(136 days)
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is indicated for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved levels. These patients may have had a previous non-fusion surgery at the involved level(s).
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is intended for use with autograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft and supplemental fixation, e.g. Firebird Spinal Fixation System.
Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the FORZA® PTC Spacer System.
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is comprised of a variety of implants that have a PEEK core as described by ASTM F-2026 with two integrated porous Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) endplates as described by ASTM F1580. The FORZA PTC Spacer System is implanted in the intervertebral disc space and is intended to facilitate vertebral fusion by stabilizing adjacent vertebrae, maintaining disc height, and preventing the collapsing of one vertebrate onto another.
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is not intended to be used as a standalone device. The FORZA® PTC Spacer System must be used with a supplemental fixation system. The FORZA® PTC Spacer System implants are provided sterile.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the FORZA® PTC Spacer System. This submission aims to demonstrate that the new device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.
However, the document focuses on non-clinical performance data (mechanical and material testing) to establish substantial equivalence for a medical implant, not on a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/software device that needs performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.
Therefore, based on the provided text, I cannot answer the questions regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance in the manner requested.
The questions you've asked (about sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set details) are typically relevant for evaluating the performance of AI/Machine Learning-based medical devices or diagnostic tools. The document describes a traditional medical device (an intervertebral body fusion device) and its premarket submission process, which relies on demonstrating mechanical, material, and design equivalence to previously approved devices, rather than clinical performance metrics from a human-in-the-loop or standalone AI study.
To directly address your request, I will state that the information is not present in the provided text.
Here's an explanation of why each point cannot be answered:
-
A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document reports mechanical test results (Static and Dynamic Axial Compression, Static and Dynamic Compression Shear, Static Torsion, Subsidence, Expulsion, Taber abrasion, tensile testing, coating shear strength, wear test). It states that these results "demonstrated that FORZA® PTC Spacer System is substantially equivalent to the predicate FORZA Spacer System K103111." However, specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "must achieve > X% compression strength") and the exact numerical performance values are not provided, nor are they presented in a table. The primary acceptance criterion here seems to be "substantially equivalent" to predicates based on these tests.
-
Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable or not provided. The "test set" here refers to the physical devices undergoing mechanical testing, not a dataset of patient information. The number of physical units tested is not specified, nor is "data provenance" in the sense of patient data.
-
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. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to material properties or mechanical performance, which are established through standardized ASTM tests, not expert consensus on patient data.
-
Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of patient data, which is not what this document describes.
-
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 device is an implant, not an AI diagnostic tool that would be evaluated with an MRMC study.
-
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or AI device.
-
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for the mechanical performance is the established standards and specifications for material properties and mechanical strength as defined by ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F2077-11, ASTM F2267-04, ASTM F1978, ASTM F1147, ASTM F1044, ASTM F1877).
-
The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for this type of medical device's performance evaluation.
-
How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
In conclusion, the document provides information about a regulatory submission for a physical medical device (intervertebral spacer) and its evaluation through non-clinical, mechanical, and material testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence. It does not contain the type of clinical or AI performance study data that your questions are designed to ascertain.
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/1 description: The image contains the logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo features the department's name in a circular arrangement around a symbol. The symbol consists of three stylized human profiles facing to the right, layered on top of each other to create a sense of depth and unity. The profiles are rendered in a dark color, contrasting with the white background.
Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Document Control Center - WO66-G609 Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
January 14, 2016
Orthofix Incorporated Ms. Natalia Volosen Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist 3451 Plano Parkway Lewisville, Texas 75056
Re: K152475
Trade/Device Name: FORZA® PTC Spacer System Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3080 Regulation Name: Intervertebral body fusion device Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: MAX Dated: December 15, 2015 Received: December 17, 2015
Dear Ms. Volosen:
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. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to 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 Parts 801); medical device reporting (reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803); good manufacturing practice requirements as set
{1}------------------------------------------------
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.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801), please contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/default.htm. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm for the CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics/Division of Postmarket Surveillance.
You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Industry and Consumer Education at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/default.htm.
Sincerely yours,
Mark N. Melkerson -S
Mark N. Melkerson Director Division of Orthopedic Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known)
Device Name FORZA® PTC Spacer System
Indications for Use (Describe)
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is indicated for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved levels. These patients may have had a previous non-fusion surgery at the involved level(s).
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is intended for use with autograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft and supplemental fixation, e.g. Firebird Spinal Fixation System.
Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the FORZA® PTC Spacer System.
Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable)
| Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) | |
|---|---|
| Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) |
CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW.
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
{3}------------------------------------------------
510(k) SUMMARY
FORZA® PTC Spacer System
| 510(k) Owner InformationName:Address: | Orthofix Inc.3451 Plano ParkwayLewisville, TX 75056 |
|---|---|
| Telephone Number:Fax Number:Email: | 214-937-2145214-937-3322nataliavolosen@orthofix.com |
| Registration Number: | 3008524126 |
| Contact Person: | Natalia VolosenSenior Regulatory Affairs Specialist |
| Date Prepared: | January 13, 2016 |
| Name of DeviceTrade Name / Proprietary Name: | FORZA® PTC Spacer System |
| Common Name: | Intervertebral body fusion device |
| Product Code: | MAX |
| Regulatory Classification: | Class Qper 21 CFR § 888.3080 |
| Review Panel: | Orthopedic Device Panel |
| Predicate Devices: | K103111 - FORZA Spacer System, SE 03/23/2011, Orthofix(primary predicate)K141953 - Endoskeleton TO/TT, SE 10/27/2014, TitanSpine (additional predicate)K150643 – STALIF MIDLINE II-Ti, SE 06/08/2015, CentinelSpine (additional predicate)Reference devices - CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti SpacerSystem K121649 |
| Reason for 510(k) Submission:New product offering |
Device Description
The ØUÜZŒ PTC Spacer System is comprised of a variety of implants that have a PEEK core as described by ASTM F-2026 with two integrated porous Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) endplates as described by ASTM F1580. The FORZA PTC Spacer System is implanted in the intervertebral disc space and is intended to facilitate vertebral fusion by stabilizing
{4}------------------------------------------------
adjacent vertebrae, maintaining disc height, and preventing the collapsing of one vertebrate onto another.
The ØJÜZŒ ÍRTC Spacer System is not intended to be used as a standalone device. The ØUÜZŒ PTC Spacer System must be used with a supplemental fixation system. The ØJÜZŒ PTC Spacer System implants are provided sterile.
Intended Use / Indications for Use
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is indicated for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with deqenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved levels. These patients may have had a previous non-fusion surgery at the involved level(s).
The FORZA® PTC Spacer System is intended for use with autograft and /or allograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft and supplemental fixation, e.g. Firebird Spinal Fixation System.
Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the FORZA® PTC Spacer System.
Summary of the Technological Characteristics of the Device Compared to the Selected Predicate Devices
The technological characteristics of the FORZA® PTC Spacer system are similar to the predicate devices in terms of design, dimensions, intended use, materials, and performance characteristics.
PERFORMANCE DATA - Summary of Non-Clinical Test Conducted for Determination of Substantial Equivalence
Mechanical test and analysis was performed to establish mechanical strength for FORZA® PTC Spacer system (Static and Dynamic Axial Compression Test (ASTM F2077-11), Static and Dynamic Compression Shear Test (ASTM F2077-11), Static Torsion Test (ASTM F2077-11), Subsidence Test (ASTM F2267-04) and Expulsion Test (draft ASTM F04.25.02.02). Test results demonstrated that FORZA® PTC Spacer System is substantially equivalent to the predicate FORZA Spacer System K103111.
Surface specific characterization and integrity testing were done per ASTM F1978 (Taber abrasion), ASTM F1147 (tensile testing), ASTM F1044 (coating shear strength) and ASTM F1877 (wear test).
Conclusion
Based upon similarities in design, materials, intended use, indications for use and the results of mechanical testing, the FORZA® PTC Spacer system is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices.
§ 888.3080 Intervertebral body fusion device.
(a)
Identification. An intervertebral body fusion device is an implanted single or multiple component spinal device made from a variety of materials, including titanium and polymers. The device is inserted into the intervertebral body space of the cervical or lumbosacral spine, and is intended for intervertebral body fusion.(b)
Classification. (1) Class II (special controls) for intervertebral body fusion devices that contain bone grafting material. The special control is the FDA guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device.” See § 888.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.(2) Class III (premarket approval) for intervertebral body fusion devices that include any therapeutic biologic (e.g., bone morphogenic protein). Intervertebral body fusion devices that contain any therapeutic biologic require premarket approval.
(c)
Date premarket approval application (PMA) or notice of product development protocol (PDP) is required. Devices described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.