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 510(k) Clearance for Newest FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA 510(k) Clearance for Newest FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System

June 1, 2022 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

#fda510kclearance#accelus#flarehawkSecondary

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted 510(k) clearance of Integrity Implants Inc., d/b/a/ Accelus’ FlareHawk TiHawk™11 Interbody Fusion System.

According to the FDA 510(k) document, the FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System is “an expandable lumbar intervertebral body fusion device intended for use in the lumbosacral spine from L2 to S1.”

Per the FDA 510(k) document, the FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System is indicated for “spinal intervertebral body fusion with autogenous bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone in skeletally mature individuals with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1, following discectomy.”

“DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment. Additionally, these patients may have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). FlareHawk system spacers are intended to be used with supplemental fixation instrumentation, which has been cleared for use in the lumbar spine.”

In order to qualify for shorter and earlier 510(k) clearance the device must be substantially equivalent to a predicate device. According to the FDA 510(k) document, the “FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System has substantially similar fundamental scientific technology as the predicate FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System.” This includes its rectangular frame, the shim component, the shell component being manufactured from PEEK, and the tapered front end of the shim component that inserts into and expands the shell component.

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida-based Accelus offers a portfolio of spinal fusion cages. TiHawk11 is unique because of its larger footprint. According to the company, “TiHawk11 features an 11mm-wide insertion profile and expands to 17mm in width and 14mm in height, providing 70% more footprint than a 10mm-wide interbody device of identical length. This larger interbody footprint is designed to increase stability and provide the ability to post-pack bone graft after expanding to increase graft volume.”

Accelus also explains that “TiHawk11 cages are manufactured using an innovative titanium and PEEK bonding process that deposits a uniform, 0.5-micron-thick layer of titanium at the bonding interface. This provides strong adhesion between the PEEK and titanium without the loss of fluoroscopic visualization often associated with titanium implants. The combination of PEEK and titanium may also permit a modulus more similar to bone.”

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida-based Integrity Implants Inc. submitted the 510(k) application to the FDA. However, the product belongs to the Accelus portfolio of products. Founded in 2021, Accelus is a combination of Integrity Implants and Fusion Robotics, LLC.

Accelus CEO and Co-Founder Chris Walsh commented, in part, “I’m incredibly proud of the advances in our new TiHawk11 system, which combines the small insertion profile of FlareHawk with the largest footprint we’ve offered surgeons to date.”

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