The Opus™ Spinal System is intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e. fracture and dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The Opus™ Spinal System is also intended to be used in conjunction with the titanium hooks from the OSS/Diapason Spinal System and the Xia Spinal System. The Opus™ Spinal System is also intended to be used in conjunction with the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.

Device Description

The Opus Spinal System is made up of a range of screws, which are compatible with both the rod and plate components of the system. The components of the system are manufactured from ISO 5832/3 Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V).

AI/ML Overview

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Opus™ Spinal System based on the provided document:

This document is a 510(k) summary for an additional indication for the Opus™ Spinal System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through mechanical testing. It does not contain information about AI/ML device performance, human reader studies, ground truth establishment, or training data for such applications.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
Mechanical properties comparable to predicate device	Static and fatigue test results show the constructs of the Opus™ Spinal System demonstrated comparable mechanical properties to the predicate device.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of clinical data or image-based diagnostics. The testing involved mechanical performance on device constructs. The sample size for these mechanical tests is not explicitly stated in the provided text. The provenance is the testing facility, not patient data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and the Qualifications of Those Experts

Not applicable. This device is a spinal fixation system, not a diagnostic AI/ML device. Ground truth, in this context, would relate to mechanical engineering standards and material properties, not expert interpretations of medical images or clinical outcomes in the usual AI/ML sense.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are typically used for establishing ground truth in clinical or image-based studies where expert consensus is needed. This document describes mechanical testing, which relies on engineering standards and measurements, not expert adjudication in the same way.

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 document is for a spinal implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No MRMC studies were performed related to AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This device is a physical spinal implant; there is no algorithm or standalone performance in the context of AI/ML.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this device's performance evaluation is based on mechanical engineering standards and benchmark performance of the predicate device. The goal was to demonstrate "comparable mechanical properties" to the legally marketed predicate device (OSS/Diapason and Xia® Titanium Hooks).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML system that utilizes a "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable. There is no training set for this device in the AI/ML context.

Summary of Device and Study Focus:

The Opus™ Spinal System's 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices (OSS/Diapason and Xia® Titanium Hooks) for additional indications. This equivalence is primarily supported by mechanical performance data (static and fatigue tests) showing "comparable mechanical properties" between the Opus™ Spinal System constructs and the predicate device. The document does not describe any clinical trials, human-in-the-loop studies, or AI/ML performance evaluations.

Summary

{0}------------------------------------------------

K030369 p'/

AUG - 8 2003

510(k) Summary - Opus™ Spinal System - Additional Indications

Proprietary Name:	Opus™ Spinal System
Common Name:	Spinal Fixation Appliances
Regulatory Class:	Class II
Classification Name and Reference:	Spinal Interlaminal Fixation Orthosis21 CFR 888.3050Pedicle Screw Spinal System21 CFR 888.3070
For Information contact:	Karen Ariemma, Regulatory AffairsSpecialistHowmedica Osteonics Corp.59 Route 17Allendale, NJ 07401-1677Phone: (201) 831-5718Fax: (201) 831-6038
Date Summary Prepared:	June 19, 2003

The purpose of this premarket notification is to add indications and to market the Howmedica Osteonics predicate OSS/Diapason and Xia® Titanium Hooks with the Opus™ Spinal System.

Predicate Device Information:

The Opus" Spinal System was determined substantially equivalent via 510(k)s K993402 and K014229. The Multi-Axial Cross-Connector (MAC) was determined substantially equivalent for use with the Opus "Spinal System via 510(k) K003490. The Opus Spinal System is made up of a range of screws, which are compatible with both the rod and plate components of the system. The components of the system are manufactured from ISO 5832/3 Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V).

Intended Use:

The Opus" Spinal System is intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e. fracture and dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The Opus" Spinal System is also intended to be used in conjunction with the titanium hooks from the OSS/Diapason Spinal System and the Xia Spinal System. The Opus Spinal System is also intended to be used in conjunction with the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.

Performance Data:

Static and fatigue test results show the constructs of the Opus" Spinal System demonstrated comparable mechanical properties to the predicate device.

{1}------------------------------------------------

Image /page/1/Picture/1 description: The image shows the seal of the Department of Health & Human Services - USA. The seal is circular, with the words "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" arranged around the perimeter. In the center of the seal is an abstract symbol that resembles an eagle or other bird in flight. The symbol is composed of three curved lines that suggest the wings and body of the bird.

Food and Drug Administration 9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville MD 20850

AUG - 8 2003

Ms. Karen Ariemma Regulatory Affairs Specialist Howmedica Osteonics Corporation 59 Route 17 Allendale, New Jersey 07401-1677

Re: K030369

Trade/Device Name: Opus™ Spinal System Regulatory Number: 21 CFR 888.3070, 21 CFR 888.3050 Regulation Name: Pedicle screw spinal system, Spinal interlaminal fixation orthosis Regulatory Class: III Product Code: NKB, MNI, MNH, KWP Dated: June 19, 2003 Received: June 20, 2003

Dear Ms. Ariemma:

We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration.

If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.

Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801); good manufacturing practice requirements as set

{2}------------------------------------------------

Page 2- Ms. Karen Ariemma

forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820); and if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050. This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your Section 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial equivalence of your device to a legally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.

If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801), please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4639. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21CFR Part 807.97). You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 443-6597 or at its Internet address http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsma/dsmamain.html

Sincerely yours.

Miriam C. Provost

( Celia M. Witten, Ph.D., M.D. Director Division of General, Restorative and Neurological Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Enclosure

{3}------------------------------------------------

Page 1 of 1

510(k) Number (if known): K030369

Device Name: Opus™ Spinal System

The Opus™Spinal System is intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e. fracture and dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)

Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)

Prescription Use

Over-The-Counter Use (Per 21 CFR 801.109) (Optional Format 1-2-96)

Miriam C. Provost

(Division Sign-Off) Division of General, Restorative and Neurological Devices

510(k) Number K030369

Regulation Number and Section

N/A