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 Approves Noninvasive Bone Growth Stimulator
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA Approves Noninvasive Bone Growth Stimulator

May 8, 2024 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA Approves Noninvasive Bone Growth Stimulator
Xstim Spine Fusion Stimulator / Source: Xstim, Inc.
Secondary#biomet#spinalpak#xstimspinfusionstimulator

The FDA has approved (by way of the more rigorous and time-consuming premarket application (PMA) path) a noninvasive bone growth stimulator.

According to the summary of safety and effectiveness, the noninvasive bone growth stimulator is indicated as an “adjunct electrical treatment to primary lumbar spinal fusion surgery for one or two levels.” Additionally, the device is for “prescription use only and is intended for single patient use in adult patients only.”

The device is a “small, portable, wearable, noninvasive capacitively coupled (CC) bone growth stimulator.” It “delivers a 60 kHz symmetric sine wave signal to the patient electrodes which are placed 2-3 inches on either side of the surgery site.”

The device consists of the “signal generating control unit (controller) and belt clip, a rechargeable lithium-ion battery pack and charging unit, lead wires (controller cables) and cutaneous hydrogel electrodes, optional electrode covers (e.g., shower covers for use with electrodes only when showering), and a carry case.” It promotes “bone healing by passing a specific current between the patient electrodes, which generates a low-energy electrical field at the fusion site.”

The device is the Xstim™ Spine Fusion Stimulator. Xstim, Inc., based in Irving, Texas, is a medical technology company focused on bone growth stimulation solutions. Xstim submitted the PMA application. According to the company’s press release, the Xstim Spine Fusion Stimulator should be commercially available in the second quarter of this year.

In the application, Xstim provided a series of nonclinical comparison studies of the Xstim Spine Fusion Stimulator and the SpinalPak®. Biomet’s SpinalPak is a bone growth stimulator that was previously approved with the same indications for use.

Per the summary of safety and effectiveness, “the purpose of these nonclinical signal characterization tests was to establish sufficient similarity of the two BGS [bone growth stimulator] devices such that FDA could apply Section 216 of the Food and Drug Modernization Act (FDAMA), i.e., the ‘six-year rule,’ to assess the safety and effectiveness profiles of the Xstim Spine Fusion Stimulator.” The FDA found that based on the comparative testing results, the Xstim is “sufficiently similar to SpinalPak, such that the ‘six-year rule’ can be applied to assess the safety and effectiveness profiles of the Xstim device.”

Adam Bruggerman, M.D. said, “Bone healing following spinal fusion surgery is paramount to successful patient outcomes. The availability of non-invasive bone growth stimulation options like Xstim provides my patients with an invaluable advantage.

Dr. Bruggerman continued, “Its sleek design ensures simple therapy management without the hassle of downloading and managing extra apps.”

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