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 Novel Augmented Reality Spine System
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA Clears Novel Augmented Reality Spine System

October 16, 2023 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA Clears Novel Augmented Reality Spine System
OnPoint Augmented Reality Spine System / Source: OnPoint Surgical, Inc.
#augmedicsxvision#onpointaugmentedreality#onpointsurgical

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted 510(k) clearance to an augmented reality spine system for spinal procedures.

According to the 510(k) summary document, the augmented reality spine system consists of the following components:

  • Tracking camera, workstation, and cart
  • Headsets with supplemental battery
  • Software
  • Tracked instruments and adapters

According to the FDA’s 510(k) summary document, the augmented reality spine system, in conjunction with its software, is intended as “an aid for precisely locating anatomic structures in either open or percutaneous spine procedures.” Its use is “indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and where reference to a bony anatomical structure, such as the spine or pelvis, can be identified relative to CT images of the anatomy.”

This can include “spinal implant procedures, such as pedicle screw placement, where the surgeon wants to see a tracked instrument location in relationship to the stereotaxic display of the CT images of the anatomy.”

Additionally, the optical head mounted display of the systems “displays 2D stereotaxic screens and an optional virtual anatomy screen, paired with optional graphical targeting tools and alphanumeric displays.” The stereotaxic screen is indicated for “correlating the tracked instrument location to the registered patient images.”

The virtual screen is indicated for “displaying the virtual instrument location in relation to the virtual anatomy to assist in percutaneous visualization and trajectory planning.” The graphical targeting tools and alphanumeric display are indicated for “providing visual and quantitative tracking information of the tracked instrument location including deviation from plan.”

The virtual display “should not be relied upon solely for absolute positional information and should always be used in conjunction with the displayed stereotaxic information.”

In order to qualify for the shorter and earlier 510(k) clearance the device must be substantially equivalent to a predicate device. Here, the augmented reality spine system is similar to the Augmedics xvision Spine System.

Advertisement

OnPoint Surgical, Inc. submitted the system for 510(k) clearance. OnPoint Surgical is an augmented reality-focused medical device company based in Bedford, Massachusetts. Its system is called OnPoint Augmented Reality Spine System.

According to OnPoint Surgical’s press release, the system “superimposes virtual surgical guides and virtual implants onto the surgeon’s visual field using proprietary see-through optical head-mounted display technology.”

It is an open platform and is “compatible with the implants of major manufacturers; it requires no change in surgical technique or surgeon practice.” Additionally, the “head mounted display is 4-10x lighter and has 2-4x greater resolution than existing AR [augmented reality]systems for spinal procedures.”

OnPoint Surgical also emphasized the system’s accuracy noting that cadaver studies show “the OnPoint Augmented Reality Spine System exceeding that of all major existing navigation, robotic and augmented reality systems between 2 – 5x, with the differences being statistically highly significant across all comparisons.”

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