Search Results

The Duo™ Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device is indicated for intervertebral body fusion at one level or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine from L2 to L5 in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and six months of non-operative treatment. The Duo device is designed for use with autograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft as an adjunct to fusion and is intended for use with supplemental fixation systems cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.

The Duo Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device is an intervertebral implant designed to provide mechanical support of the intradiscal space as an adjunct to fusion. The device is made of PEEK-OPTIMA® LT-1, titanium alloy, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and tantalum. The Duo implant is available in varying lengths and heights with three lordotic configurations and is provided sterile. The device is designed with a porous central cavity for graft containment, a rounded nose to aid implant insertion, and ridged teeth to resist migration.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device called the "Duo™ Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device." It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, as typically seen for AI/ML-based medical devices or diagnostics.

The document pertains to a physical intervertebral body fusion device and focuses on establishing its substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device. The "Non-Clinical Testing" section mentions mechanical testing (static and dynamic axial compression, compression-shear, subsidence, and expulsion) conducted on the primary predicate device and "engineering analysis and verification testing (expulsion testing)" that supported this implant line extension. This suggests the testing was for the physical properties and performance of the implant, not about a software device meeting specific performance metrics based on data.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets those criteria, as this document does not describe such a study or performance metrics relevant to AI/ML or diagnostic devices.

Ask a specific question about this device