Search company, investor...

Innovative Spinal Technologies

Founded Year



Dead | Dead

Total Raised


About Innovative Spinal Technologies

Innovative Spinal Technologies offers minimally invasive treatments for spinal disorders

Headquarters Location

111 Forbes Boulevard

Mansfield, Massachusetts, 02048,

United States


Missing: Innovative Spinal Technologies's Product Demo & Case Studies

Promote your product offering to tech buyers.

Reach 1000s of buyers who use CB Insights to identify vendors, demo products, and make purchasing decisions.

Missing: Innovative Spinal Technologies's Product & Differentiators

Don’t let your products get skipped. Buyers use our vendor rankings to shortlist companies and drive requests for proposals (RFPs).

Innovative Spinal Technologies Patents

Innovative Spinal Technologies has filed 14 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Infectious diseases
  • Pneumonia
  • Respiratory therapy
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date


Related Topics




Graphical projections, Technical drawing, Roadsters, Mirrors, Light machine guns


Application Date


Grant Date



Related Topics

Graphical projections, Technical drawing, Roadsters, Mirrors, Light machine guns



Latest Innovative Spinal Technologies News

Collapse of Innovative Spinal Technologies was Years In the Making, Sources Say; CEO Responds

Oct 6, 2016

Reprints [Updated, see below.–WR] Our stories last week about the shutdown of Innovative Spinal Technologies, a Mansfield, MA, company that raised $75 million in private funding to market devices for stabilizing injured spines, prompted a number of IST’s former employees and business associates to contact Xconomy to help flesh out the details of the company’s demise more fully. A picture is now emerging of an organization hobbled by management decisions that distanced it from its founding scientists in Texas, impaired its ability to sell its products to surgeons and hospitals, and exhausted its capital too quickly before it could get traction with enough sales of its spinal devices. In particular, several sources I interviewed blame the company’s failure on IST president and CEO Scott Schorer. He’s a 40-year-old serial entrepreneur, real estate developer, and former Army Ranger who joined IST in 2002 when it was spun off by the Texas Back Institute under the name MusculoSkeletal Research Corporation. It was Schorer who transformed the company from a research incubator into a standalone medical device manufacturer, and Schorer who single-handedly raised the company’s crucial $39 million Series B venture funding round in 2005, sources agree. But the same person ultimately “drove this plane into the ground,” says Stephen Hochschuler, a spine surgeon who co-founded the Texas Back Institute and was a member of IST’s board until 2006. IST “would make a great Harvard Business School case study of what not to do at a startup,” Hochschuler says. As we’ve already reported, IST used much of its venture money to relocate to facilities in Massachusetts and to hire more staff, eventually growing to more than 100 employees. But disappointing sales of the company’s pedicle-screw system—marketed as a minimally invasive way to fuse or stabilize spinal segments in patients with damaged intervertebral discs—evidently meant it couldn’t sustain itself at that size. It shed staff drastically in 2008, shrinking to no more than 10 employees before finally closing its doors on January 23. Executives tried to avert a shutdown by selling the company, and were close to a deal with Biomet Spine , a subsidiary of Warsaw, IN-based Biomet , according to one source I spoke with last week. But Biomet backed off in the end, the source says. And now, according to a confidential IST memo shared by one source, IST is requiring customers to return all implants and surgical equipment to the company. * The memo from IST vice president of quality assurance Brian Callahan, issued January 23 (the day the company closed down), says all IST customers must immediately send back their inventory while the company works through “strategic and financial issues” and seeks a “different corporate partner” to sell the technology. Because the equipment is no longer supported by the company, the memo continues, anybody who uses it could be liable for civil and criminal penalties. It’s not known how many of IST’s devices were implanted in patients. [*Updated, 8:00 pm, 2/3/09: The first two sentences of this paragraph were edited for clarification. ] I reached Schorer by phone today, asking him about the state of affairs at IST and soliciting his responses to the criticisms lodged by former employees and associates. Contrary to an assertion from one source quoted in my January 27 story , the company has not filed for bankruptcy protection, Schorer says. “We hope to avoid that,” he says. “Obviously we’re trying to sell assets in order to take care of our liabilities and obligations to all of our constituents—the creditors, the shareholders, and the employees.” Schorer said that as long as these negotiations were going on, he will not be able to respond in detail to questions or criticisms about the path the company has taken. “I’m happy when we are done with the process to come back and talk about what happened,” he says. “I just don’t want that to interfere with the process or cause issues for the process.” “We have nothing to hide here,” Schorer continues. “I’m fine after we’re done with all of this for the truth to come out about what happened here, and shed a more credible and balanced light on what happened, as much as I can.” If the criticisms of Schorer’s decisions were coming from a single source, it might be easy to write them off as the opinions of a disgruntled former employee. But a great many people seem to be disgruntled about IST’s fate. And the twists and turns in that story seem to merit further exploration, considering how much praise the company won for its early engineering efforts and how much money it eventually burned through before shutting down. Hochschuler and other surgeons at the Texas Back Institute hatched MusculoSkeletal Research in 2002 with the idea of earning a financial return on the extensive research going on inside the institute. “Initially we kind of gave all our technology away through our non-profit research foundation,” Hochschuler says. “But after a while we said, ‘this is crazy—we have so many ideas, and we’re so connected in the spine world, why don’t we do something for-profit that would still help the community.’ ” Hochschuler says Schorer, who had scored a big success by selling his previous company, a medical device shopping site called CentriMed, to Global Healthcare Exchange in 2000, approached TBI together with an associated named Fred Moll about investing in MusculoSkeletal Research. At that time, the organization was funded by investments from big medical-device companies such as GE Healthcare. Says Hochschuler, “I met with them and I liked them and I said, ‘We’re not taking any individual investments, but Scott, if you will become the CEO, I’ll let you guys invest.” Schorer accepted the post, and the company was soon renamed Innovative Spinal Technologies. In 2003 the company raised a $6.2 million Series A funding round that included investments from device companies ANS, Orthofix, Synthes, and GE. But the company’s big break came two years later, when … Next Page » Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 3 Wade Roush is a contributing editor at Xconomy. Follow @wroush

