The FlareHawk® Interbody Fusion System utilizes Adaptive Geometry™ to expand simultaneously in width, height, and lordosis after traversing the neural corridor with a small profile. Once expanded, the conformable implant is designed to reduce subsidence, restore foraminal height, and reestablish sagittal balance from a posterior approach.

Expansive Footprint,
Minimal Retraction

A 17mm wide implant can be placed with the retraction required for an 11mm implant. That’s a 55% footprint increase with no additional retraction.

FlareHawk provides multiple insertion profile and footprint options to help accommodate patient and level-specific neural corridors.

Conformable Footprint

The multi-material construct of the cage conforms to each patient’s endplate topography when expanded.

Coronal Conformity (TiHawk11)

Maximum Graft Delivery

Open architecture allows for continuous graft delivery through the implant and into the disc space.  Up to 2cm2 of bone-graft-to-endplate contact area through the open architecture of the implant.



Utilizing a propriety ion beam-assisted deposition process, a uniform non-porous, 0.5-micron-thick layer of titanium is deposited through a high-vacuum, low-temperature bombardment that intermixes the titanium and PEEK atoms at the bonding interface. This process provides a strong titanium/PEEK adhesion without the loss of fluoroscopic visualization.


Stiffness properties comparable to bone, inertness and biocompatibility.2,3


The combination of PEEK + titanium may permit a modulus more similar to bone and potentially overcome concerns regarding the inertness of PEEK and limited fixation with bone.5,6


Roughened titanium has properties that may allow for enhanced bone fixation against surfaces.4

Uninhibited Radiographic Views

The 0.5-micron-thick layer of titanium enables the visualization of the implant components along with the ability to assess fusion with an X-Ray.

Lateral Fluoroscopy (TiHawk11)

For Every Approach


Minimize the need for neural retraction by inserting an implant similar in profile to a pencil past the neural structures.


Delivering up to 34mm of footprint through a posterior approach.


Leverage endoscopic access while providing instruments necessary for directly visualizing disc preparation and delivering the implants.


With a small incision and neuromonitoring, access the disc space through Kambin's triangle to perform an interbody fusion.



Bidirectional Expandable Technology for Transforaminal or Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Performance6


Patients Over 3 Study Sites


Levels Achieved Fusion Based on Bridwell-Lenke Grading


Reported Device-Related Adverse Events

100% Utilized Autograft Or Allograft
(No BMP Used)

88% Minimally Invasive Approach



The FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System is indicated for spinal intervertebral body fusion with autogenous bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone in skeletally mature individuals with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1, following discectomy. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment. Additionally, these patients may have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). FlareHawk system spacers are intended to be used with supplemental fixation instrumentation, which has been cleared for use in the lumbar spine.

Refer to the FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System Instructions for Use for full prescribing information.

1. Cheng BC, Swink I, Yusufbekov R, Birgelen Michele, Ferrara L, Coric D. Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 2: Feasibility Assessment of an Endplate Conforming Bidirectional Expandable Interbody Cage. International Journal of Spine Surgery. Published December 1, 2020.
2. Warburton, A., Girdler, S. J., Mikhail, C. M., Ahn, A., & Cho, S. K. (2020). Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review. Neurospine, 17(1), 101–110.
3. Ong, Y. (2015). New biomaterials for orthopedic implants. Orthopedic Research and Reviews, 7, 107–129.
4. Ratner, B. D. (2004). Biomaterials science: An introduction to materials in medicine. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
5. Enders JJ, Coughlin D, Mroz TE, Vira S. Surface Technologies in Spinal Fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2020 Jan;31(1):57-64. doi: 10.1016/ Epub 2019 Oct 24. PMID: 31739930. 6. Kurtz, S. M., & Devine, J. N. (2007). PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials, 28(32), 4845–4869.
6. Domagoj Coric, Raphael R. Roybal, Mark Grubb, Vincent Rossi, Alex K. Yu, Isaac R. Swink, Jason Long, Boyle C. Cheng and Jason A. Inzana in International Journal of Spine Surgery October 2020, 7123; DOI: