(79 days)
Romeo® posterior osteosynthesis system is intended to provide immobilization 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; scoliosis; kyphosis; spinal tumor; and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).
When used as a posterior, non-cervical, non-pedicle screw fixation system, Romeo® posterior osteosynthesis system is intended for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (DDD) (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, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.
The Romeo posterior fixation system comprises polyaxial screws, monoaxial screws, spondylolisthesis screws, setscrew, straight and pre-bent Titanium or CoCr rods, and various connectors. The Romeo screws come in various lengths (from 25 to 90 mm) and diameters (4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 mm) to accommodate different patient anatomies. Romeo components are delivered sterile (gamma sterilization) in a dedicated packaging or not sterile upon request. The Romeo posterior fixation system is supplied with a set of surgical instruments.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the Romeo® posterior osteosynthesis system. It describes the device, its indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, including performance testing. However, it does not contain the specific information required to complete all sections of your request regarding clinical study details, such as acceptance criteria based on clinical performance metrics, expert reader studies, or detailed ground truth establishment methods for large datasets.
The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance testing, comparing the new components (Setscrew with modified hexalobe imprint, Parallel Rod Connector, and T Rod Connector) to previously cleared predicate devices.
Here's the information that can be extracted and what is missing:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Mechanical Performance | |
Torsion test for the set-screw according to in-house protocol | Results demonstrate comparable mechanical properties to the predicate devices. |
Axial Push Down and Axial Torsion in subassembly according to ASTM F1798 for the connectors | Results demonstrate comparable mechanical properties to the predicate devices. |
Missing: Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum torque values, maximum displacement, etc.) and quantitative performance data for the device components are not provided in this summary. The summary only states that the results "demonstrate comparable mechanical properties to the predicate devices."
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable as this is a non-clinical, mechanical performance study. The "test set" here refers to the actual device components tested. The number of components tested is not specified, but typically these tests involve several samples to ensure reproducibility and statistical power.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable for non-clinical mechanical testing of physical device components.
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)
Not applicable. This submission relies on non-clinical, mechanical testing, not clinical data or expert interpretation of medical images.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. This was non-clinical mechanical testing, not a study requiring adjudication of expert opinions.
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
No. This document does not mention any multi-reader, multi-case clinical studies, nor does it describe an AI-powered device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
No. This document is for a physical orthopedic implant system, not a software algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
The "ground truth" for this submission is based on established engineering and biomechanical standards and measurements. The performance of the new components is compared against the known performance of predicate devices through standardized mechanical tests.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device 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 device.
§ 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.