Orthopedic Devices; Reclassification of Pedicle Screw Systems, Henceforth To Be Known as Thoracolumbosacral Pedicle Screw Systems, Including Semi-Rigid Systems, 96366-96374 [2016-31670]
Download as PDF
96366
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
million. While average annualized net
benefits decrease by $15 million, they
are still positive. We note that this
extension of the compliance date will
not have an actual effect on the cost or
benefits of the menu labeling rule,
because, under section 747 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,
FDA was not authorized to spend funds
to ‘‘implement, administer, or enforce’’
the rule until May 5, 2017, a year after
the date on which published a Level 1
guidance with respect to nutrition
labeling of standard menu items in
restaurants and similar retail food
establishments. We are presenting the
benefits and costs of the menu labeling
final rule, which takes effect according
to the dates in this rule.
The full analysis of economic impacts
is available in the docket for this final
rule (Ref. 1) and at https://www.fda.gov/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/
Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no collection
of information. Therefore, clearance by
the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 is not required.
V. Analysis of Environmental Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR
25.30(k) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Reference
The following reference is on display
in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is
available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; it is also
available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the Web site addresses, as of the date
this document publishes in the Federal
Register, but Web sites are subject to
change over time.
1. FDA, ‘‘Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling
of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants
and Similar Retail Food Establishments;
Extension of Compliance Date,’’ 2015.
Available at: https://www.fda.gov/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/
Reports/EconomicAnalyses/.
Dated: December 23, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–31597 Filed 12–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 888
[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–1205]
Orthopedic Devices; Reclassification
of Pedicle Screw Systems, Henceforth
To Be Known as Thoracolumbosacral
Pedicle Screw Systems, Including
Semi-Rigid Systems
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is issuing a final
order to reclassify pedicle screw
systems, a preamendments class III
device (regulated under product code
NKB), into class II (special controls),
renaming the device
‘‘thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw
systems’’; reclassify dynamic
stabilization systems, a subtype of
pedicle screw systems regulated under
product code NQP when used as an
adjunct to fusion, into class II (special
controls), renaming this device subtype
‘‘semi-rigid systems’’; and clarify the
device identification of pedicle screw
systems to more clearly delineate
between rigid pedicle screw systems
and semi-rigid systems. FDA is
finalizing this action based on a
reevaluation of information pertaining
to the device type.
DATES: This order is effective on
December 30, 2016. See further
discussion in section V,
‘‘Implementation Strategy.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Constance P. Soves, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1437, Silver Spring,
MD 20993, 301–796–6951,
Constance.Soves@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background—Regulatory Authorities
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the
Medical Device Amendments of 1976
(the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94–
295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of
1990 (Pub. L. 101–629), the Food and
Drug Administration Modernization Act
of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–115), the Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act
of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–250), the Medical
Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub.
L. 108–214), the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110–85), and the Food and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112–
144), among other amendments,
established a comprehensive system for
the regulation of medical devices
intended for human use. Section 513 of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c)
established three categories (classes) of
devices, reflecting the regulatory
controls needed to provide reasonable
assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of
devices are class I (general controls),
class II (special controls), and class III
(premarket approval).
Under section 513(d) of the FD&C Act,
devices that were in commercial
distribution before the enactment of the
1976 amendments, May 28, 1976
(generally referred to as preamendments
devices), are classified after FDA has: (1)
Received a recommendation from a
device classification panel (an FDA
advisory committee); (2) published the
panel’s recommendation for comment,
along with a proposed regulation
classifying the device; and (3) published
a final regulation classifying the device.
FDA has classified most
preamendments devices under these
procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial
distribution prior to May 28, 1976
(generally referred to as
‘‘postamendments devices’’) are
automatically classified by section
513(f) of the FD&C Act into class III
without any FDA rulemaking process.
Those devices remain in class III and
require premarket approval unless, and
until, the device is reclassified into class
I or II or FDA issues an order finding the
device to be substantially equivalent, in
accordance with section 513(i) of the
FD&C Act, to a predicate device that
does not require premarket approval.
The Agency determines whether new
devices are substantially equivalent to
predicate devices by means of
premarket notification procedures in
section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 807).
A preamendments device that has
been classified into class III and devices
found substantially equivalent by means
of premarket notification (510(k))
procedures to such a preamendments
device or to a device within that type
(both the preamendments and
substantially equivalent devices are
referred to as preamendments class III
devices) may be marketed without
submission of a premarket approval
application (PMA) until FDA issues a
final order under section 515(b) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring
premarket approval.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Under section 515(i)(2) of the FD&C
Act, FDA has the authority to issue an
administrative order revising the
proposed classification of a device for
which FDA has classified as a class III
device and for which no administrative
order has been issued calling for PMAs
under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act,
so that the device is classified into class
I or class II, after issuance of a proposed
order, a meeting of a device
classification panel, and consideration
of the comments of a proposed order. In
determining whether to revise the
proposed classification of a device or to
require a device to remain in class III,
FDA applies the criteria set forth in
section 513(a) of the FD&C Act. Section
513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act defines
class II devices as those devices for
which the general controls in section
513(a)(1)(A) by themselves are
insufficient to provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness,
but for which there is sufficient
information to establish special controls
to provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of a device.
On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted.
Section 608(a) of FDASIA amended
section 513(e) of the FD&C Act,
changing the mechanism for
reclassifying a device from rulemaking
to an administrative order.
Section 513(e) of the FD&C Act
provides that FDA may, by
administrative order, reclassify a device
based upon ‘‘new information.’’ FDA
can initiate a reclassification under
section 513(e) or an interested person
may petition FDA to reclassify a
preamendments device. The term ‘‘new
information,’’ as used in section 513(e),
includes information developed as a
result of a reevaluation of the data
before the Agency when the device was
originally classified, as well as
information not presented, not
available, or not developed at that time.
(See, e.g., Holland-Rantos Co. v. United
States Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1
(D.C. Cir. 1978); Upjohn v. Finch, 422
F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1970); Bell v.
Goddard, 366 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966).)
Reevaluation of the data previously
before the Agency is an appropriate
basis for subsequent action where the
reevaluation is made in light of newly
available authority (see Bell, 366 F.2d at
181; Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA, 762 F.Supp.
382, 388–391 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light
of changes in ‘‘medical science’’
(Upjohn, 422 F.2d at 951). Whether data
before the Agency are old or new data,
the ‘‘new information’’ to support
reclassification under section 513(e)
must be ‘‘valid scientific evidence,’’ as
defined in section 513(a)(3) of the FD&C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g.,
General Medical Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d
214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Mfrs.
Ass’n v. FDA, 766 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir.
1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062
(1986).)
FDA relies upon ‘‘valid scientific
evidence’’ in the classification process
to determine the level of regulation for
devices. To be considered in the
reclassification process, the ‘‘valid
scientific evidence’’ upon which the
Agency relies must be publicly
available. Publicly available information
excludes trade secret and/or
confidential commercial information,
e.g., the contents of a pending PMA.
(See section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360j(c)).)
Section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act sets
forth the process for issuing a final
reclassification order. Specifically, prior
to the issuance of a final order
reclassifying a device, the following
must occur: (1) Publication of a
proposed order in the Federal Register;
(2) a meeting of a device classification
panel described in section 513(b) of the
FD&C Act; and (3) consideration of
comments to a public docket.
FDA published a proposed order to
propose different classifications for rigid
pedicle screw systems and semi-rigid
systems (SRSs) in the Federal Register
of November 12, 2014 (79 FR 67105)
(2014 Proposed Order). Moreover, as
explained in section II of the 2014
Proposed Order, on May 22, 2013, FDA
held a classification meeting of the
Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices
Panel (the 2013 Panel) to discuss
pedicle screw systems, which include
rigid pedicle screw systems and SRSs.
FDA received and has considered all the
comments on the 2014 Proposed Order,
as discussed in section III. Therefore,
FDA has met the requirements under
sections 513(e)(1) and 515(i)(2) of the
FD&C Act.
II. Device Description
Pedicle screw systems consist of
multiple component devices 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 may consist of
a combination of hooks, screws,
longitudinal members (e.g., plates, rods,
plate/rod combinations), transverse or
cross connectors, and interconnection
mechanisms (e.g., rod-to-rod connectors,
offset connectors). Rigid pedicle screw
systems provide immediate rigid
fixation to the spinal column as an
adjunct to spinal fusion procedures.
Since the 1998 classification (63 FR
40025, July 27, 1998), changes in
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
96367
technological characteristics have
occurred, leading to the emergence of a
new type of pedicle screw system, SRSs,
previously referred to as dynamic
stabilization systems (DSSs). SRSs are a
subset of the pedicle screw systems
regulated under § 888.3070 (21 CFR
888.3070). SRSs are defined as systems
that contain one or more non-uniform
and/or non-metallic longitudinal
elements (e.g., polymer cords, moveable
screw heads, springs) that allow more
motion or flexibility (e.g., bending,
rotation, translation) compared to rigid
systems and do not provide immediate
rigid fixation to the spinal column as an
adjunct to spinal fusion procedures.
In the 2014 Proposed Order, FDA
proposed to modify the identification
language from the way it is presently
written in § 888.3070(a) and sought
comments on the means of providing
distinction between rigid pedicle screw
systems and pedicle screw systems that
allow more motion or flexibility. As
discussed in section III, FDA received
several comments suggesting that
§ 888.3070 separate SRSs, which may
allow for more flexibility than
traditional rigid pedicle screw systems
but still facilitate fusion, from truly
‘‘dynamic’’ systems that are intended for
non-fusion use. Truly dynamic systems
intended for non-fusion use are
postamendments devices that are
outside the scope of this regulatory
action. FDA agrees with these comments
and has modified the identification
language from the way it is presently
written in § 888.3070(a) to include
SRSs.
FDA has also, on its own initiative,
renamed ‘‘pedicle screw spinal system’’
as ‘‘thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw
system’’ to clearly distinguish these
devices from posterior cervical screw
systems, which are not intended to be
covered by § 888.3070.
III. Public Comments in Response to the
Proposed Order
In response to the 2014 Proposed
Order, FDA received 15 comments from
industry, trade organizations,
professional societies, and individuals.
