(264 days)
CAPSTONE™ SPINAL SYSTEM
The CAPSTONE™ Spinal System is indicated for interbody fusion with autogenous bone graft in patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) at one or two levels from L2 to S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment. These implanted via an open or a minimally invasive posterior approach. Alternatively, these implants may also be implanted via an anterior and/or transforaminal approach. These implants are to be used with autogenous bone graft. These devices are intended to be used with supplemental fixation instrumentation, which has been cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.
CLYDESDALE PTC™ SPINAL SYSTEM
The CLYDESDALE PTC™ Spinal System is designed to be used with autogenous bone graft to facilitate interbody fusion and is intended for use with supplemental fixation systems cleared for use in the lumbar spine. The CLYDESDALE PTC™ Spinal System is used for patients diagnosed with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment. These implants may be implanted via a minimally invasive lateral approach.
CRESCENT™ SPINAL SYSTEM
The CRESCENT® Spinal System is indicated for interbody fusion with autogenous bone graft in patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) at one or two levels from L2 to S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature of nonoperative treatment. These implants are to be used autogenous bone graft. These devices are intended to be used with supplemental fixation instrumentation which has been cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.
CRESCENT™ SPINAL SYSTEM TITANIUM
The CRESCENT Spinal System Titanium is indicated for interbody fusion with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment. These implants are to be used with autogenous bone graft. These devices are intended to be used with Medronic supplemental fixation which has been cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.
DIVERGENCE-L™ ANTERIOR/OBLIQUE LUMBAR FUSION SYSTEM
The DIVERGENCE-L™ Anterior/Oblique Lumbar Fusion System Interbody cage is intended for interbody fusion in skeletally mature patients and is to be used with supplementation cleared for use in the lumbar spine. The DIVERGENCE-L™ Anterior/Oblique Lumbar Fusion System Interbody device is indicated for use in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Additionally, the DIVERGENCE-L™ Anterior Oblique Lumbar Fusion System device is indicated for use in patients diagnosed with deformity conditions as an adjunct to fusion. These patients should have had six months of non- operative treatment. The DIVERGENCEL™ Anterior/ Oblique Lumbar Fusion System interbody device is intended to be used with autograft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft. The DIVERGENCE-L™ Anterior/Oblique Lumbar Fusion System interbody cage is also required to be used with autogenous bone graft. These implanted via a variety of open or minimally invasive approaches. These approaches include anterior and oblique.
The Intervertebral Body Fusion Device Systems are intended for vertebral body fixation of the thoracic or lumbar spine during the development of a thoracic or lumbar spinal fusion. Lumbar interbody fusion devices are intended for stabilization use and to promote bone fusion during the normal healing process following surgical correction of disorders of the spine.
This document [K191788](https://510k.innolitics.com/search/K191788) is a 510(k) premarket notification for Medtronic Intervertebral Body Fusion Device Systems (specifically, the CAPSTONE™ Spinal System, CLYDESDALE PTC™ Spinal System, CRESCENT™ Spinal System, CRESCENT™ Spinal System Titanium, and DIVERGENCE-L™ Anterior/Oblique Lumbar Fusion System).
The submission is primarily focused on an MRI Update for these existing devices, meaning the purpose is to provide data demonstrating their safety and compatibility within the Magnetic Resonance (MR) environment. This is a common type of submission for established medical devices when new safety information or a change in labeling regarding MR compatibility needs to be supported.
Based on the provided text, there is no AI/ML component to this specific submission. The "device" in question refers to intervertebral body fusion implants, which are passive mechanical implants, not software algorithms or AI-driven systems. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies for an AI/ML device is not applicable to this document.
Here's a breakdown based on the information provided, highlighting the absence of AI/ML-specific details:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria (Not explicitly stated for AI/ML, but for MR Safety) | Reported Device Performance (As per testing) |
|---|---|
| Safety and Compatibility in MR Environment | MR Safety Testing conducted in accordance with: |
- ASTM F2052 (measurement of magnetically induced displacement force)
- ASTM F2213 (measurement of magnetically induced torque)
- ASTM F2119 (evaluation of MR image artifacts)
- ASTM F2182 (measurement of radio frequency induced heating)
The Medtronic Intervertebral Body Fusion Device Systems have been labeled in accordance with ASTM F2503 "Standard Practice for Marking Medical Devices and Other Items for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance Environment." |
| No significant adverse interactions, displacement, torque, heating, or artifacts beyond specified limits during MRI. | (Implicitly met as the conclusion states the devices are "as safe and effective" as predicates and are labeled for MR safety.) Specific quantitative performance data from these tests (e.g., exact displacement forces, temperature increases, artifact sizes) are not provided in this summary document, but would have been included in the full submission. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Not Applicable (N/A) for an AI/ML test set.
- The performance data provided is for MR safety testing of physical implants, not an AI/ML algorithm. The "test set" would consist of the physical devices themselves and the materials they are made from, subjected to various MR field conditions in a lab environment.
- Data provenance is typically from controlled laboratory testing environments, not patient data in the context of AI/ML.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Not Applicable (N/A). This is a question relevant to AI/ML model evaluation involving human expert interpretation. For physical device MR safety testing, ground truth is established by physical measurements and compliance with ASTM standards, not expert consensus on interpretations.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Not Applicable (N/A). Adjudication methods are for human interpretation of data, often in AI/ML performance studies. MR safety testing involves physical measurements and engineering evaluations.
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 (N/A). There is no AI/ML component or human-in-the-loop scenario described in this submission. This is a K-number for physical intervertebral body fusion devices and their MR compatibility, not an AI/ML software.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not Applicable (N/A). This document concerns physical intervertebral body fusion implants, not a standalone AI/ML algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- Not Applicable (N/A) in the context of AI/ML.
- For the MR safety testing, the "ground truth" (or reference standard) is defined by the ASTM test methods and their specified thresholds/parameters. For example, a certain level of magnetically induced displacement is acceptable, and exceeding that is considered unsafe.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not Applicable (N/A). There is no AI/ML algorithm in this submission, and therefore no training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not Applicable (N/A). There is no AI/ML algorithm or training set discussed in this document.
Summary of Document K191788:
This 510(k) premarket notification is for intervertebral body fusion device systems (implants used in spinal surgery). The core of this particular submission is an MRI Update, which means the manufacturer is providing data to demonstrate the safety and compatibility of these existing physical implants when subjected to Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging environments. The document details the various predicate devices and the indications for use of the Medtronic systems. The "performance data" section explicitly lists MR safety testing conducted according to recognized ASTM standards. The conclusion states that based on this data, the devices are "as safe and effective as the following predicates" and have been appropriately labeled for MR safety. The document does not involve any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or software algorithm performance evaluation.
§ 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.