(77 days)
The Mont Blanc and Mont Blanc MIS Spinal Systems are intended to provide immobilization 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 and sacral/iliac screw fixation.
The Mont Blanc and Mont Blanc MIS Spinal 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, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.
When used in a posterior percutaneous approach with MIS instrumentation, the Mont Blanc MIS System is 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, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.
When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the Mont Blanc MIS Spinal Systems metallic implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The Mont Blanc and Mont Blanc MIS Spinal Systems are intended to be used with autograft. Pediatric pediale screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.
The Spineway Mont Blanc and Mont Blanc MIS Spinal Systems are composed of implant device made from a titanium alloy Ti6Al4V-ELI per ISO 5832-3 and Cobalt-Chrome per ISO 5832-12. All implant components are provided sterile. It is to be implanted from the posterior approach. The screws are available as monobloc and monobloc reduction (traction) screws and polyaxial reduction (traction) screws in diameters from 4.0-8.0 mm and in lengths from 25-55 mm and polyaxial iliac screws of 7 and 8mm diameters with lengths from 55mm to 110mm. Rods are available in 5.5mm diameter in lengths from 40-500 mm. Hooks are available in various sizes to attach to the thoracic and lumbar spine. Transverse connectors are available in various sizes to attach to the two parallel rods. Associated instrumentation to complete the procedure is provided.
Screws for MIS applications are available as polyaxial cannulated screws in diameter from 4.5-8mm and in lengths from 25-60mm. Rods for MIS applications are available as 5.5mm pre-bent rods from 50-140mm and straight rods from 50-500mm.
This document is a 510(k) Pre-Market Notification from the FDA regarding the Spineway Mont Blanc and Mont Blanc MIS Spinal Systems. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, primarily through mechanical performance testing.
Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request about acceptance criteria and studies that prove the device meets them:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a table format, nor does it provide specific reported device performance values in a table. Instead, it relies on comparison to predicate devices and established ASTM standards. The "Conclusion" states that the device is substantially equivalent to predicate devices in terms of "mechanical test results." This implies that the device's performance in the listed tests was comparable to or better than the predicate devices, thereby meeting an implicit acceptance criterion tied to the predicate's performance and the ASTM standards.
The performance standards listed are the tests performed, not the numerical acceptance criteria or the specific device performance outcomes.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
The document does not specify the sample sizes used for the mechanical tests (e.g., number of implants tested). It refers to "pre-clinical testing performed per ASTM F1717-14" and "pre-clinical testing performed per ASTM F1798-98 (2003)." These ASTM standards typically outline the methodologies and requirements for testing, which would include sample size recommendations, but the specific sample sizes used in this particular study are not detailed in the provided text.
The data provenance is implied to be from Spineway S.A., a company located in Ecully, France. The testing is pre-clinical bench testing, not human clinical trial data, so the terms retrospective or prospective don't directly apply in the same way.
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)
This question is not applicable to the provided document. The document describes pre-clinical mechanical testing of a spinal implant system. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to the physical properties and performance of the device under specific test conditions, which are measured directly by engineering methods, not established by expert consensus or interpretations in the way medical images or diagnostic outcomes are.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations (e.g., of medical images). The studies described here are mechanical bench tests, where measurements are objective and do not require expert adjudication in this manner.
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
This question is not applicable. The device described is a spinal implant system (pedicle screws, rods). It is not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not relevant to this submission.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This question is not applicable. The device is a physical spinal implant system, not a software algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
As mentioned in point 3, the concept of "ground truth" for a mechanical device largely pertains to its physical and mechanical properties. The "ground truth" for the test set would be the objective measurements obtained from the mechanical tests (e.g., force at failure, stiffness) as defined by the ASTM standards. There is no expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data used to establish "ground truth" for these pre-clinical tests. The acceptable "truth" is whether the device meets or exceeds the mechanical properties of the predicate device and the standard requirements.
8. The sample size for the training set
This question is not applicable. There is no machine learning or AI component to this device that would require a "training set." The testing described is traditional mechanical engineering testing.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This question is not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.
In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence for a physical spinal implant system through pre-clinical mechanical testing, rather than studies involving AI, human readers, or clinical outcomes data.
§ 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.