Certain comments are grouped together
under a single number because the
subject matter of the comments is
similar. The number assigned to each
comment is purely for organizational
purposes and does not signify the
comment’s value or importance or the
order in which it was submitted. The
comments that follow are grouped into
those that pertain to rigid pedicle screw
systems and those that pertain to SRSs.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
96368
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
A. Rigid Pedicle Screw Systems
Of the 15 comments received, several
specifically referenced the proposal to
reclassify rigid pedicle screw systems
when 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 (DDD) and spondylolisthesis
(other than either severe
spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at
L5–S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis
with objective evidence of neurologic
impairment). Some commenters agreed
with the recommendation to reclassify
these as class II devices (special
controls), most of whom specifically
stated that they agreed with the Agency
that general and special controls can
provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of rigid pedicle
screw systems.
(Comment 1) Some commenters did
not agree with the proposal to reclassify
rigid pedicle screw systems to class II
(special controls). One comment stated
that labeling special controls are not
appropriate risk mitigations and that
clinical data should be required for
these devices. Another comment noted
that adverse events have been identified
for rigid pedicle screw systems, and the
final comment noted varied results in
clinical literature, specifically citing a
1990 study by Matsuzaki et al. that
found a 5.7 percent screw breakage rate
(Ref. 1).
(Response 1) FDA disagrees that rigid
pedicle screw systems for treatment of
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than
either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment)
should remain in class III. The Agency
believes the labeling special controls
proposed to inform users of the
technological features of the device
(including identification of device
materials and the principles of device
operation), intended use and indications
for use (including levels of fixation),
identification of magnetic resonance
compatibility status, cleaning and
sterilization instructions, and detailed
instructions of each surgical step
(including device removal) are
appropriate to help mitigate the
identified risks to health that may result
from improper use of rigid pedicle
screw systems. The Agency does not
believe clinical data are necessary for
rigid pedicle screw systems indicated
for treatment of DDD and
spondylolisthesis (other than either
severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and
4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment).
Clinical data from use of rigid pedicle
screw systems for these indications
were presented to the 2013 Panel to
support reclassification to class II.
Furthermore, non-clinical methods used
to evaluate these devices have been
demonstrated to adequately mitigate
risks to health. FDA still retains the
ability to request appropriate
performance testing, including clinical
data for individual devices with a
different indication for use and/or
different technological features that do
not raise different questions of safety
and effectiveness as compared to a
predicate device, to demonstrate that
the individual devices are as safe and
effective as the predicate device, if
necessary. FDA acknowledges that rigid
pedicle screw systems, like all medical
devices, have risks to health, as
evidenced by the adverse events noted
by one commenter, and the breakage
rate identified in the 1990 Matsuzaki et
al. study cited by another commenter
(Ref. 1). On May 22, 2013, FDA held the
2013 Panel meeting to discuss the
current classification of rigid pedicle
screw systems for 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,
which are currently class III indications
(Ref. 2). FDA is not aware of evidence
that indicates there is a higher rate of
screw fracture for the class III
indications, which is the focus of this
reclassification effort, compared to the
class II indications. The 2013 Panel
discussed the adverse events and
clinical literature associated with rigid
pedicle screw systems for all
indications, and recommended that
traditional, rigid pedicle screw systems
as an adjunct to fusion for the treatment
of DDD and spondylolisthesis other than
severe grades 3 or 4, or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment be
reclassified as class II (special controls).
FDA agrees with the 2013 Panel’s
recommendation for reclassification.
The Agency believes, as stated in the
2014 Proposed Order, that the risks of
rigid pedicle screw systems as an
adjunct to fusion for the treatment of
DDD and spondylolisthesis other than
severe grades 3 or 4, or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment, are
sufficiently understood based on valid
scientific evidence, which enables FDA
to establish special controls to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness of rigid pedicle screw
systems.
(Comment 2) One commenter
provided an additional recommendation
for the identification language for rigid
pedicle screw systems. Specifically, to
more completely characterize
components that may be used as a part
of these systems, the commenter
suggested adding sublaminar wires and
cables to the list of components of these
systems.
(Response 2) FDA disagrees with this
proposed edit to the identification
language. These additional components,
while often used in conjunction with
pedicle screw systems, are classified
under a separate classification
regulation and, therefore, are not
appropriate to include under
§ 888.3070. However, in review of this
information, FDA acknowledges that
hooks (currently listed in the
identification language for pedicle
screw systems) are also classified under
a separate classification regulation.
Therefore, the Agency has also taken the
opportunity to remove ‘‘hooks’’ from the
revised identification language for rigid
pedicle screw systems.
(Comment 3) One commenter
recommended removing design
characteristics as a special control
because this should be a requirement of
all premarket notifications. This
commenter also recommended
removing the word ‘‘rigid’’ from the
identification.
(Response 3) FDA disagrees with the
recommendation of this commenter to
remove design characteristics as a
special control. FDA considers this
special control critical to help
differentiate technological features for
rigid pedicle screw systems from SRSs.
Similarly, inclusion of the word ‘‘rigid’’
in the identification language is
necessary to distinguish between these
and SRSs.
(Comment 4) One commenter
recommended revising the
biocompatibility special control to state
‘‘compliance with biocompatibility
standards.’’
(Response 4) FDA disagrees with this
comment and has determined that it is
most appropriate not to reference
consensus standards within special
controls because relevant standards are
subject to change over time. The special
controls as worded allow for additional
mechanisms by which manufacturers
can meet the requirements to ensure
conformity.
(Comment 5) One commenter
recommended removing ‘‘wear’’ from
the list of potential means by which a
device could fail.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(Response 5) The risk of wear was
raised at the 2013 Panel, specifically in
the context of SRSs. FDA still considers
there to be a potential for wear in
traditional rigid systems as well and,
therefore, has elected not to modify the
definition of device failure accordingly.
(Comment 6) One commenter
suggested editorial revisions to the risks
and descriptive text associated with
risks as outlined in the 2014 Proposed
Order.
(Response 6) These edits were not
considered to substantively change the
intended meaning of the risks and
associated mitigations and, therefore,
FDA will not accept these suggested
edits in this final order.
(Comment 7) One commenter
provided several proposed edits that
would impact § 888.3070(b)(1).
Additionally, this commenter provided
other editorial recommendations to the
language from the 2014 Proposed Order.
(Response 7) While FDA agrees with
the proposed modifications that would
impact § 888.3070(b)(1), these will
require a separate regulatory action
because this section of the regulation is
outside the scope of the call for
information under section 515(i) of the
FD&C Act. Edits that were proposed to
the language from the 2014 Proposed
Order did not materially impact the
language within this final order.
In reviewing the 2014 Proposed
Order, the comments received, and the
2013 Panel’s recommendations, FDA is
also making minor modifications to the
identification for thoracolumbosacral
pedicle screw systems. The
identification for rigid pedicle screw
systems will be revised from
‘‘longitudinal members (e.g., plates,
rods, plate/rod combinations)’’ to
‘‘longitudinal members (e.g., plates, rods
including dual diameter rods, plate/rod
combinations)’’ as the latter statement
clarifies that dual diameter rods would
be considered to be part of rigid systems
rather than as ‘‘non-uniform
longitudinal elements’’ specified under
the definition of SRSs.
B. SRSs
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Identification
In the 2014 Proposed Order, FDA
solicited comments to revise the
identification language for pedicle
screw spinal systems to distinguish
between rigid pedicle screw systems
and DSSs (now termed SRSs).
(Comment 8) While most commenters
did not specifically comment on the
proposed up-classification of SRSs to
class III, approximately half of the
comments suggested revisions to the
definition of SRSs. These suggestions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
propose separating SRSs, which may
allow for more flexibility than
traditional rigid pedicle screw systems
but still facilitate fusion, from truly
‘‘dynamic’’ systems that are intended for
non-fusion use. Truly dynamic systems
are postamendments devices that are
outside the scope of this regulatory
action.
(Response 8) FDA agrees with these
comments and will henceforth refer to
these systems as SRSs in this final order
under § 880.3070(b)(3).
(Comment 9) Several commenters
provided alternative identification
language to FDA’s initially proposed
definition of DSSs, now termed SRSs,
which was as follows: ‘‘Dynamic
stabilization systems are defined as
systems that contain one or more nonuniform and/or non-metallic
longitudinal elements (e.g., polymer
cords, moveable screw heads, springs)
that allow more motion or flexibility
(e.g., bending, rotation, translation)
compared to rigid pedicle screw systems
and do not provide immediate rigid
fixation to the spinal column as an
adjunct [to] fusion.’’ While most
commenters agreed with the language
that these systems ‘‘allow more motion
or flexibility,’’ there were several
comments that disagreed with the
technological features called out within
this definition (i.e., non-uniform and/or
non-metallic). For example, one
commenter provided the case that an
undersized metallic rod may allow for
more flexibility than a larger nonmetallic rod. Similar arguments were
also made at the 2013 Panel, where the
challenges of defining these systems
based upon technological characteristics
were also discussed. Accordingly,
several commenters proposed
modifications to the identification
language of these systems based solely
on intended use (i.e., not intended for
immediate rigid fixation, or intended to
allow more motion or flexibility
compared to rigid systems). Two
commenters did not specifically provide
alternate language; however, these
commenters provided data from clinical
and non-clinical studies to support the
argument that rods manufactured from
polyetheretherketone (PEEK) perform
similarly to traditional metallic rods
(Refs. 3 to 5). Qi et al. demonstrated that
subjects undergoing single
posterolateral fusion with either
titanium rods or PEEK rods showed no
difference in adjacent segment disease,
spinal alignment, or clinical outcomes
(Ref. 3). A biomechanical study by
Sengupta et al. shows similar restriction
in range of motion for PEEK rods
compared to both the traditional
metallic rods and another SRS device
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
96369
(Ref. 4). Kurtz et al. collected and
analyzed explanted PEEK and
traditional metallic rods and concluded
that the PEEK rod retrievals showed
similar wear patterns compared to
traditional rigid rods (Ref. 5). These
commenters also used terminology to
distinguish these types of systems (i.e.,
‘‘semi-rigid systems’’), which are used
as an adjunct to fusion, from ‘‘nonrigid’’ or ‘‘flexible’’ systems, which are
‘‘intended for dynamic stabilization’’ of
the spine. An additional commenter
also cited a cadaver study, which
similarly showed that PEEK rods
resulted in comparable stability to
traditional metallic systems (Ref. 6).
(Response 9) In response to these
comments, FDA has revised this
identification to remove reference to
‘‘non-metallic’’ components and has
also captured devices with less stiff
materials (i.e., ‘‘features that allow more
motion or flexibility compared to rigid
systems’’). FDA has also elected to alter
the terminology used to identify these
systems that ‘‘allow more motion or
flexibility’’ when used as an adjunct to
fusion as SRSs. This is also consistent
with comments made at the 2013 Panel,
in which the distinction between ‘‘semirigid’’ and ‘‘dynamic’’ systems was
discussed. The features that may result
in a device being classified as an SRS
may include, but are not limited to,
polymer cords, moveable screw heads,
or springs. ‘‘Dynamic stabilization
systems’’ for use in non-fusion
procedures remain a postamendments
class III device requiring PMAs.
