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/Spinal Elements Fusion Device With Lid FDA Cleared
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

Spinal Elements Fusion Device With Lid FDA Cleared

June 2, 2021 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

#fda510kclearanceSecondary#spinalelements#3dprinting

Spinal Elements, Inc.’s interbody fusion device, the Lucent 3D, has received FDA clearance. It took the FDA almost five months to clear the device.

In an April 21, 2021 announcement, the company said it had taken advantage of the unique capabilities of 3D printing by printing “a functionally unique multi-component device in a single printing step.”

Hinged Lid – Tighter Packing

Jason Blain, company CEO and president, added that the FDA clearance allows the company to differentiate itself in a crowded 3D-printed interbody market. “Lucent 3D’s novel design is meant to address the challenges surgeons have shared with us of other 3D-printed interbody devices – subsidence and the amount of bone graft material available for fusion.”

OTW asked Blain how the device addresses that challenge. He said the devices minimizes the amount of metal used in the construction, “leaving an ample graft chamber.” In addition, he said a hinged lid allows access to the graft chamber so that the surgeon can fully and easily pack the chamber and close the lid prior to surgical implantation.

In short, the lid is designed to “help distribute the loads of the spine in order to reduce the incidence of subsidence by having more surface area available for load distribution.”

Indications and Construction

The device, according to FDA documents, is intended for spinal fusion procedures at one or two contiguous levels (L2- S1) in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease and used with supplemental spinal fixation systems that have been cleared for use “in the lumbosacral spine (i.e., posterior pedicle screw and rod systems, anterior plate systems, and anterior screw and rod systems).”

Advertisement

The device is also intended to be used with autograft or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft. Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six months non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the device.

The company says the 3D printed implant is comprised of a strut-and-lattice structure with a bone graft chamber access lid designed to allow the surgeon “to deliver a large amount of tightly packed graft inside the interbody structure, maximizing the amount of graft material available for fusion.

The FDA documents state the exterior of the device has “teeth” or “other generally sharp engagement members on the superior and inferior surfaces to help prevent the devices from migrating once they are implanted. The devices submitted herein are 3D printed using titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) conforming to ASTM F3001.

Blain added that Spinal Elements was among the first companies to obtain interbody clearance for PEEK (polyether ether ketone) devices in 2005 and followed that in 2012 by “being the first” to apply Ti-Bond®, Spinal Elements’ brand of plasma-sprayed titanium, on the surface of its PEEK interbody devices.

Spinal Elements is headquartered in Carlsbad, California.

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