No Image Available

Complex fixation systems

UNiD™ patient-specific rods

<p>UNiD™&nbsp;patient-specific rods are designed by the GAiTEWAY™ platform to help achieve alignment goals in spinal surgeries.</p>


Features

Thoracolumbar

Single diameter:

  • Ø4.75 mm​
  • Ø5.5 mm​
  • Ø6.0 mm​

Dual diameter:

  • Ø4.75 mm to Ø5.5 mm​
  • Ø4.75 mm to Ø6.0 mm​
  • Ø5.5 mm to Ø6.0 mm​

Materials

  • Titanium alloy​
  • Cobalt chrome (CoCr)​
Cervico-Thoracic rods

Cervico-Thoracic

Single diameter:

  • Ø3.5 mm​

Dual diameter:

  • Ø3.5 mm to Ø4.75 mm
  • ​Ø3.5 mm to Ø5.5 mm​
  • Ø3.5 mm to Ø6.0 mm​

Materials

  • Titanium alloy​
  • Cobalt chrome (CoCr)​
Degen rods

Degenerative

Single diameter:

  • Ø4.75 mm​
  • Ø5.5 mm​
  • Ø6.0 mm​

Materials

  • Titanium alloy​
  • Cobalt chrome (CoCr)​

Options

  • MIS (Ø4.75 mm, Ø5.5 mm, & Ø6.0 mm)
PEDS rods

Pediatric

Single diameter:

  • Ø3.5 mm​
  • Ø4.75 mm​
  • Ø5.5/6.0 mm​

Materials

  • Titanium alloy​
  • Cobalt chrome (CoCr)​

Options

  • D-ROD (Ø6.0 mm ONLY)

Workflow

GAiTEWAY™ plan

Available through the GAiTEWAY™ software platform, you can request concierge surgical plans from an AiBLE™ Clinic engineer. These plans use AI-driven predictive modeling to support more informed decision-making.

Engineer

UNiD™ rod execution  

Create patient-specific rods precisely manufactured to the approved surgical plan, ensuring alignment between planning and intraoperative execution.
 

UNiD™ is an adaptive spine intelligence system that creates patient-specific rods for spinal alignment correction.

GAiTEWAY™ analysis

Access on-demand post-operative analytics through the GAiTEWAY™ platform to review outcomes, identify trends, and continuously inform future planning.
 

The GAiTEWAY™ software platform integrates with UNiD™ ASI for pre-operative planning.

Clinical evidence

UNiD™ rods are associated with lower incidence of rod fracture.1

Evaluation of postoperative data indicates a reduction in the rod fracture rate.1

In adult deformity cases (greater than five levels) at least one year after surgery, UNiD™ rods had a fracture rate of 10 out of 453 patients (2.2%). In a subset of International Spine Study Group (ISSG) data with the same parameters, 18 out of 200 (9%) of adult deformity patients experienced rod fractures.1,2

When patients from the same two studies underwent a pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) in the procedure, the rate is reduced by 79% when using UNiD™ rods, an improvement over the 22% rod fracture rate associated with procedures involving a PSO.1,2


Rod fracture rates in adult deformity cases


9%


18 out of 200 patients
Historic ISSG data
 

2.2%


10 out of 453 patients
UNiD™ patient-specific
rod data1
 

Rod fractures rate in cases involving a PSO


22%


11 out of 50 patients
Historic ISGG data
 

4.7%


6 out of 127 patients
UNiD™ patient-specific
rod data1
 

Sagittal alignment is the most dominant radiographic predictor of patient outcomes.3,4

Achieving harmonious alignment of key spinopelvic parameters, such as the sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence/lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), and pelvic tilt (PT), is a key goal of spinal deformity surgery.5

 Patients possessing postoperative spinopelvic parameters within normative ranges exhibit improved patient outcomes scores.2,3

Patient-specific alignment makes a difference. 
These radiographs show sagittal alignment before and after UNiD™ ASI surgery.

Rod-bending with templates yields better accuracy.

In a study by Sardi et al., ten experienced surgeons were asked to contour rods using a French bender to 40, 60, and 80 degrees.6

 Without a template, surgeons overbent by a mean of 17.5 to 20.2 degrees for each desired angle, but with a template, they came within an average of two degrees of their target angle. 

Average distance from target angle
Graph depicting that without a template, surgeons overbent by a mean of 17.5 to 20.2 degrees for each desired angle, but with a template, they came within an average of two degrees of their target angle.

UNiD™ patient-specific rods are a part of the AiBLE™ ecosystem.


  1. Fiere V, Fuentes S, Burger E, Raabe T, Passias P, et al. Patient-specific rods show a reduction in rod breakage incidence. Medicrea whitepaper. October 2017.
  2. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Klineberg E, et al. Prospective multicenter assessment of risk factors for rod fracture following surgery for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(6):994–1003. doi:10.3171/2014.9.SPINE131176.
  3. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(18):2024–2029. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000179086.30449.96.
  4. Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(6):682–688. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000155425.04536.f7.
  5. Jang JS, Lee SH, Min JH, Kim SK, Han KM, Maen DH. Surgical treatment of failed back surgery syndrome due to sagittal imbalance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(26):30813087. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815cde71.
  6. Sardi JP, Ames CP, Coffey S, et al. Accuracy of rod contouring to desired angles with and without a template: Implications for achieving desired spinal alignment and outcomes. Global Spine Journal. 2021:1-7. doi:10.1177/219256822199837