2. Classification
In the 2014 Proposed Order, which
was issued pursuant to sections
513(e)(1) and 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act,
FDA initially recommended that SRSs
be classified into class III and require
PMAs. Some commenters agreed with
FDA’s class III recommendation and
other commenters proposed that SRSs
be classified into class II.
(Comment 10) One comment agreed
that SRSs for non-fusion uses should
remain in class III, but SRSs used as an
adjunct to fusion should be classified as
class II. The commenter described that
‘‘[w]e believe that this matter arose after
two [SRS] products from two different
manufacturers were recalled in 2008
and 2009. These two recalled devices
created FDA concern over the entire
category of [SRS], calling into question
whether preclinical testing alone is
sufficient to predict clinical outcomes
for these devices. Other SRSs have not
been recalled, nor are there significant
safety concerns with these other
[SRSs].’’ Another commenter conducted
a Medical Device Reporting (MDR)
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
96370
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
analysis, which separated out PEEK
rods from other SRSs to demonstrate a
similarity in reporting of adverse events
associated with PEEK rods to that of
traditional metallic rods.
Commenters specifically recommend
that PEEK, or carbon-fiber reinforced
PEEK, should remain in class II. This is
based on several reported studies that
demonstrate similarities in safety
profiles and effectiveness outcomes for
these devices as compared to devices
incorporating traditional metallic rods,
as also described previously in
Comment 9 (Refs. 3 to 5). Two nonclinical literature articles provided in
response to the proposed order
demonstrate similar behavior between
systems with PEEK rods and those with
titanium rods.
Commenters also provided references
to clinical studies using SRSs (Refs. 7 to
9). Each of these studies demonstrates
fusion rates within a range deemed to be
clinically acceptable in single- or
multilevel posterolateral fusion using
PEEK rod constructs.
(Response 10) Based on these
comments to the proposed order and to
corroborate findings from the literature
following the 2013 Panel meeting, FDA
conducted an additional MDR analysis
of SRSs excluding the two recalled
systems, as well as an MDR analysis of
PEEK rods alone.
A search of the Manufacturer and
User Facility Device Experience
database was conducted to identify the
relevant MDRs and identify the types of
adverse events reported for pedicle
screw spinal systems on or before
October 17, 2016. Results from this
MDR analysis demonstrated that the
same types of adverse events are present
in the same relative incidence for SRS
devices as noted in traditional rigid
pedicle screw systems (i.e., the most
common adverse events are device
breakage, revision, and pain in all
groups). FDA believes this evidence
demonstrates that SRS devices have the
same risks to health as rigid pedicle
screw systems.
FDA additionally conducted an
independent survey of literature
published after the 2013 Panel related to
the use of SRSs as an adjunct to fusion
to assess current surgical practice and
reported treatment outcome. FDA’s
literature search captured the articles
identified previously in the comments
as well as articles pertaining to
additional SRS designs that have been
cleared for marketing in the United
States (Refs. 10 and 11). While only a
subset of the 16 SRSs that have
currently been determined to be
substantially equivalent are represented
in the literature, a wide range of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
currently cleared SRS designs is
represented by this subset. The data
demonstrated similar safety profiles for
SRSs compared to traditional rigid
pedicle screw systems. The adverse
events reported in the literature for
SRSs are similar to those cited in the
Executive Summary for the 2013 Panel
Meeting for traditional rigid pedicle
screw systems used in currently class III
indications that we proposed to
reclassify to Class II rods (Ref. 2).
Typical adverse events included
pseudarthrosis, reoperation, screw
loosening, and screw breakage. There
were no reports of breakage of the
longitudinal members of any of the
SRSs studied.
The fusion rates of SRSs compare
favorably to fusion rates of traditional
systems for treatment of low-grade
spondylolisthesis and DDD, which
range from 78 to 100 percent and which
the 2013 Panel deemed to be clinically
acceptable to support reclassification for
these indications (see the 2013 Panel
Executive Summary for additional
information (Ref. 2)). Based upon the
currently available information, FDA
agrees with the Panel’s assessment that
a fusion rate within the range of 78 to
100 percent would be clinically
acceptable. Although the information
presented to the 2013 Panel was limited
in both the number of subjects and the
number of SRSs represented, additional
information that FDA received and
considered after the 2013 Panel meeting
supports FDA’s determination that there
is sufficient information to revise the
proposed classification of SRSs from
class III to II. FDA believes that the
range of fusion rates found clinically
acceptable by the 2013 Panel could
serve as a performance parameter for
providing reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness for the device type
based on the valid scientific evidence
but due to some variability (e.g., design
and material used) among individual
devices, FDA has determined that
clinical data are needed to demonstrate
that each device with its specific
characteristics (e.g., design and material
used) and conditions of use meets that
parameter. FDA believes that fusion
rates higher than the current clinically
acceptable range may be achieved with
improvement in technology and, thus,
may consider that factor in evaluating
clinical data submitted from firms.
Based upon the information provided
in response to the proposed order, and
including additional analyses of the
literature and MDRs since the 2013
Panel, FDA has determined that the
risks to health are not substantially
different from traditional rigid pedicle
screw spinal systems. As discussed
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
previously and in the 2014 Proposed
Order, FDA agreed with the 2013 Panel
that there is valid scientific evidence on
the safety of rigid pedicle screw
systems. FDA has also determined, as
discussed previously, that an evaluation
of additional MDR data and additional
clinical literature provide valid
scientific evidence regarding the safety
of SRS devices for fusion (Refs. 3 to 11).
Whereas non-clinical performance
testing appropriately mitigates the risks
to health for rigid pedicle screw
systems, non-clinical special controls
are not sufficient to mitigate the risks to
health, specifically, the risk of
pseudarthrosis resulting in additional
surgical procedures, for SRS devices.
Non-clinical performance testing (such
as standardized test methods or
biomechanical testing of cadaveric
specimens) does not adequately
differentiate between different SRS
technologies nor predict the ability to
achieve spinal fusion with a particular
SRS. While some SRSs can be tested
using the typical bench testing as a
means of comparing performance of
traditional rigid pedicle screw systems
(e.g., per ASTM F1717–15, ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Spinal Implant
Constructs in a Vertebrectomy Model’’),
this testing may result in lower bending
stiffness for SRSs than similarly sized
uniform metallic rods (Ref. 12). Testing
in accordance with ASTM F1717–15 is
not typically used to evaluate SRS
technologies as significant
modifications to the test standards are
often necessary to conduct the test.
Given that the systems have not
typically been tested in accordance with
the accepted consensus standard and as
standardized acceptance criteria for SRS
technologies undergoing this testing
have not been developed, it is
challenging to solely use the results of
non-clinical performance testing for
comparison purposes to rigid pedicle
screw systems.
While clinical data as a special
control was not specifically mentioned
in the comments, the 2013 Panel
discussed the ability for clinical data to
distinguish between successful and
unsuccessful SRS device designs. FDA
believes that clinical performance data
would adequately mitigate the risks to
health for SRS devices, particularly the
risk of pseudarthrosis resulting in
additional surgical procedures. In
addition, there is sufficient valid
scientific evidence showing that the
device type is effective for use as an
adjunct to fusion, when the fusion rate
is within a clinically acceptable range,
as discussed previously. FDA therefore
believes there is sufficient information
to establish special controls that, in
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
addition to general controls, can provide
a reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness for SRSs. Table 1
summarizes how FDA believes the risks
to health identified for SRSs can be
96371
mitigated by special controls, including
clinical performance data.
TABLE 1—RISKS TO HEALTH AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SRSS
Identified risks to health
Mitigation method
Device failure ......................................................
Failure of bone implant interface ........................
Tissue injury ........................................................
Adverse tissue reaction ......................................
Device malposition ..............................................
Pseudarthrosis ....................................................
As discussed in FDA’s response to
Comment 1, the risks to health and
associated mitigation measures for rigid
pedicle screw systems remain
unchanged from those listed in table 1
of the 2014 Proposed Order.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
3. SRS as Class II Device
As stated previously, FDA has
reevaluated all of the valid scientific
evidence for SRSs in finalizing this
order. As described in the proposed
order and in section I of this order, FDA
has satisfied the requirements under
section 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act for
revising the proposed classification for
SRSs. Under section 515(i)(2) of the
FD&C Act, FDA has the authority to
issue an administrative order revising
the proposed classification of a device
for which FDA has classified as a class
III device and for which no
administrative order has been issued
calling for PMAs under section 515(b) of
the FD&C Act, so that the device is
classified into class I or class II, after
issuance of a proposed order, a meeting
of a device classification panel, and
consideration of the comments of a
proposed order. In determining whether
to revise the proposed classification of
a device or to require a device to remain
in class III, FDA applies the criteria set
forth in section 513(a) of the FD&C Act.
Section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act
defines class II devices as those devices
for which the general controls in section
513(a)(1)(A) by themselves are
insufficient to provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness,
but for which there is sufficient
information to establish special controls
to provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of a device.
FDA has reviewed all of the initial
procedures, scientific information
presented at the 2013 Panel meeting,
comments received from both the 2014
Proposed Order and 2009 Final Order
under section 515(i)(1) of the FD&C Act
calling for information on
preamendment devices (74 FR 16214,
April 9, 2009) for consideration of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
Design characteristics; Non-clinical performance testing; Labeling.
Design characteristics; Biocompatibility evaluation; Non-clinical performance testing; Labeling.
Labeling.
Design characteristics; Biocompatibility evaluation; Sterility; Labeling.
Labeling.
Non-clinical performance testing; Clinical performance testing; Labeling.
classification of SRS devices under
section 513(a) of the FD&C Act and has
initiated revision of the proposed
classification of the device under
section 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act.
The discussion at the 2013 Panel for
SRSs was limited, as acknowledged by
2013 Panel members, by the small
number of studies available at that time
and reports in the MDRs regarding SRSs
for fusion. Given limitations of the
available data, in literature and MDR
analysis, the 2013 Panel concluded that
insufficient evidence was available to
establish special controls. Although
FDA recommended, and the 2013 Panel
agreed, that a call for PMAs was the
necessary measure to mitigate the risks
to health for SRSs and ensure a
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, FDA has since reassessed
the scientific evidence based upon
comments received and additional
information, reevaluating the scientific
evidence presented at the 2013 Panel
meeting to reconsider FDA’s prior
position regarding the necessary
controls to provide reasonable assurance
of safety and effectiveness for SRSs.
