Search Results

The ISOBAR Spinal System is a pedicle screw system intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

As a pedicle screw system, the ISOBAR Spinal System is intended for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebrae in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

When used as a posterior, non-cervical, non-pedicle screw fixation system, the ISOBAR Spinal System is intended for hook fixation from T1 to the ilium/sacrum. The non-pedicle screw indications are spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease (as defined by back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history patient history and radiographic studies), deformities (scoliosis, kyphosis and lordosis), tumor, pseudoarthrosis, trauma (fracture or dislocation) and/or previous failed fusion surgery.

The ISOBAR Spinal System consists of pedicle screws, rods, nuts, crosslink members and hooks. It can be used for single or multiple level fixation. All components are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) that conforms to ASTM F136.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the ISOBAR Spinal System Additional Components. This document pertains to a medical device (pedicle screw spinal system) and its mechanical performance, not an AI/ML-based device. Therefore, many of the requested elements for AI/ML device studies (such as sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this type of documentation.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and the study performed based on the information provided, focusing on the mechanical aspects of the device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size: Not specified in the document. Testing according to ASTM F1717-96 would involve a specific number of samples, but this summary does not provide that detail.
• Data Provenance: The testing was "performed according to ASTM F1717-96." This implies laboratory testing of the physical device components. Data provenance in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective is not applicable for this mechanical testing.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable. This is mechanical performance testing against an engineering standard, not clinical data requiring expert human review or ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

• Not applicable. This refers to consensus methods for clinical assessment, which is not relevant for mechanical testing.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

• Not applicable. This is a medical device for spinal fixation, not an AI-based diagnostic or assistive technology.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is compliance with the ASTM F1717-96 standard for static and fatigue compression testing, and the ASTM F136 standard for material composition. These are engineering standards, not clinical ground truths.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is mechanical performance testing, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

• Not applicable. There is no training set for this type of device and study.

Summary of the Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study performed to demonstrate the device meets acceptance criteria involved mechanical testing of the ISOBAR Spinal System Additional Components. The specific standard cited for this testing is ASTM F1717-96, which covers static and fatigue compression testing of metallic spinal implant ensembles. Additionally, the material used, titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), was confirmed to conform to ASTM F136, a standard specification for wrought titanium-6aluminum-4vanadium alloy for surgical implant applications.

The 510(k) submission states that these tests were "performed according to" the specified standards. This implies that the device and its components successfully met the performance requirements and material specifications outlined in those ASTM standards, thus establishing its substantial equivalence to predicate devices (Moss Miami Polyaxial Screw and ISOBAR U-Line Spinal System) that also rely on compliance with such standards for their mechanical integrity. The document does not provide a detailed report of the exact numerical results or the pass/fail thresholds for these tests, as is typical for a 510(k) summary which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than a full engineering report.

Ask a specific question about this device