FDA record research

Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Cervical (OVE) — FDA decisions, comparisons and evidence

The 2021–2025 analysis contains 52 selected substantially-equivalent FDA decisions under primary product code OVE. Use it to compare documented submissions and evidence with your product. A separate 2026 update contains 11 decisions through 2026-09-27. The latest selected decision across the acquired endpoint is dated 2026-09-23. Neither set establishes a suitable predicate or the route for your device. The complete-year window has 52 decisions; the separate all-observed-date count is 167. These denominators describe different date ranges.

Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.

Recorded scope and its declared regulatory reference

An exact FDA-record regulation_number match to one acquired Title 21 section. Records with the same normalized scope definition, class, regulation and recorded submission/GMP flags are grouped. Sparse definitions and generic exemption boilerplate do not qualify. No text-similarity equivalence or legal applicability is inferred.

What scope does the FDA record describe?

Intended to stabilize cervical spinal segment to promote fusion in order to restrict motion and decrease pain using bone graft with or without supplemental fixation.

Compare the proposed indication, user, anatomy, technology and operating principle with this actual scope; record differences and unresolved facts.

Cited source

Which current section does the record cite?

§ 888.3080 Intervertebral body fusion device. (a) Identification. An intervertebral body fusion device is an implanted single or multiple component spinal device made from a variety of materials, including titanium and polymers. The device is inserted into the intervertebral body space of the cervical or lumbosacral spine, and is intended for intervertebral body fusion. (b) Classification. (1) Class II (special controls) for intervertebral body fusion devices that contain bone grafting material. The special control is the FDA guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device.” See § 888.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document. (2) Class III (premarket approval) for intervertebral body fusion devices that include any therapeutic biologic (e.g., bone morphogenic protein). Intervertebral body fusion devices that contain any therapeutic biologic require premarket approval. (c) Date premarket approval application (PMA) or notice of product development protocol (PDP) is required. Devices described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution. [72 FR 32172, June 12, 2007]

Read the identification, classification, conditions and referenced limitations in the cited section. A numeric reference match is not a buyer classification or exemption determination.

Cited source

Historical FDA comparison

2021–2025: five complete calendar years

Primary code OVE

All statistics in this section use decisions dated 2021-01-01 to 2025-12-31. The partial 2026 update below is excluded from these distributions.

52Selected decisions in these five years

91.5Median receipt-to-decision calendar days

52Valid date pairs in the distribution

The middle 50% of the 52 valid date pairs spans 57.8–172.8 calendar days. This describes selected recorded submissions, including elapsed time outside active FDA review. It is not an FDA review-time measure or a delivery promise.

202110

202210

202316

20246

202510

Compare like submission types

Recorded type	Decisions	Valid date pairs	Median calendar days	Middle 50%
Special	6	6	Withheld: n < 20	—
Traditional	46	46	98.0	61.5–193.8

Different submission types and evidence packages are not interchangeable. These selected records do not establish that a particular route is available for your product.

Statistical source: FDA openFDA 510(k) decision dataset. Partition 1 Download the identified records and dates (CSV).

Filters, exclusions and reproducible calculation

Deduplicate by official submission ID across the complete current manifest partitions. Select exact primary product code, K-number format and the stated SE decision codes with valid dates. Recent distributions use the five complete calendar years preceding the latest valid endpoint decision year. Partial-year counts compare equal January-to-cutoff periods. Quartiles use linear interpolation at (n-1)*p and are withheld below 20 valid date pairs. The analysis n describes only its declared complete-year window; selected_se_n separately counts all selected recorded dates through the cutoff.

167 selected records across all observed dates; 0 other/invalid identifier or decision-date records excluded. 0 missing or invalid date pairs in the five-year window.

Date fields: date_received → decision_date. Quantiles: Hyndman–Fan type 7: linear interpolation at (n − 1) × p; displayed to one decimal; n ≥ 20 valid pairs.

Receipt-to-decision calendar elapsed time includes time outside active FDA review; it is not FDA review time, a promised project timeline or an estimate of future clearance. This selected recorded cohort does not include all applications or establish a success probability, predicate suitability, market size, current market availability or legal authorization for another product.

Calculation fda-buyer-research-3 · database cutoff 2026-09-27. CSV rows identify each official K-number, cohort, date pair, exclusion reason and source version.

Separate partial-year update

2026 decisions through 2026-09-27

11 selected decisions from 2026-01-01 to 2026-09-27. The equivalent previous-year period contains 8 decisions through 2025-09-27. These counts describe the records; they are not market growth or submission success rates.

Named records to investigate

Latest decisions across the database

These dated records may come from 2026 or earlier years. They are a separate investigation list, not the five-year statistical cohort. Compare the actual indications and technology before considering a record as a comparator.