Based on FDA’s reevaluation of the
available body of evidence, FDA has
determined that sufficient information
exists regarding the risks and benefits of
SRSs for FDA to determine that general
and special controls can provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device type and,
thus, revising the proposed
classification for these devices from
class III to II under section 515(i)(2) of
the FD&C Act is appropriate.
Also, at the 2013 Panel meeting, the
panel did discuss the feasibility of
clinical data as being able to potentially
distinguish between successful and nonsuccessful SRS designs, without
specifically discussing what level of
data would be necessary. After further
review of the scientific literature and
comments, FDA believes that clinical
performance data as a special control
would adequately mitigate the risks to
health for SRS devices, particularly the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
risk of pseudarthrosis resulting in
additional surgical procedures (see
response to Comment 10 in section
II.B.2).
Upon reevaluation of the scientific
evidence and additional information,
FDA has determined that SRS devices
do not have the degree of risk of illness
or injury designed to be eliminated or
reduced by requiring the device to have
an approved PMA under section
515(b)(2) of the FD&C Act. In addition,
the level of scientific evidence
evaluated has allowed FDA to
determine that SRSs can be classified as
class II with the establishment of special
controls because sufficient valid
scientific evidence exists to determine
that general controls, in combination
with special controls, are sufficient to
provide a reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness. FDA has determined
that revision of the proposed
classification of SRSs under section
515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act will allow
these devices to be classified in class II
subject to a clinical performance data
special control. As a result, instead of
calling for PMAs for SRSs, FDA is
finalizing this order to revise the
proposed classification for SRS devices
from class III to class II (special
controls) following reassessment of all
relevant scientific evidence and
comments received from the 2014
Proposed Order. FDA believes the
clinical performance data special
control and other special controls,
together with general controls, are
sufficient to provide a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness for
SRS devices.
IV. The Final Order
Under sections 513(e) and 515(i) of
the FD&C Act, FDA is adopting its
findings as published in the preamble to
the proposed order with the
modifications discussed in section II of
this final order. FDA is issuing this final
order to reclassify rigid pedicle screw
systems and to revise classification of
SRSs when intended to provide
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
96372
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
immobilization and stabilization of
spinal segments in the thoracic, lumbar,
and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion
in the treatment of DDD and
spondylolisthesis (other than either
severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and
4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment)
when used as an adjunct to fusion from
class III to class II and establish special
controls for all SRSs by revising part
888. Rigid pedicle screw systems when
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
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than
either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) and
SRSs for any indication must comply
with the special controls identified in
this order (see Section V,
‘‘Implementation Strategy’’).
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act
provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) of the
FD&C Act if FDA determines that
premarket notification is not necessary
to provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the devices.
FDA has determined that premarket
notification is necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness of rigid pedicle screw
systems and SRSs when 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
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than
either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment).
Therefore, these device types are not
exempt from premarket notification
requirements.
Following the effective date of this
final order, firms marketing rigid
pedicle screw systems when 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
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than
either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) and
SRSs for any indication must comply
with the special controls set forth in this
order (see section V, ‘‘Implementation
Strategy’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
V. Implementation Strategy
The special controls identified in this
final order are effective as of the date of
publication of this order, December 30,
2016. Both rigid pedicle screw systems
and SRSs covered by this order must
comply with the special controls
following the effective date of the order.
Specifically, devices subject to the
special controls in this order include
rigid pedicle screw systems 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
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than
either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment),
and SRSs for any indication. However,
FDA does not intend to enforce
compliance with the special controls for
currently legally marketed SRSs covered
by this order until June 28, 2018. The
30-month enforcement discretion period
was selected based on the following
factors: (1) The 2014 Proposed Order
initially called for PMAs containing
clinical performance data to be
submitted within a 30-month timeframe,
and thus the request in this final order
for 510(k) amendments, which include
submission of clinical performance data
as a special control, maintains the same
expectation of sponsors; and (2) the
effectiveness endpoint of fusion for
SRSs is generally assessed at 1 to 2 years
post-implantation, and thus if a new
study were to be initiated to collect
clinical performance data, FDA would
expect the 30-month period to be
appropriate for SRS and allow sponsors
sufficient time to enroll patients,
conduct the study, and analyze the data.
For those manufacturers who wish to
continue to offer for sale currently
legally marketed SRSs covered by this
order, FDA expects them to submit an
amendment to their previously cleared
510(k)s for the devices by June 28, 2018
that demonstrates compliance with the
special controls. This approach is
consistent with prior final orders for
reclassifications of preamendment
devices in which special controls
requiring submission of clinical
performance data were issued. An
amendment to a 510(k) will be added to
the 510(k) file but will not serve as a
basis for a new substantial equivalence
review. A submitted 510(k) amendment
in this context will be used solely to
demonstrate to FDA that an SRS system
is in compliance with the special
controls. If a 510(k) amendment for the
device is not submitted by June 28, 2018
or if FDA determines that the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
amendment does not demonstrate
compliance with the special controls,
then this compliance policy would not
apply, and FDA would intend to enforce
compliance with these requirements. In
that case, the device is deemed
adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B)) as
of the date of FDA’s determination of
noncompliance or June 28, 2018,
whichever is sooner.
For rigid pedicle screw systems
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
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than
either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) and
SRSs for any indication that have not
been legally marketed prior to December
30, 2016, or models that have been
legally marketed but are required to
submit a new 510(k) under 21 CFR
807.81(a)(3) because the device is about
to be significantly changed or modified,
manufacturers must obtain 510(k)
clearance, among other relevant
requirements, and demonstrate
compliance with the special controls
included in this final order, before
marketing the new or changed device.
VI. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final order refers to previously
approved collections of information
found in FDA regulations. These
collections of information are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The collections of information in
part 807, subpart E, have been approved
under OMB control number 0910–0120
and the collections of information under
21 CFR part 801 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910–0485.
VIII. Codification of Orders
Prior to the amendments by FDASIA,
section 513(e) of the FD&C Act provided
for FDA to issue regulations to reclassify
devices. Although section 513(e) as
amended requires FDA to issue final
orders rather than regulations, FDASIA
also provides for FDA to revoke
previously promulgated regulations by
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
order. FDA will continue to codify
classifications and reclassifications in
the CFR. Changes resulting from final
orders will appear in the CFR as
changes to codified classification
determinations or as newly codified
orders. Therefore, pursuant to section
513(e)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, as
amended by FDASIA, in this final order,
we are revoking the requirements in
§ 888.3070 related to the classification
of rigid pedicle screw systems and SRSs
when 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 DDD and
spondylolisthesis (other than either
severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and
4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) as
class III devices. We are codifying the
reclassification of rigid pedicle screw
systems and SRSs when 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
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than
either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5–S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) into
class II (special controls). In addition, as
set forth in the 2014 Proposed Order,
FDA has separated SRSs, a subtype of
pedicle screw systems, from rigid
pedicle screw systems in the
identification section of the
classification regulation (§ 888.3070(a))
and has established a separate subpart
of the classification regulation
(§ 888.3070(b)(3)), which is applicable
to all SRSs regardless of indication.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
IX. References
The following references are on
display in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are
available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the Web site addresses, as of the date
this document publishes in the Federal
Register, but Web sites are subject to
change over time.
1. Matsuzaki, H., Y. Tokuhashi, F.
Matsumoto, et al., ‘‘Problems and
Solutions of Pedicle Screw Fixation of
Lumbar Spine,’’ Spine, 15(11):1159–
1165, 1990.
2. FDA’s Orthopedic and Rehabilitation
Devices Panel transcript and other
meeting materials are available on FDA’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Jkt 241001
Web site at: https://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/
CommitteesMeetingMaterials/
MedicalDevices/
MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/
CirculatorySystemDevicesPanel/
ucm352525.htm.
3. Qi, L., M. Li, S. Zhang, et al., ‘‘Comparative
Effectiveness of PEEK Rods Versus
Titanium Alloy Rods in Lumbar Fusion:
A Preliminary Report,’’ Acta
Neurochirurgica, 155(7):1187–1193,
2013.
4. Sengupta, D.K., B. Bucklen, P.C. McAfee,
et al., ‘‘The Comprehensive
Biomechanics and Load-Sharing of
Semirigid PEEK and Semirigid Posterior
Dynamic Stabilization Systems,’’
Advances in Orthopedics, 2013.
doi:10.1155/2013/745610 (Epub);
available at https://www.hindawi.com/
journals/aorth/2013/745610/.
5. Kurtz, S.M., T.H. Lanman, G. Higgs, et al.,
‘‘Retrieval Analysis of PEEK Rods for
Posterior Fusion and Motion
Preservation,’’ European Spine Journal,
22(12):2752–2759, 2013.
6. Gornet, M.F., F.W. Chan, J.C. Coleman, et
al., ‘‘Biomechanical Assessment of a
PEEK Rod System for Semi-Rigid
Fixation of Lumbar Fusion Constructs,’’
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering,
133(8):081009, 2011. doi: 10.1115/
1.4004862.
7. Athanasakopoulos, M., A.F. Mavrogenis,
G. Triantafyllopoulos, et al., ‘‘Posterior
Spinal Fusion Using Pedicle Screws,’’
Orthopedics, 36(7):e951–e957, 2013. doi:
10.3928/01477447–20130624–28.
`
8. Colangeli, S., G. Barbanti Brodano, A.
Gasbarrini, et al., ‘‘Polyetheretherketone
(PEEK) Rods: Short-Term Results in
Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease,’’
Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences,
59(2):91–96, 2015.
9. De Iure, F., G. Bosco, M. Cappuccio, et al.,
‘‘Posterior Lumbar Fusion by PEEK Rods
in Degenerative Spine: Preliminary
Report on 30 Cases,’’ European Spine
Journal, 21 Suppl 1:S50–54, 2012.
10. Ormond, D.R., L. Albert Jr., and K. Das,
‘‘Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Rods in
Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease: A
Case Series,’’ Journal of Spine Disorders
& Techniques, in press, 2012 (later
published in 2016 under Clinical Spine
Surgery, 29(7):E371–E375, 2016).
11. Yang, M., C. Li, Z. Chen, et al., ‘‘Short
Term Outcome of Posterior Dynamic
Stabilization System in Degenerative
Lumbar Diseases,’’ Indian Journal of
Orthopaedics, 48(6):574–581, 2014.
