Cruxi
FDA record research
The 2021–2025 analysis contains 1 selected substantially-equivalent FDA decisions under primary product code NQP. Use it to compare documented submissions and evidence with your product. A separate 2026 update contains 0 decisions through 2026-09-27. The latest selected decision across the acquired endpoint is dated 2021-01-15. Neither set establishes a suitable predicate or the route for your device. The complete-year window has 1 decisions; the separate all-observed-date count is 22. These denominators describe different date ranges.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
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.
This device is a posterior spinal system that contains polymer and metal components. This spinal system is to be used with bone graft and is an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine.
Compare the proposed indication, user, anatomy, technology and operating principle with this actual scope; record differences and unresolved facts.
§ 888.3070 Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system. (a) Identification. (1) Rigid pedicle screw systems are comprised of multiple components, made from a variety of materials that allow the surgeon to build an implant system to fit the patient's anatomical and physiological requirements. Such a spinal implant assembly consists of a combination of screws, longitudinal members ( e.g., plates, rods including dual diameter rods, plate/rod combinations), transverse or cross connectors, and interconnection mechanisms ( e.g., rod-to-rod connectors, offset connectors). (2) Semi-rigid systems are defined as systems that contain one or more of the following features (including but not limited to): Non-uniform longitudinal elements, or features that allow more motion or flexibility compared to rigid systems. (b) Classification. (1) Class II (special controls), when intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra; degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment; fracture; dislocation; scoliosis; kyphosis; spinal tumor; and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis). These pedicle screw spinal systems must comply with the following special controls: (i) Compliance with material standards; (ii) Compliance with mechanical testing standards; (iii) Compliance with biocompatibility standards; and (iv) Labeling that contains these two statements in addition to other appropriate labeling information: “Warning: The safety and effectiveness of pedicle screw spinal systems have been established only for spinal conditions with significant mechanical instability or deformity requiring fusion with instrumentation. These conditions are significant mechanical instability or deformity of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine secondary to severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra, degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis). The safety and effectiveness of these devices for any other conditions are unknown.” “Precaution: The implantation of pedicle screw spinal systems should be performed only by experienced spinal surgeons with specific training in the use of this pedicle screw spinal system because this is a technically demanding procedure presenting a risk of serious injury to the patient.” (2) Class II (special controls), when a rigid pedicle screw system is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment. These pedicle screw systems must comply with the following special controls: (i) The design characteristics of the device, including engineering schematics, must ensure that the geometry and material composition are consistent with the intended use. (ii) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate the mechanical function and durability of the implant. (iii) Device components must be demonstrated to be biocompatible. (iv) Validation testing must demonstrate the cleanliness and sterility of, or the ability to clean and sterilize, the device components and device-specific instruments. (v) Labeling must include the following: (A) A clear description of the technological features of the device including identification of device materials and the principles of device operation; (B) Intended use and indications for use, including levels of fixation; (C) Identification of magnetic resonance (MR) compatibility status; (D) Cleaning and sterilization instructions for devices and instruments that are provided non-sterile to the end user; and (E) Detailed instructions of each surgical step, including device removal. (3) Class II (special controls), when a semi-rigid system is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion for any indication. In addition to complying with the special controls in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section, these pedicle screw systems must comply with the following special controls: (i) Demonstration that clinical performance characteristics of the device support the intended use of the product, including assessment of fusion compared to a clinically acceptable fusion rate. (ii) Semi-rigid systems marketed prior to the effective date of this reclassification must submit an amendment to their previously cleared premarket notification (510(k)) demonstrating compliance with the special controls in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) and paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section. [66 FR 28053, May 22, 2001, as amended at 81 FR 96373, Dec. 30, 2016]
Read the identification, classification, conditions and referenced limitations in the cited section. A numeric reference match is not a buyer classification or exemption determination.
Historical FDA comparison
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.
There are 1 valid recent date pairs. Distribution summaries require at least 20; older records are not substituted for a current benchmark.
Statistical source: FDA openFDA 510(k) decision dataset. Partition 1 Download the identified records and dates (CSV).
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.
22 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
0 selected decisions from 2026-01-01 to 2026-09-27. The equivalent previous-year period contains 0 decisions through 2025-09-27. These counts describe the records; they are not market growth or submission success rates.
Named records to investigate
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K203678 ↗CD HORIZON Spinal System | Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. | 2021-01-15 | Special | 29 |
| K191066 ↗CD Horizon Astute Spinal System | Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. | 2019-10-03 | Traditional | 164 |
| K182928 ↗CD Horizon Spinal System | Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. | 2019-01-11 | Traditional | 81 |
| K133164 ↗DYNESYS TOP-LOADING SPINAL SYSTEM | Zimmer Spine, Inc. | 2014-01-16 | Traditional | 91 |
| K101704 ↗ZIMMER DTO PIN PRESS INSTRUMENT | Zimmer Spine, Inc. | 2010-08-18 | Special | 62 |
| K101083 ↗DSS STABILIZATION SYSTEM | Paradigm Spine, LLC | 2010-07-02 | Special | 74 |
| K092234 ↗DYNESYS TOP-LOADING SPINAL SYSTEM | Zimmer Spine, Inc. | 2009-10-01 | Traditional | 70 |
| K091944 ↗MODIFICATION TO: DSS STABILIZATION SYSTEM | Paradigm Spine, LLC | 2009-08-03 | Special | 34 |
Supporting documents actually acquired
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.
The documents are a bounded sample of acquired summaries, not complete evidence coverage of the cohort.
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 | NQP [1] |
| Generic device category | Posterior Metal/Polymer Spinal System, Fusion [1] |
| Recorded scope | This device is a posterior spinal system that contains polymer and metal components. This spinal system is to be used with bone graft and is an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. [1] |
| Recorded class | 2 [1] |
| Regulation | 888.3070 [1] |
| Medical specialty | Orthopedic [1] |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This recent cohort has fewer than 20 valid date pairs, so it supplies no median or percentile benchmark. Ask for a schedule based on actual preparation, evidence gaps, interactions and response assumptions; keep any historical decision context separately dated.
Useful evidence: Document/test readiness, unresolved route/evidence tasks and the assumptions behind the specialist’s proposed sequence.
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D01 · snapshot 936de5f5d47b9293b702fc32512a79173969fb788c74a63d9b91abe73f3b86a5
Sat, 16 Jan 2021 21:00:14 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07
Source key D02 · snapshot b0884f0d7fcf45fbf2b212b4a424f0f600ddbc43a8778149539e3a7432bf670d
2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:53:54 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07
Source key D02 · snapshot 4e81ae66d2ca95d3ef457b5e0b6067373fc668ecf765d7c83d2ec00cbabb74e6
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 21:59:27 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07
Source key D02 · snapshot 5c2e48c63e7cb930c59c6227dd7100aeff72694fc284c02573cd8978ac2c62de
Thu, 01 Oct 2026 22:01:48 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D04 · snapshot 2fb992918a3879de132b47a33c856da2b3234ee3d96cfd79fab03acf30512496
Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.
Compare FDA 510(k) Submission Services
Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes · FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment)