Tallahassee, Florida-based VySpine™, LLC, a spinal instrumentation and implant company, has been granted FDA 510(k) clearance for its VyPlate Anterior Cervical Plate System.
510(k) Clearance for VyPlate Anterior Cervical Plate System
VySpine’s VyPlate Anterior Cervical Plate System includes the following components: implant, instrument, and tray. Per the FDA, the implant components consist of “anterior cervical plates, cover plates, and bone screws” which are comprised of titanium alloy 6Al-4V as specified by ASTM F-136.
The VyPlate Anterior Cervical Plate System is indicated for “stabilization of the anterior cervical spine from C2 to C7 employing unicortical screw fixation at the anterior face of the vertebral bodies.” The specific clinical indications for anterior plating include the following:
- “instability caused by trauma or fracture;
- instability associated with correction of cervical lordosis and kyphosis deformity;
- instability associated with pseudoarthrosis as a result of previously failed cervical spine surgery;
- instability associated with major reconstructive surgery for primary tumors or metastatic malignant tumors of the cervical spine;
- instability associated with single or multiple level corpectomy in advanced degenerative disk disease (defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spinal canal stenosis and cervical myelopathy.”
The VyPlate Anterior Cervical Plate System “is not approved for screw attachment or fixation to the posterior elements (pedicles) of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine.”
According to the FDA 510(k) document, the device is “substantially equivalent to the primary predicate Reliance Anterior Cervical Plate System (K122216, K140742), in terms of material, intended use, levels of attachment, size range, and strength.”
OTW spoke with VySpine CEO Tom McLeer about the VyPlate system and he said, “We are excited to offer surgeons the VyPlate ACP System, which is the latest in a series of particularly versatile and cost-effective cervical products, with several more to follow by the end of this year.”

Discussion
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?
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.
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.