12. ASTM F1717–15, ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Spinal Implant Constructs
in a Vertebrectomy Model,’’ July 2015;
available at: https://www.astm.org/
Standards/F1717.htm.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 888
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 888 is
amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
96373
PART 888—ORTHOPEDIC DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 888
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 371.
2. Section 888.3070 is amended by
revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) and (b)(2), adding
paragraph (b)(3), and removing
paragraph (c).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
§ 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) * * *
(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 devicespecific instruments.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
96374
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
Dated: December 22, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–31670 Filed 12–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 1, 7, and 31
[TD 9807]
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Information Returns; Winnings From
Bingo, Keno, and Slot Machines
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
AGENCY:
This document contains final
regulations under section 6041
SUMMARY:
18:11 Dec 29, 2016
Background
This document contains final
regulations in Title 26 of the Code of
Federal Regulations under section 6041
of the Internal Revenue Code. The final
regulations replace the existing
information reporting requirements
under § 7.6041–1 of the Temporary
Income Tax Regulations under the Tax
Reform Act of 1976 for persons who
make reportable payments of bingo,
keno, or slot machine winnings. The
new requirements are set forth in a new
§ 1.6041–10 of the regulations. Because
the new requirements replace the
existing requirements, the regulations
under § 7.6041–1 are being removed.
On March 4, 2015, the Treasury
Department and the IRS published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–
132253–11) in the Federal Register, 80
FR 11600, containing proposed
regulations that would update the
existing rules and add rules for
electronically tracked slot machine play,
payee identification, and an optional
aggregate reporting method.
A public hearing was held on June 17,
2015, and five speakers provided
testimony. In addition, over 14,000
written public comments were received.
After careful consideration of the
written comments and statements made
during the hearing, the proposed
regulations are adopted as modified by
this Treasury Decision.
Explanation and Summary of
Comments
RIN 1545–BL68
VerDate Sep<11>2014
regarding the filing of information
returns to report winnings from bingo,
keno, and slot machine play. The rules
update the existing requirements
regarding the filing, form, and content of
such information returns; allow for an
additional form of payee identification;
and provide an optional aggregate
reporting method. The final regulations
affect persons who pay winnings of
$1,200 or more from bingo and slot
machine play, $1,500 or more from
keno, and recipients of such payments.
DATES: These regulations are effective
on December 30, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Bergman, (202) 317–6845 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 241001
All of the 14,000 written comments
on the notice of proposed rulemaking
were considered and are available at
regulations.gov or upon request. Many
of these comments addressed similar
issues and expressed similar points of
view. These comments are summarized
in this preamble. Comments pertaining
to parimutuel gambling in the case of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
horse races, dog races, and jai alai are
being considered in a separate
regulations project under section
3402(q).
Filing Requirement, Form, and Content
of the Information Return
Commentators supported the
proposed rules regarding filing
requirements and the form and content
of the information returns required to be
filed. Accordingly, the Treasury
Department and the IRS conclude that
the final regulations should adopt the
filing requirements without
modification.
Electronically Tracked Slot Machine
Play
The proposed regulations created
rules for electronically tracked slot
machine play, which was defined in
proposed § 1.6041–10(b)(1) as slot
machine play where an electronic
player system controlled by the gaming
establishment (such as through the use
of a player’s card or similar system)
records the amount a specific individual
wins and wagers on slot machine play.
Section 1.6041–10(b)(2)(i)(D) of the
proposed regulations provided that
gambling winnings for electronically
tracked slot machine play are required
to be reported if (1) the total amount of
winnings netted against the total
amount of wagers during the same
session of play was $1,200 or more, and
(2) at least one single win during the
session was $1,200 or more without
regard to the wager. A ‘‘session’’ of play
was determined with reference to a
calendar day. The changes were
intended to facilitate reporting by
payees on their individual income tax
returns under the proposed safe harbor
in Notice 2015–21, 2015–12 I.R.B. 765.
Some commentators expressed
concern regarding the feasibility of the
proposed rules given existing
technology and recommended that the
proposed rules not be adopted.
Commentators stated that one of the
purposes of electronic player systems
was for marketing and customer loyalty
and that current systems should not be
used as a mandatory method for
tracking winnings and wagers for
purposes of tax reporting. Moreover,
commentators stated that the use of
electronic player systems for tax
reporting may chill customer use and
have a negative effect on customer
relations. In addition, some
commentators stated that their
electronic player systems lack the
necessary controls to be used for tax
reporting, and that implementing such
controls may be costly and laborintensive. Based on these comments, the
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 96366-96374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31670]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 888
[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1205]
Orthopedic Devices; Reclassification of Pedicle Screw Systems,
Henceforth To Be Known as Thoracolumbosacral Pedicle Screw Systems,
Including Semi-Rigid Systems
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final
order to reclassify pedicle screw systems, a preamendments class III
device (regulated under product code NKB), into class II (special
controls), renaming the device ``thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw
systems''; reclassify dynamic stabilization systems, a subtype of
pedicle screw systems regulated under product code NQP when used as an
adjunct to fusion, into class II (special controls), renaming this
device subtype ``semi-rigid systems''; and clarify the device
identification of pedicle screw systems to more clearly delineate
between rigid pedicle screw systems and semi-rigid systems. FDA is
finalizing this action based on a reevaluation of information
pertaining to the device type.
DATES: This order is effective on December 30, 2016. See further
discussion in section V, ``Implementation Strategy.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance P. Soves, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1437, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
6951, Constance.Soves@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background--Regulatory Authorities
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended
by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L.
94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), the
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-
115), the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub.
L. 107-250), the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L.
108-214), the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub.
L. 110-85), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation
Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), among other amendments, established a
comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for
human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established
three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory
controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general
controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket
approval).
Under section 513(d) of the FD&C Act, devices that were in
commercial distribution before the enactment of the 1976 amendments,
May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as preamendments devices), are
classified after FDA has: (1) Received a recommendation from a device
classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) published the
panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation
classifying the device; and (3) published a final regulation
classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices
under these procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28,
1976 (generally referred to as ``postamendments devices'') are
automatically classified by section 513(f) of the FD&C Act into class
III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class
III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is
reclassified into class I or II or FDA issues an order finding the
device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section
513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require
premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are
substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket
notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360(k)) and part 807 (21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 807).
A preamendments device that has been classified into class III and
devices found substantially equivalent by means of premarket
notification (510(k)) procedures to such a preamendments device or to a
device within that type (both the preamendments and substantially
equivalent devices are referred to as preamendments class III devices)
may be marketed without submission of a premarket approval application
(PMA) until FDA issues a final order under section 515(b) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket approval.
[[Page 96367]]
Under section 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA has the authority to
issue an administrative order revising the proposed classification of a
device for which FDA has classified as a class III device and for which
no administrative order has been issued calling for PMAs under section
515(b) of the FD&C Act, so that the device is classified into class I
or class II, after issuance of a proposed order, a meeting of a device
classification panel, and consideration of the comments of a proposed
order. In determining whether to revise the proposed classification of
a device or to require a device to remain in class III, FDA applies the
criteria set forth in section 513(a) of the FD&C Act. Section
513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act defines class II devices as those devices
for which the general controls in section 513(a)(1)(A) by themselves
are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but for which there is sufficient information to
establish special controls to provide a reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness of a device.
On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted. Section 608(a) of FDASIA
amended section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, changing the mechanism for
reclassifying a device from rulemaking to an administrative order.
Section 513(e) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may, by
administrative order, reclassify a device based upon ``new
information.'' FDA can initiate a reclassification under section 513(e)
or an interested person may petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments
device. The term ``new information,'' as used in section 513(e),
includes information developed as a result of a reevaluation of the
data before the Agency when the device was originally classified, as
well as information not presented, not available, or not developed at
that time. (See, e.g., Holland-Rantos Co. v. United States Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1 (D.C. Cir.
1978); Upjohn v. Finch, 422 F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1970); Bell v. Goddard,
366 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966).)
Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an
appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made
in light of newly available authority (see Bell, 366 F.2d at 181;
Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA, 762 F.Supp. 382, 388-391 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in
light of changes in ``medical science'' (Upjohn, 422 F.2d at 951).
Whether data before the Agency are old or new data, the ``new
information'' to support reclassification under section 513(e) must be
``valid scientific evidence,'' as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the
FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g., General Medical Co. v.
FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Mfrs. Ass'n v. FDA,
766 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986).)
FDA relies upon ``valid scientific evidence'' in the classification
process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be
considered in the reclassification process, the ``valid scientific
evidence'' upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available.
Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or
confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending
PMA. (See section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)).)
Section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the process for
issuing a final reclassification order. Specifically, prior to the
issuance of a final order reclassifying a device, the following must
occur: (1) Publication of a proposed order in the Federal Register; (2)
a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b)
of the FD&C Act; and (3) consideration of comments to a public docket.
FDA published a proposed order to propose different classifications
for rigid pedicle screw systems and semi-rigid systems (SRSs) in the
Federal Register of November 12, 2014 (79 FR 67105) (2014 Proposed
Order). Moreover, as explained in section II of the 2014 Proposed
Order, on May 22, 2013, FDA held a classification meeting of the
Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel (the 2013 Panel) to discuss
pedicle screw systems, which include rigid pedicle screw systems and
SRSs. FDA received and has considered all the comments on the 2014
Proposed Order, as discussed in section III. Therefore, FDA has met the
requirements under sections 513(e)(1) and 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act.
II. Device Description
Pedicle screw systems consist of multiple component devices 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 may consist of a combination of hooks,
screws, longitudinal members (e.g., plates, rods, plate/rod
combinations), transverse or cross connectors, and interconnection
mechanisms (e.g., rod-to-rod connectors, offset connectors). Rigid
pedicle screw systems provide immediate rigid fixation to the spinal
column as an adjunct to spinal fusion procedures.
Since the 1998 classification (63 FR 40025, July 27, 1998), changes
in technological characteristics have occurred, leading to the
emergence of a new type of pedicle screw system, SRSs, previously
referred to as dynamic stabilization systems (DSSs). SRSs are a subset
of the pedicle screw systems regulated under Sec. 888.3070 (21 CFR
888.3070). SRSs are defined as systems that contain one or more non-
uniform and/or non-metallic longitudinal elements (e.g., polymer cords,
moveable screw heads, springs) that allow more motion or flexibility
(e.g., bending, rotation, translation) compared to rigid systems and do
not provide immediate rigid fixation to the spinal column as an adjunct
to spinal fusion procedures.
In the 2014 Proposed Order, FDA proposed to modify the
identification language from the way it is presently written in Sec.
