemer, M.D., with the Indiana Spine Group will be the first to use the Xiphos-ZF implant for surgery. He said PEEK and titanium both have limitations. “PEEK forms a fibrous layer and doesn’t integrate, so heals poorly. Titanium is so much stiffer than osteoporotic bone that it subsides quite often, sometimes with disastrous and very hard to revise results.”

The company says multiple studies have shown that “ZFUZE material elicits pro-reparative M2 macrophage response and significant reductions in Interleukin 1-Beta and Interleukin 6. IL1-Beta and IL6 are cytokine markers for prolonged inflammation and associated with fibrous tissue formation.”

Sriram Sankar, company VP of research, added that the Xiphos implant utilizes “a time-tested design already successfully implanted in human spinal surgeries.”

And the Xiphos launch will occur…

Now that Xiphos has been cleared for commercial sale, DiFusion’s management team plans to formally bring it to spine surgeons later in 2019.

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