The Zuma System is intended for use in the thoracolumbar spine (T1 to L5) to replace a collapsed, diseased, damaged or unstable complete or partial vertebral body due to tumor or trauma/fracture, to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body.

The Zuma System is designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle and posterior spinal column, even in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period. Additionally, The Zuma System is intended for use with bone graft.

Device Description

Zuma is a vertebral body replacement device fabricated from PEEK OPTIMA® and titanium. Zuma is designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the spinal column following full or partial vertebrectomy. The interior of the device is open to provide space for placement of grafting material. Bone screws are inserted through the device into adjacent vertebral bodies. Zuma is available in varying depths, widths, and heights to accommodate variations in patient anatomy.

AI/ML Overview

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Zuma™ Vertebral Body Replacement Device. It describes the device, its intended use, and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design, operating principle, materials, intended use, and sterilization methods.

However, the document does not contain the detailed performance data, acceptance criteria, or study results that would typically be associated with a comprehensive evaluation of a medical device's performance against specific metrics. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices rather than presenting a standalone performance study with quantifiable acceptance criteria.

Based on the provided text, I can only extract limited information regarding performance and no specific details about the study methodology you requested.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered from the provided text:

What can be answered:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
- Acceptance Criteria: The document implies that the acceptance criteria are related to "sufficient strength" and performing "as well as or better than the predicate devices" in terms of safety and effectiveness. However, no specific numerical or qualitative criteria are provided.
- Reported Device Performance:
  - "Zuma demonstrated sufficient strength in series of mechanical tests."
  - "Analysis indicated that Zuma is as safe, as effective and performs as well as or better than the predicate devices."
- Table: A table cannot be generated with specific numerical values for acceptance criteria or performance from the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
Sufficient strength	"Zuma demonstrated sufficient strength in series of mechanical tests."
As safe as predicate	"Analysis indicated that Zuma is as safe... as the predicate devices."
As effective as predicate	"Analysis indicated that Zuma is as... effective and performs as well as or better than the predicate devices."
Performs as well as or better than predicate	"Analysis indicated that Zuma is as safe, as effective and performs as well as or better than the predicate devices."

What cannot be answered from the provided text:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- The document mentions "series of mechanical tests" but does not specify sample sizes or data provenance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)
- No information on expert involvement or ground truth establishment is provided. The tests described are "mechanical tests," which typically don't involve expert readers in the same way as imaging or clinical studies.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Not applicable/Not provided.
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 spinal implant device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not applicable. This is a spinal implant device, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- For mechanical tests, the "ground truth" would typically be defined by engineering standards, material properties, and biomechanical specifications. However, the document does not elaborate on these specifics.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable. This refers to an AI training set, and this device is not an AI algorithm.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable.

Conclusion:

The provided 510(k) summary serves as a regulatory filing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on design, materials, and intended use for a spinal implant. It includes a general statement about "sufficient strength in series of mechanical tests" but lacks the detailed performance data, acceptance criteria, and study methodology typically found in clinical trials or comprehensive performance studies for AI/diagnostic devices. The questions you posed are largely geared towards software/AI performance evaluations, which are not relevant to this hardware medical device described.

Summary

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

510(K) SUMMARY

Submitter Information:	SeaSpine, Inc.2302 La Mirada DriveVista, CA 92081-7862Phone: 760-727-8399Contact: Ethel Bernal, Regulatory Affairs Manager	OCT 23 2007
Date Summary Prepared:	June 20, 2007
Device Trade Name:	Zuma™
Common/Usual Name:	Vertebral Body Replacement Device
Classification Name:	Spinal Intervertebral Body Fixation Orthosis(MQP, Class II - 21 CFR 888.3060)
Predicate Devices:	SeaSpine VBR System (K052170)Synthes Spine SynFix™-LR System (K062083)

Device Description:

Intended Use:

The Zuma System is designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle and posterior spinal column, even in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period. Additionally, the Zuma System is intended for use with bone graft.

Performance Data:

Zuma demonstrated sufficient strength in series of mechanical tests.

Substantial Equivalence to Predicate Devices:

Zuma is substantially equivalent to one or more predicate devices listed in this document. Equivalent technological characteristics include design, operating principle, materials of construction, intended use and sterilization methods. Analysis indicated that Zuma is as safe, as effective and performs as well as or better than the predicate devices.

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

Image /page/1/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo for the Department of Health & Human Services - USA. The logo consists of a circular border with the text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" arranged around the circumference. Inside the circle is a stylized emblem featuring a series of overlapping, abstract shapes that resemble human profiles or faces, creating a sense of community and connection.

Food and Drug Administration 9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville MD 20850

SeaSpine, Inc. % Mr. Jeff Brittan Regulatory Affairs Manager 2302 La Mirada Drive Vista, California 92081-7862

OCT 2 3 2007

Re: K071726 Trade/Device Name: Zuma™ Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3060 Regulation Name: Spinal intervertebral body fixation orthosis Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: MQP Dated: September 18, 2007 Received: September 20, 2007

Dear Mr. Brittan:

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. Iisting 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 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.

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

Page 2 - Mr. Jeff Brittan

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 Center for Devices and Radiological Health's (CDRH's) Office of Compliance at (240) 276-0120. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding postmarket surveillance, please contact CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometric's (OSB's) Division of Postmarket Surveillance at (240) 276-3474. For questions regarding the reporting of device adverse events (Medical Device Reporting (MDR)), please contact the Division of Surveillance Systems at (240) 276-3464. You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance at toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (240) 276-3150 or the Internet address http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/industry/support/index.html.

Sincerely yours,
Marli N Mulkerson

Mark N. Melkerson Director Division of General, Restorative and Neurological Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Enclosure

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

Indications for Use Statement

510(k) Number (if known): __ K071726

Device Name: Zuma™M

Indications for Use:

Prescription Use X (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) AND/OR

Over-The-Counter-Use (21 CFR 807 Subpart C)

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

Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)

Mark A. Millman

(Division Sign-Off) Division of General, Restorative, and Neurologic 510(k) Number

Regulation Number and Section

§ 888.3060 Spinal intervertebral body fixation orthosis.

(a)
Identification. A spinal intervertebral body fixation orthosis is a device intended to be implanted made of titanium. It consists of various vertebral plates that are punched into each of a series of vertebral bodies. An eye-type screw is inserted in a hole in the center of each of the plates. A braided cable is threaded through each eye-type screw. The cable is tightened with a tension device and it is fastened or crimped at each eye-type screw. The device is used to apply force to a series of vertebrae to correct “sway back,” scoliosis (lateral curvature of the spine), or other conditions.(b)
Classification. Class II.