888.3070(a) and sought comments on the means of providing distinction
between rigid pedicle screw systems and pedicle screw systems that
allow more motion or flexibility. As discussed in section III, FDA
received several comments suggesting that Sec. 888.3070 separate SRSs,
which may allow for more flexibility than traditional rigid pedicle
screw systems but still facilitate fusion, from truly ``dynamic''
systems that are intended for non-fusion use. Truly dynamic systems
intended for non-fusion use are postamendments devices that are outside
the scope of this regulatory action. FDA agrees with these comments and
has modified the identification language from the way it is presently
written in Sec. 888.3070(a) to include SRSs.
FDA has also, on its own initiative, renamed ``pedicle screw spinal
system'' as ``thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system'' to clearly
distinguish these devices from posterior cervical screw systems, which
are not intended to be covered by Sec. 888.3070.
III. Public Comments in Response to the Proposed Order
In response to the 2014 Proposed Order, FDA received 15 comments
from industry, trade organizations, professional societies, and
individuals. Certain comments are grouped together under a single
number because the subject matter of the comments is similar. The
number assigned to each comment is purely for organizational purposes
and does not signify the comment's value or importance or the order in
which it was submitted. The comments that follow are grouped into those
that pertain to rigid pedicle screw systems and those that pertain to
SRSs.
[[Page 96368]]
A. Rigid Pedicle Screw Systems
Of the 15 comments received, several specifically referenced the
proposal to reclassify rigid pedicle screw systems when 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 (DDD) and spondylolisthesis
(other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1
or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic
impairment). Some commenters agreed with the recommendation to
reclassify these as class II devices (special controls), most of whom
specifically stated that they agreed with the Agency that general and
special controls can provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of rigid pedicle screw systems.
(Comment 1) Some commenters did not agree with the proposal to
reclassify rigid pedicle screw systems to class II (special controls).
One comment stated that labeling special controls are not appropriate
risk mitigations and that clinical data should be required for these
devices. Another comment noted that adverse events have been identified
for rigid pedicle screw systems, and the final comment noted varied
results in clinical literature, specifically citing a 1990 study by
Matsuzaki et al. that found a 5.7 percent screw breakage rate (Ref. 1).
(Response 1) FDA disagrees that rigid pedicle screw systems for
treatment of DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than either severe
spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment)
should remain in class III. The Agency believes the labeling special
controls proposed to inform users of the technological features of the
device (including identification of device materials and the principles
of device operation), intended use and indications for use (including
levels of fixation), identification of magnetic resonance compatibility
status, cleaning and sterilization instructions, and detailed
instructions of each surgical step (including device removal) are
appropriate to help mitigate the identified risks to health that may
result from improper use of rigid pedicle screw systems. The Agency
does not believe clinical data are necessary for rigid pedicle screw
systems indicated for treatment of DDD and spondylolisthesis (other
than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or
degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic
impairment). Clinical data from use of rigid pedicle screw systems for
these indications were presented to the 2013 Panel to support
reclassification to class II. Furthermore, non-clinical methods used to
evaluate these devices have been demonstrated to adequately mitigate
risks to health. FDA still retains the ability to request appropriate
performance testing, including clinical data for individual devices
with a different indication for use and/or different technological
features that do not raise different questions of safety and
effectiveness as compared to a predicate device, to demonstrate that
the individual devices are as safe and effective as the predicate
device, if necessary. FDA acknowledges that rigid pedicle screw
systems, like all medical devices, have risks to health, as evidenced
by the adverse events noted by one commenter, and the breakage rate
identified in the 1990 Matsuzaki et al. study cited by another
commenter (Ref. 1). On May 22, 2013, FDA held the 2013 Panel meeting to
discuss the current classification of rigid pedicle screw systems for
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, which are currently class III indications (Ref. 2). FDA is
not aware of evidence that indicates there is a higher rate of screw
fracture for the class III indications, which is the focus of this
reclassification effort, compared to the class II indications. The 2013
Panel discussed the adverse events and clinical literature associated
with rigid pedicle screw systems for all indications, and recommended
that traditional, rigid pedicle screw systems as an adjunct to fusion
for the treatment of DDD and spondylolisthesis other than severe grades
3 or 4, or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of
neurologic impairment be reclassified as class II (special controls).
FDA agrees with the 2013 Panel's recommendation for
reclassification. The Agency believes, as stated in the 2014 Proposed
Order, that the risks of rigid pedicle screw systems as an adjunct to
fusion for the treatment of DDD and spondylolisthesis other than severe
grades 3 or 4, or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment, are sufficiently understood based on
valid scientific evidence, which enables FDA to establish special
controls to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of
rigid pedicle screw systems.
(Comment 2) One commenter provided an additional recommendation for
the identification language for rigid pedicle screw systems.
Specifically, to more completely characterize components that may be
used as a part of these systems, the commenter suggested adding
sublaminar wires and cables to the list of components of these systems.
(Response 2) FDA disagrees with this proposed edit to the
identification language. These additional components, while often used
in conjunction with pedicle screw systems, are classified under a
separate classification regulation and, therefore, are not appropriate
to include under Sec. 888.3070. However, in review of this
information, FDA acknowledges that hooks (currently listed in the
identification language for pedicle screw systems) are also classified
under a separate classification regulation. Therefore, the Agency has
also taken the opportunity to remove ``hooks'' from the revised
identification language for rigid pedicle screw systems.
(Comment 3) One commenter recommended removing design
characteristics as a special control because this should be a
requirement of all premarket notifications. This commenter also
recommended removing the word ``rigid'' from the identification.
(Response 3) FDA disagrees with the recommendation of this
commenter to remove design characteristics as a special control. FDA
considers this special control critical to help differentiate
technological features for rigid pedicle screw systems from SRSs.
Similarly, inclusion of the word ``rigid'' in the identification
language is necessary to distinguish between these and SRSs.
(Comment 4) One commenter recommended revising the biocompatibility
special control to state ``compliance with biocompatibility
standards.''
(Response 4) FDA disagrees with this comment and has determined
that it is most appropriate not to reference consensus standards within
special controls because relevant standards are subject to change over
time. The special controls as worded allow for additional mechanisms by
which manufacturers can meet the requirements to ensure conformity.
(Comment 5) One commenter recommended removing ``wear'' from the
list of potential means by which a device could fail.
[[Page 96369]]
(Response 5) The risk of wear was raised at the 2013 Panel,
specifically in the context of SRSs. FDA still considers there to be a
potential for wear in traditional rigid systems as well and, therefore,
has elected not to modify the definition of device failure accordingly.
(Comment 6) One commenter suggested editorial revisions to the
risks and descriptive text associated with risks as outlined in the
2014 Proposed Order.
(Response 6) These edits were not considered to substantively
change the intended meaning of the risks and associated mitigations
and, therefore, FDA will not accept these suggested edits in this final
order.
(Comment 7) One commenter provided several proposed edits that
would impact Sec. 888.3070(b)(1). Additionally, this commenter
provided other editorial recommendations to the language from the 2014
Proposed Order.
(Response 7) While FDA agrees with the proposed modifications that
would impact Sec. 888.3070(b)(1), these will require a separate
regulatory action because this section of the regulation is outside the
scope of the call for information under section 515(i) of the FD&C Act.
Edits that were proposed to the language from the 2014 Proposed Order
did not materially impact the language within this final order.
In reviewing the 2014 Proposed Order, the comments received, and
the 2013 Panel's recommendations, FDA is also making minor
modifications to the identification for thoracolumbosacral pedicle
screw systems. The identification for rigid pedicle screw systems will
be revised from ``longitudinal members (e.g., plates, rods, plate/rod
combinations)'' to ``longitudinal members (e.g., plates, rods including
dual diameter rods, plate/rod combinations)'' as the latter statement
clarifies that dual diameter rods would be considered to be part of
rigid systems rather than as ``non-uniform longitudinal elements''
specified under the definition of SRSs.
B. SRSs
1. Identification
In the 2014 Proposed Order, FDA solicited comments to revise the
identification language for pedicle screw spinal systems to distinguish
between rigid pedicle screw systems and DSSs (now termed SRSs).
(Comment 8) While most commenters did not specifically comment on
the proposed up-classification of SRSs to class III, approximately half
of the comments suggested revisions to the definition of SRSs. These
suggestions propose separating SRSs, which may allow for more
flexibility than traditional rigid pedicle screw systems but still
facilitate fusion, from truly ``dynamic'' systems that are intended for
non-fusion use. Truly dynamic systems are postamendments devices that
are outside the scope of this regulatory action.
(Response 8) FDA agrees with these comments and will henceforth
refer to these systems as SRSs in this final order under Sec.
880.3070(b)(3).
(Comment 9) Several commenters provided alternative identification
language to FDA's initially proposed definition of DSSs, now termed
SRSs, which was as follows: ``Dynamic stabilization systems are defined
as systems that contain one or more non-uniform and/or non-metallic
longitudinal elements (e.g., polymer cords, moveable screw heads,
springs) that allow more motion or flexibility (e.g., bending,
rotation, translation) compared to rigid pedicle screw systems and do
not provide immediate rigid fixation to the spinal column as an adjunct
[to] fusion.'' While most commenters agreed with the language that
these systems ``allow more motion or flexibility,'' there were several
comments that disagreed with the technological features called out
within this definition (i.e., non-uniform and/or non-metallic). For
example, one commenter provided the case that an undersized metallic
rod may allow for more flexibility than a larger non-metallic rod.
Similar arguments were also made at the 2013 Panel, where the
challenges of defining these systems based upon technological
characteristics were also discussed. Accordingly, several commenters
proposed modifications to the identification language of these systems
based solely on intended use (i.e., not intended for immediate rigid
fixation, or intended to allow more motion or flexibility compared to
rigid systems). Two commenters did not specifically provide alternate
language; however, these commenters provided data from clinical and
non-clinical studies to support the argument that rods manufactured
from polyetheretherketone (PEEK) perform similarly to traditional
metallic rods (Refs. 3 to 5). Qi et al. demonstrated that subjects
undergoing single posterolateral fusion with either titanium rods or
PEEK rods showed no difference in adjacent segment disease, spinal
alignment, or clinical outcomes (Ref. 3). A biomechanical study by
Sengupta et al. shows similar restriction in range of motion for PEEK
rods compared to both the traditional metallic rods and another SRS
device (Ref. 4). Kurtz et al. collected and analyzed explanted PEEK and
traditional metallic rods and concluded that the PEEK rod retrievals
showed similar wear patterns compared to traditional rigid rods (Ref.