Innovative Spinal Technologies Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

  • When was Innovative Spinal Technologies founded?

    Innovative Spinal Technologies was founded in 2002.

  • Where is Innovative Spinal Technologies's headquarters?

    Innovative Spinal Technologies's headquarters is located at 111 Forbes Boulevard, Mansfield.

  • What is Innovative Spinal Technologies's latest funding round?

    Innovative Spinal Technologies's latest funding round is Dead.

  • How much did Innovative Spinal Technologies raise?

    Innovative Spinal Technologies raised a total of $132M.

  • Who are the investors of Innovative Spinal Technologies?

    Investors of Innovative Spinal Technologies include OrbiMed Advisors, MPM Capital, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Oxford Finance and GE Healthcare.

  • Who are Innovative Spinal Technologies's competitors?

    Competitors of Innovative Spinal Technologies include Spineology, Spinal Kinetics, Vexim, Cabochon Aesthetics, Simpirica Spine and 11 more.

Compare Innovative Spinal Technologies to Competitors


Ouroboros develops medical devices for minimally invasive spinal fusions.

Simpirica Spine

Simpirica is developing a dynamic stabilization system designed to stabilize the spine in flexion and help patients return to more healthy, active lifestyles. The company's lead product, the LimiFlex Spinal Stabilization System, is typically used in conjunction with a surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Spineology Logo

Spineology provides anatomy-conserving spinal technologies for surgeons and their patients. Spineology surgical techniques conserve spinal bone, ligament, and muscle tissue. Spineology is committed to increasing procedural efficiency, reducing surgical morbidity, and accelerating patient recovery.


Columna is focused on minimally invasive non-fusion spinal implants, a segment expected to represent 70% of the worldwide spine market.

Spinal Restoration

Spinal Restoration restores patients' lives by delivering new therapies that address unmet needs in spine health management. These therapies are minimally invasive, early interventions with clinically proven results. The company is working with a diverse, highly regarded group of clinical and scientific advisors to develop and gain regulatory approval of the Biostat System, a proprietary resorbable biologic and delivery system for the treatment of chronic disc pain, based on solid scientific and clinical evidence.

Axis Surgical Technologies

Axis Surgical Technologies, Inc. aims to develop, manufacture, and market devices that improve quality and efficiency in spinal surgery, especially for minimally invasive surgical techniques. Based in Mountain View, California, Axis offers an integration of visualization and articulation capabilities and provides spinal surgery equipment. Axis' FDA Grant In March 2010, Axis announced that it received 510(k) clearance from the Food and Drug Administration to market its C-MOR„ Visualization Device to use in diagnostic and operative arthroscopic and endoscopic procedures. This portable tool provides visualization and illumination of an interior cavity through either a natural or surgical opening. The ergonomic lightweight device also offers practitioners the convenience of endoscopic visualization and efficient one-handed operating ability; this device can be employed in hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgery centers, and office surgery suites.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.