(85 days)
The EXPEDIUM and VIPER Systems are intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.
The EXPEDIUM and VIPER Systems are intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle 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 or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.
When used in a percutaneous approach with MIS Instrumentation, the VIPER Systems are intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle 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 or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor: pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.
The proposed closed polyaxial screws for EXPEDIUM and VIPER Spine System are available in various geometries and sizes. Manufactured from ASTM F138 implant grade stainless steel and ASTM F136 implant grade titanium alloy.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided 510(k) summary:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Test Type | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Static Cantilever Beam Testing | In accordance with ASTM F 1798-97 Standard Guide for Evaluating the Static and Fatigue Properties of Interconnection Mechanisms and Subassemblies Used in Spinal Arthrodesis Implants. | The acceptance criteria was/were met. |
| Static Axial Slip Testing | In accordance with ASTM F 1798-97 Standard Guide for Evaluating the Static and Fatigue Properties of Interconnection Mechanisms and Subassemblies Used in Spinal Arthrodesis Implants. | The acceptance criteria was/were met. |
| Dynamic Cantilever Beam Testing | In accordance with ASTM F 1798-97 Standard Guide for Evaluating the Static and Fatigue Properties of Interconnection Mechanisms and Subassemblies Used in Spinal Arthrodesis Implants. | The acceptance criteria was/were met. |
Study Information:
This submission focuses on non-clinical (mechanical) testing for "EXPEDIUM® and VIPER® Systems" for spinal fixation. There were no clinical studies performed in this submission.
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance:
The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes for each mechanical test. However, these tests are typically conducted on multiple samples of the device components to ensure consistency and reliability. The data provenance is from non-clinical laboratory testing conducted by the manufacturer, DePuy Spine, Inc.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
Not applicable. The ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering standards (ASTM F 1798-97) and measured physical properties, not by human expert interpretation.
4. Adjudication method for the test set:
Not applicable. Mechanical tests involve objective measurements against predefined engineering standards.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:
No. This was a non-clinical submission for spinal implants, focusing on mechanical performance. MRMC studies are relevant for evaluating diagnostic or interpretive devices that involve human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
No. This is a hardware device (spinal implants), not an algorithm or software. Therefore, the concept of "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm is not applicable. The performance evaluated here is the standalone mechanical integrity of the device itself.
7. The type of ground truth used:
The ground truth used was objective mechanical measurements against established ASTM standards (ASTM F 1798-97) for spinal arthrodesis implants.
8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is a hardware device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable, as no training set was used.
§ 888.3070 Thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system.
(a)
Identification. (1) Rigid pedicle screw systems are comprised of multiple components, made from a variety of materials that allow the surgeon to build an implant system to fit the patient's anatomical and physiological requirements. Such a spinal implant assembly consists of a combination of screws, longitudinal members (e.g., plates, rods including dual diameter rods, plate/rod combinations), transverse or cross connectors, and interconnection mechanisms (e.g., rod-to-rod connectors, offset connectors).(2) Semi-rigid systems are defined as systems that contain one or more of the following features (including but not limited to): Non-uniform longitudinal elements, or features that allow more motion or flexibility compared to rigid systems.
(b)
Classification. (1) Class II (special controls), when 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 the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra; degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment; fracture; dislocation; scoliosis; kyphosis; spinal tumor; and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis). These pedicle screw spinal systems must comply with the following special controls:(i) Compliance with material standards;
(ii) Compliance with mechanical testing standards;
(iii) Compliance with biocompatibility standards; and
(iv) Labeling that contains these two statements in addition to other appropriate labeling information:
“Warning: The safety and effectiveness of pedicle screw spinal systems have been established only for spinal conditions with significant mechanical instability or deformity requiring fusion with instrumentation. These conditions are significant mechanical instability or deformity of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine secondary to severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra, degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis). The safety and effectiveness of these devices for any other conditions are unknown.”
“Precaution: The implantation of pedicle screw spinal systems should be performed only by experienced spinal surgeons with specific training in the use of this pedicle screw spinal system because this is a technically demanding procedure presenting a risk of serious injury to the patient.”
(2) Class II (special controls), when a rigid pedicle screw system is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment. These pedicle screw systems must comply with the following special controls:
(i) The design characteristics of the device, including engineering schematics, must ensure that the geometry and material composition are consistent with the intended use.
(ii) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate the mechanical function and durability of the implant.
(iii) Device components must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(iv) Validation testing must demonstrate the cleanliness and sterility of, or the ability to clean and sterilize, the device components and device-specific instruments.
(v) Labeling must include the following:
(A) A clear description of the technological features of the device including identification of device materials and the principles of device operation;
(B) Intended use and indications for use, including levels of fixation;
(C) Identification of magnetic resonance (MR) compatibility status;
(D) Cleaning and sterilization instructions for devices and instruments that are provided non-sterile to the end user; and
(E) Detailed instructions of each surgical step, including device removal.
(3) Class II (special controls), when a semi-rigid system is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion for any indication. In addition to complying with the special controls in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section, these pedicle screw systems must comply with the following special controls:
(i) Demonstration that clinical performance characteristics of the device support the intended use of the product, including assessment of fusion compared to a clinically acceptable fusion rate.
(ii) Semi-rigid systems marketed prior to the effective date of this reclassification must submit an amendment to their previously cleared premarket notification (510(k)) demonstrating compliance with the special controls in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) and paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.