5). These commenters also used terminology to distinguish these types
of systems (i.e., ``semi-rigid systems''), which are used as an adjunct
to fusion, from ``non-rigid'' or ``flexible'' systems, which are
``intended for dynamic stabilization'' of the spine. An additional
commenter also cited a cadaver study, which similarly showed that PEEK
rods resulted in comparable stability to traditional metallic systems
(Ref. 6).
(Response 9) In response to these comments, FDA has revised this
identification to remove reference to ``non-metallic'' components and
has also captured devices with less stiff materials (i.e., ``features
that allow more motion or flexibility compared to rigid systems''). FDA
has also elected to alter the terminology used to identify these
systems that ``allow more motion or flexibility'' when used as an
adjunct to fusion as SRSs. This is also consistent with comments made
at the 2013 Panel, in which the distinction between ``semi-rigid'' and
``dynamic'' systems was discussed. The features that may result in a
device being classified as an SRS may include, but are not limited to,
polymer cords, moveable screw heads, or springs. ``Dynamic
stabilization systems'' for use in non-fusion procedures remain a
postamendments class III device requiring PMAs.
2. Classification
In the 2014 Proposed Order, which was issued pursuant to sections
513(e)(1) and 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA initially recommended that
SRSs be classified into class III and require PMAs. Some commenters
agreed with FDA's class III recommendation and other commenters
proposed that SRSs be classified into class II.
(Comment 10) One comment agreed that SRSs for non-fusion uses
should remain in class III, but SRSs used as an adjunct to fusion
should be classified as class II. The commenter described that ``[w]e
believe that this matter arose after two [SRS] products from two
different manufacturers were recalled in 2008 and 2009. These two
recalled devices created FDA concern over the entire category of [SRS],
calling into question whether preclinical testing alone is sufficient
to predict clinical outcomes for these devices. Other SRSs have not
been recalled, nor are there significant safety concerns with these
other [SRSs].'' Another commenter conducted a Medical Device Reporting
(MDR)
[[Page 96370]]
analysis, which separated out PEEK rods from other SRSs to demonstrate
a similarity in reporting of adverse events associated with PEEK rods
to that of traditional metallic rods.
Commenters specifically recommend that PEEK, or carbon-fiber
reinforced PEEK, should remain in class II. This is based on several
reported studies that demonstrate similarities in safety profiles and
effectiveness outcomes for these devices as compared to devices
incorporating traditional metallic rods, as also described previously
in Comment 9 (Refs. 3 to 5). Two non-clinical literature articles
provided in response to the proposed order demonstrate similar behavior
between systems with PEEK rods and those with titanium rods.
Commenters also provided references to clinical studies using SRSs
(Refs. 7 to 9). Each of these studies demonstrates fusion rates within
a range deemed to be clinically acceptable in single- or multilevel
posterolateral fusion using PEEK rod constructs.
(Response 10) Based on these comments to the proposed order and to
corroborate findings from the literature following the 2013 Panel
meeting, FDA conducted an additional MDR analysis of SRSs excluding the
two recalled systems, as well as an MDR analysis of PEEK rods alone.
A search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience
database was conducted to identify the relevant MDRs and identify the
types of adverse events reported for pedicle screw spinal systems on or
before October 17, 2016. Results from this MDR analysis demonstrated
that the same types of adverse events are present in the same relative
incidence for SRS devices as noted in traditional rigid pedicle screw
systems (i.e., the most common adverse events are device breakage,
revision, and pain in all groups). FDA believes this evidence
demonstrates that SRS devices have the same risks to health as rigid
pedicle screw systems.
FDA additionally conducted an independent survey of literature
published after the 2013 Panel related to the use of SRSs as an adjunct
to fusion to assess current surgical practice and reported treatment
outcome. FDA's literature search captured the articles identified
previously in the comments as well as articles pertaining to additional
SRS designs that have been cleared for marketing in the United States
(Refs. 10 and 11). While only a subset of the 16 SRSs that have
currently been determined to be substantially equivalent are
represented in the literature, a wide range of currently cleared SRS
designs is represented by this subset. The data demonstrated similar
safety profiles for SRSs compared to traditional rigid pedicle screw
systems. The adverse events reported in the literature for SRSs are
similar to those cited in the Executive Summary for the 2013 Panel
Meeting for traditional rigid pedicle screw systems used in currently
class III indications that we proposed to reclassify to Class II rods
(Ref. 2). Typical adverse events included pseudarthrosis, reoperation,
screw loosening, and screw breakage. There were no reports of breakage
of the longitudinal members of any of the SRSs studied.
The fusion rates of SRSs compare favorably to fusion rates of
traditional systems for treatment of low-grade spondylolisthesis and
DDD, which range from 78 to 100 percent and which the 2013 Panel deemed
to be clinically acceptable to support reclassification for these
indications (see the 2013 Panel Executive Summary for additional
information (Ref. 2)). Based upon the currently available information,
FDA agrees with the Panel's assessment that a fusion rate within the
range of 78 to 100 percent would be clinically acceptable. Although the
information presented to the 2013 Panel was limited in both the number
of subjects and the number of SRSs represented, additional information
that FDA received and considered after the 2013 Panel meeting supports
FDA's determination that there is sufficient information to revise the
proposed classification of SRSs from class III to II. FDA believes that
the range of fusion rates found clinically acceptable by the 2013 Panel
could serve as a performance parameter for providing reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness for the device type based on the
valid scientific evidence but due to some variability (e.g., design and
material used) among individual devices, FDA has determined that
clinical data are needed to demonstrate that each device with its
specific characteristics (e.g., design and material used) and
conditions of use meets that parameter. FDA believes that fusion rates
higher than the current clinically acceptable range may be achieved
with improvement in technology and, thus, may consider that factor in
evaluating clinical data submitted from firms.
Based upon the information provided in response to the proposed
order, and including additional analyses of the literature and MDRs
since the 2013 Panel, FDA has determined that the risks to health are
not substantially different from traditional rigid pedicle screw spinal
systems. As discussed previously and in the 2014 Proposed Order, FDA
agreed with the 2013 Panel that there is valid scientific evidence on
the safety of rigid pedicle screw systems. FDA has also determined, as
discussed previously, that an evaluation of additional MDR data and
additional clinical literature provide valid scientific evidence
regarding the safety of SRS devices for fusion (Refs. 3 to 11).
Whereas non-clinical performance testing appropriately mitigates
the risks to health for rigid pedicle screw systems, non-clinical
special controls are not sufficient to mitigate the risks to health,
specifically, the risk of pseudarthrosis resulting in additional
surgical procedures, for SRS devices. Non-clinical performance testing
(such as standardized test methods or biomechanical testing of
cadaveric specimens) does not adequately differentiate between
different SRS technologies nor predict the ability to achieve spinal
fusion with a particular SRS. While some SRSs can be tested using the
typical bench testing as a means of comparing performance of
traditional rigid pedicle screw systems (e.g., per ASTM F1717-15,
``Standard Test Methods for Spinal Implant Constructs in a
Vertebrectomy Model''), this testing may result in lower bending
stiffness for SRSs than similarly sized uniform metallic rods (Ref.
12). Testing in accordance with ASTM F1717-15 is not typically used to
evaluate SRS technologies as significant modifications to the test
standards are often necessary to conduct the test. Given that the
systems have not typically been tested in accordance with the accepted
consensus standard and as standardized acceptance criteria for SRS
technologies undergoing this testing have not been developed, it is
challenging to solely use the results of non-clinical performance
testing for comparison purposes to rigid pedicle screw systems.
While clinical data as a special control was not specifically
mentioned in the comments, the 2013 Panel discussed the ability for
clinical data to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful SRS
device designs. FDA believes that clinical performance data would
adequately mitigate the risks to health for SRS devices, particularly
the risk of pseudarthrosis resulting in additional surgical procedures.
In addition, there is sufficient valid scientific evidence showing that
the device type is effective for use as an adjunct to fusion, when the
fusion rate is within a clinically acceptable range, as discussed
previously. FDA therefore believes there is sufficient information to
establish special controls that, in
[[Page 96371]]
addition to general controls, can provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness for SRSs. Table 1 summarizes how FDA believes
the risks to health identified for SRSs can be mitigated by special
controls, including clinical performance data.
Table 1--Risks to Health and Mitigation Measures for SRSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified risks to health Mitigation method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device failure............... Design characteristics; Non-clinical
performance testing; Labeling.
Failure of bone implant Design characteristics; Biocompatibility
interface. evaluation; Non-clinical performance
testing; Labeling.
Tissue injury................ Labeling.
Adverse tissue reaction...... Design characteristics; Biocompatibility
evaluation; Sterility; Labeling.
Device malposition........... Labeling.
Pseudarthrosis............... Non-clinical performance testing;
Clinical performance testing; Labeling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in FDA's response to Comment 1, the risks to health
and associated mitigation measures for rigid pedicle screw systems
remain unchanged from those listed in table 1 of the 2014 Proposed
Order.
3. SRS as Class II Device
As stated previously, FDA has reevaluated all of the valid
scientific evidence for SRSs in finalizing this order. As described in
the proposed order and in section I of this order, FDA has satisfied
the requirements under section 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act for revising
the proposed classification for SRSs. Under section 515(i)(2) of the
FD&C Act, FDA has the authority to issue an administrative order
revising the proposed classification of a device for which FDA has
classified as a class III device and for which no administrative order
has been issued calling for PMAs under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act,
so that the device is classified into class I or class II, after
issuance of a proposed order, a meeting of a device classification
panel, and consideration of the comments of a proposed order. In
determining whether to revise the proposed classification of a device
or to require a device to remain in class III, FDA applies the criteria
set forth in section 513(a) of the FD&C Act. Section 513(a)(1)(B) of
the FD&C Act defines class II devices as those devices for which the
general controls in section 513(a)(1)(A) by themselves are insufficient
to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for
which there is sufficient information to establish special controls to
provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of a device.
FDA has reviewed all of the initial procedures, scientific
information presented at the 2013 Panel meeting, comments received from
both the 2014 Proposed Order and 2009 Final Order under section
515(i)(1) of the FD&C Act calling for information on preamendment
devices (74 FR 16214, April 9, 2009) for consideration of the
classification of SRS devices under section 513(a) of the FD&C Act and
has initiated revision of the proposed classification of the device
under section 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act.