Official record / device	Recorded applicant	Decision	Recorded type	Calendar days
K263049 ↗SABER-C System	Elevation Spine	2026-09-23	Special	23
K261882 ↗Pisces-SC Standalone Cervical Interbody System	Osseus Fusions Systems, LLC	2026-08-21	Traditional	77
K261451 ↗ZSAlign Cervical Interbody System	ZSFab, Inc.	2026-07-31	Traditional	91
K262094 ↗E3D-C Interbody System	Evolution Spine	2026-07-22	Special	30
K261279 ↗DeltaNEC Interbody System	Nexus Spine	2026-06-22	Traditional	66
K252982 ↗CONDUIT ZERO-P VA Secured Spacer System	Avalign Technologies, Inc.	2026-06-18	Traditional	274
K260036 ↗NeckTune 3D SA Cervical Cage	Medyssey Co, Ltd.	2026-06-15	Traditional	160
K260660 ↗SABER-C System	Elevation Spine	2026-04-27	Traditional	56

Supporting documents actually acquired

Go beyond the database row

Read the source context, then compare the evidence with your design. Topic locations below are text matches, including possible limitations or negative statements; they are not a mandatory test list.

K263049 · official summary PDF ↗

Term mention: Performance testing · PDF page 7 Term occurrence only; read the original passage, including limitations and negation.
Term mention: Sterilization · PDF page 7 Term occurrence only; read the original passage, including limitations and negation.

K261882 · official summary PDF ↗

Term mention: Sterilization · PDF page 5 Term occurrence only; read the original passage, including limitations and negation.

K261451 · official summary PDF ↗

Term mention: Biocompatibility · PDF page 6 Term occurrence only; read the original passage, including limitations and negation.

The documents are a bounded sample of acquired summaries, not complete evidence coverage of the cohort.

Recorded classification context

Known context: US. Match the intended use and design with the recorded category before treating it as applicable.

Source fact	Recorded value
FDA product code	OVE [1]
Generic device category	Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Cervical [1]
Recorded scope	Intended to stabilize cervical spinal segment to promote fusion in order to restrict motion and decrease pain using bone graft with or without supplemental fixation. [1]
Recorded class	2 [1]
Regulation	888.3080 [1]
Medical specialty	Orthopedic [1]

Build a comparison that explains the differences

Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.

Which specific part of the recorded scope fits or differs?
Put your proposed label and design beside the quoted definition. Record matching facts, differences and missing facts separately; naming the category alone cannot resolve scope.
Useful evidence: Proposed indication/design and a definition-to-product comparison with source locators.
Have the cited section and its limitations been reviewed?
Record the applicable paragraph, conditions and cross-referenced limitations after specialist review. Keep a claimed exemption separate from actual establishment, listing and quality-system responsibilities.
Useful evidence: Dated classification/route rationale and the current provisions relied on, with unresolved conditions.
Compare your intended use with a named decision
Choose a named record above. Put your proposed claim beside its actual indications-for-use statement. Record different patients, users, anatomy, settings and output claims; do not treat a shared code as proof of equivalence.
Useful evidence: Your draft indications for use + the selected official summary and its exact page.
Explain the technology and evidence differences
For each comparison, record the different materials, hardware, software functions and operating conditions. Link each difference to existing evidence or an unresolved evaluation task.
Useful evidence: A three-column matrix: comparator fact / your design fact / evidence or unresolved gap.
Make the estimate comparable
Use the 2021–2025 cohort, and compare the recorded submission type before discussing calendar elapsed time. Separate your own preparation work from the recorded receipt-to-decision period.
Useful evidence: Chosen K numbers, submission types, dates and your own document/test readiness.

Work packages and dependencies

Conditional: FDA 510(k) Submission Services — Review the supplied facts and evidence gaps before confirming the service scope.
Optional: Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes — Include only if your product, actor and delivery needs justify this additional scope. Confirm the responsibility and evidence handoff with the coordinating specialist.
Optional: FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment) — Include only if your product, actor and delivery needs justify this additional scope. Confirm the responsibility and evidence handoff with the coordinating specialist.

What needs to happen first

FDA 510(k) Submission Services → Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes: Confirm the main product/actor scope and evidence gaps before deciding whether to commission this additional service.
FDA 510(k) Submission Services → FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment): Confirm the main product/actor scope and evidence gaps before deciding whether to commission this additional service.

Questions for providers

Which of the named OVE decisions are actually comparable to our proposed indications and technology, and which would you exclude?
Which evidence differences prevent us from using the comparison yet, and what deliverable resolves each one?
Does your schedule separate submission preparation, testing, FDA interactions and customer response time? What assumptions change it?

Sources and data dates

Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.