The discussion at the 2013 Panel for SRSs was limited, as
acknowledged by 2013 Panel members, by the small number of studies
available at that time and reports in the MDRs regarding SRSs for
fusion. Given limitations of the available data, in literature and MDR
analysis, the 2013 Panel concluded that insufficient evidence was
available to establish special controls. Although FDA recommended, and
the 2013 Panel agreed, that a call for PMAs was the necessary measure
to mitigate the risks to health for SRSs and ensure a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness, FDA has since reassessed the
scientific evidence based upon comments received and additional
information, reevaluating the scientific evidence presented at the 2013
Panel meeting to reconsider FDA's prior position regarding the
necessary controls to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness for SRSs. Based on FDA's reevaluation of the available
body of evidence, FDA has determined that sufficient information exists
regarding the risks and benefits of SRSs for FDA to determine that
general and special controls can provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device type and, thus, revising the
proposed classification for these devices from class III to II under
section 515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act is appropriate.
Also, at the 2013 Panel meeting, the panel did discuss the
feasibility of clinical data as being able to potentially distinguish
between successful and non-successful SRS designs, without specifically
discussing what level of data would be necessary. After further review
of the scientific literature and comments, FDA believes that clinical
performance data as a special control would adequately mitigate the
risks to health for SRS devices, particularly the risk of
pseudarthrosis resulting in additional surgical procedures (see
response to Comment 10 in section II.B.2).
Upon reevaluation of the scientific evidence and additional
information, FDA has determined that SRS devices do not have the degree
of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by
requiring the device to have an approved PMA under section 515(b)(2) of
the FD&C Act. In addition, the level of scientific evidence evaluated
has allowed FDA to determine that SRSs can be classified as class II
with the establishment of special controls because sufficient valid
scientific evidence exists to determine that general controls, in
combination with special controls, are sufficient to provide a
reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. FDA has determined
that revision of the proposed classification of SRSs under section
515(i)(2) of the FD&C Act will allow these devices to be classified in
class II subject to a clinical performance data special control. As a
result, instead of calling for PMAs for SRSs, FDA is finalizing this
order to revise the proposed classification for SRS devices from class
III to class II (special controls) following reassessment of all
relevant scientific evidence and comments received from the 2014
Proposed Order. FDA believes the clinical performance data special
control and other special controls, together with general controls, are
sufficient to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness for SRS devices.
IV. The Final Order
Under sections 513(e) and 515(i) of the FD&C Act, FDA is adopting
its findings as published in the preamble to the proposed order with
the modifications discussed in section II of this final order. FDA is
issuing this final order to reclassify rigid pedicle screw systems and
to revise classification of SRSs when intended to provide
[[Page 96372]]
immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in the thoracic,
lumbar, and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of
DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than either severe spondylolisthesis
(grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with
objective evidence of neurologic impairment) when used as an adjunct to
fusion from class III to class II and establish special controls for
all SRSs by revising part 888. Rigid pedicle screw systems when
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 DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than either severe
spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment) and
SRSs for any indication must comply with the special controls
identified in this order (see Section V, ``Implementation Strategy'').
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification requirements under section
510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is
not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the devices. FDA has determined that premarket
notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness of rigid pedicle screw systems and SRSs when 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 DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than either severe
spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment).
Therefore, these device types are not exempt from premarket
notification requirements.
Following the effective date of this final order, firms marketing
rigid pedicle screw systems when 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 DDD and
spondylolisthesis (other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) and SRSs for any indication must
comply with the special controls set forth in this order (see section
V, ``Implementation Strategy'').
V. Implementation Strategy
The special controls identified in this final order are effective
as of the date of publication of this order, December 30, 2016. Both
rigid pedicle screw systems and SRSs covered by this order must comply
with the special controls following the effective date of the order.
Specifically, devices subject to the special controls in this order
include rigid pedicle screw systems 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 DDD and
spondylolisthesis (other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment), and SRSs for any indication.
However, FDA does not intend to enforce compliance with the special
controls for currently legally marketed SRSs covered by this order
until June 28, 2018. The 30-month enforcement discretion period was
selected based on the following factors: (1) The 2014 Proposed Order
initially called for PMAs containing clinical performance data to be
submitted within a 30-month timeframe, and thus the request in this
final order for 510(k) amendments, which include submission of clinical
performance data as a special control, maintains the same expectation
of sponsors; and (2) the effectiveness endpoint of fusion for SRSs is
generally assessed at 1 to 2 years post-implantation, and thus if a new
study were to be initiated to collect clinical performance data, FDA
would expect the 30-month period to be appropriate for SRS and allow
sponsors sufficient time to enroll patients, conduct the study, and
analyze the data.
For those manufacturers who wish to continue to offer for sale
currently legally marketed SRSs covered by this order, FDA expects them
to submit an amendment to their previously cleared 510(k)s for the
devices by June 28, 2018 that demonstrates compliance with the special
controls. This approach is consistent with prior final orders for
reclassifications of preamendment devices in which special controls
requiring submission of clinical performance data were issued. An
amendment to a 510(k) will be added to the 510(k) file but will not
serve as a basis for a new substantial equivalence review. A submitted
510(k) amendment in this context will be used solely to demonstrate to
FDA that an SRS system is in compliance with the special controls. If a
510(k) amendment for the device is not submitted by June 28, 2018 or if
FDA determines that the amendment does not demonstrate compliance with
the special controls, then this compliance policy would not apply, and
FDA would intend to enforce compliance with these requirements. In that
case, the device is deemed adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B)) as of the date of FDA's
determination of noncompliance or June 28, 2018, whichever is sooner.
For rigid pedicle screw systems 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 DDD and
spondylolisthesis (other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) and SRSs for any indication that
have not been legally marketed prior to December 30, 2016, or models
that have been legally marketed but are required to submit a new 510(k)
under 21 CFR 807.81(a)(3) because the device is about to be
significantly changed or modified, manufacturers must obtain 510(k)
clearance, among other relevant requirements, and demonstrate
compliance with the special controls included in this final order,
before marketing the new or changed device.
VI. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final order refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in part 807, subpart E, have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0120 and the collections of information
under 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0485.
VIII. Codification of Orders
Prior to the amendments by FDASIA, section 513(e) of the FD&C Act
provided for FDA to issue regulations to reclassify devices. Although
section 513(e) as amended requires FDA to issue final orders rather
than regulations, FDASIA also provides for FDA to revoke previously
promulgated regulations by
[[Page 96373]]
order. FDA will continue to codify classifications and
reclassifications in the CFR. Changes resulting from final orders will
appear in the CFR as changes to codified classification determinations
or as newly codified orders. Therefore, pursuant to section
513(e)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, in this final
order, we are revoking the requirements in Sec. 888.3070 related to
the classification of rigid pedicle screw systems and SRSs when
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 DDD and spondylolisthesis (other than either severe
spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative
spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment) as
class III devices. We are codifying the reclassification of rigid
pedicle screw systems and SRSs when 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 DDD and
spondylolisthesis (other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3
and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective
evidence of neurologic impairment) into class II (special controls). In
addition, as set forth in the 2014 Proposed Order, FDA has separated
SRSs, a subtype of pedicle screw systems, from rigid pedicle screw
systems in the identification section of the classification regulation
(Sec. 888.3070(a)) and has established a separate subpart of the
classification regulation (Sec. 888.3070(b)(3)), which is applicable
to all SRSs regardless of indication.
IX. References
The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday;
they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.
FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document
publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change
over time.
1. Matsuzaki, H., Y. Tokuhashi, F. Matsumoto, et al., ``Problems and
Solutions of Pedicle Screw Fixation of Lumbar Spine,'' Spine,
15(11):1159-1165, 1990.
2. FDA's Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel transcript and
other meeting materials are available on FDA's Web site at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/CirculatorySystemDevicesPanel/ucm352525.htm.
3. Qi, L., M. Li, S. Zhang, et al., ``Comparative Effectiveness of
PEEK Rods Versus Titanium Alloy Rods in Lumbar Fusion: A Preliminary
Report,'' Acta Neurochirurgica, 155(7):1187-1193, 2013.
4. Sengupta, D.K., B. Bucklen, P.C. McAfee, et al., ``The
Comprehensive Biomechanics and Load-Sharing of Semirigid PEEK and
Semirigid Posterior Dynamic Stabilization Systems,'' Advances in
Orthopedics, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/745610 (Epub); available at
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aorth/2013/745610/.
5. Kurtz, S.M., T.H. Lanman, G. Higgs, et al., ``Retrieval Analysis
of PEEK Rods for Posterior Fusion and Motion Preservation,''
European Spine Journal, 22(12):2752-2759, 2013.
6. Gornet, M.F., F.W. Chan, J.C. Coleman, et al., ``Biomechanical
Assessment of a PEEK Rod System for Semi-Rigid Fixation of Lumbar
Fusion Constructs,'' Journal of Biomechanical Engineering,
133(8):081009, 2011. doi: 10.1115/1.4004862.
7. Athanasakopoulos, M., A.F. Mavrogenis, G. Triantafyllopoulos, et
al., ``Posterior Spinal Fusion Using Pedicle Screws,'' Orthopedics,
36(7):e951-e957, 2013. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130624-28.
8. Colangeli, S., G. Barbanti Brod[agrave]no, A. Gasbarrini, et al.,
``Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Rods: Short-Term Results in Lumbar
Spine Degenerative Disease,'' Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences,
59(2):91-96, 2015.
9. De Iure, F., G. Bosco, M. Cappuccio, et al., ``Posterior Lumbar
Fusion by PEEK Rods in Degenerative Spine: Preliminary Report on 30
Cases,'' European Spine Journal, 21 Suppl 1:S50-54, 2012.
10. Ormond, D.R., L. Albert Jr., and K. Das, ``Polyetheretherketone
(PEEK) Rods in Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease: A Case Series,''
Journal of Spine Disorders & Techniques, in press, 2012 (later
published in 2016 under Clinical Spine Surgery, 29(7):E371-E375,
2016).
11. Yang, M., C. Li, Z. Chen, et al., ``Short Term Outcome of
Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System in Degenerative Lumbar
Diseases,'' Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 48(6):574-581, 2014.
12. ASTM F1717-15, ``Standard Test Methods for Spinal Implant
Constructs in a Vertebrectomy Model,'' July 2015; available at:
https://www.astm.org/Standards/F1717.htm.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 888
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
888 is amended as follows:
PART 888--ORTHOPEDIC DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 888 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
0
2. Section 888.3070 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) and (b)(2), adding paragraph (b)(3), and removing
paragraph (c).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 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) * * *
(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.
[[Page 96374]]
(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.
Dated: December 22, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-31670 Filed 12-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P