The ISOBAR Spinal System consists of pedicle screws, rods, nuts and crosslink members utilized 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 thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

As a pedicle screw system, the ISOBAR Spinal System is intended for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebrae in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

Device Description

The ISOBAR Spinal System consists of pedicle screws. rods, nuts and crosslink members. It can be used for single or multiple level fixation. All components are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6A1-4V) that conforms to ASTM F136.

This system consists of pedicle screws that required rod attachment directly over the top of the screw (U-Line Screws) and a combination of screws and clamps that allow the rod to be offset from the screw (Hemispherical Headed Screws).

AI/ML Overview

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the ISOBAR Spinal System. This type of submission is for medical devices and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific performance criteria through a rigorous standalone study in the way an AI/software device would.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for an AI/software device's acceptance criteria and study design are not applicable to this spinal implant device. The "performance data" section in this document refers to mechanical testing to ensure the device meets engineering standards, not clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, highlighting where the information is not applicable (N/A) for this type of medical device submission.

Acceptance Criteria and Study Information for ISOBAR Spinal System

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria (What standard needs to be met)	Reported Device Performance (How the device performed)
ASTM F1717-96: Static Compression Testing	Performed (Implied compliance, no specific numerical results provided)
ASTM F1717-96: Fatigue Compression Testing	Performed (Implied compliance, no specific numerical results provided)

Note: The FDA established no performance standards applicable to pedicle screw spinal systems at the time of this submission. The testing conducted was to an industry standard. The document states "was performed according to ASTM F1717-96," which implies the device met the requirements of this standard, but no specific numerical performance data (e.g., maximum load, cycles to failure) is provided in this summary.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

N/A. This device is a physical pedicle screw system, not an AI/software device that would have a "test set" of data. The "testing" refers to mechanical integrity testing of the implants themselves. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not relevant to this type of mechanical testing.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

N/A. Ground truth and expert adjudication are not applicable to the mechanical testing of a physical implant device for this type of submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

N/A. Adjudication method is not applicable to the mechanical testing of a physical implant device.

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

N/A. This is a physical spinal implant, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device. MRMC studies are not relevant.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

N/A. This is a physical spinal implant, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device. Standalone algorithm performance is not relevant.

7. The type of ground truth used

N/A. This is a physical spinal implant. Mechanical testing relies on engineering specifications and measurements, not "ground truth" derived from clinical outcomes, pathology, or expert consensus in the diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical spinal implant. There is no "training set" in the context of AI/machine learning. If by "training set" it refers to the number of devices mechanically tested, that information is not provided in this summary.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

N/A. Not applicable, as there is no "training set" or "ground truth" in the AI/ML context for this device.

Summary

{0}------------------------------------------------

3/22/99

K990118

510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness

(1) Submitter's name: Submitter's address: Submitter's telephone number: Contact person: Date summary prepared:
Encore Orthopedics, Inc. 9800 Metric Blvd. Austin. TX 78758 (512) 834-6237 Debbie De Los Santos November 5, 1998
(2) Trade or proprietary device name: Common or usual name: Classification name:
ISOBAR Spinal System Pedicle screw spinal system Class II

Legally marketed predicate device: (3)

Subject device description: (4)

(ર) Subject device intended use:

(6) Performance data:

The Food and Drug Administration have established no performance standards applicable to pedicle screw spinal systems. However, static and fatigue compression testing of the U-Line Screws with Crosslinking and Hemispherical Screws with Crosslinking was performed according to ASTM F1717-96.

(7) Basis for substantial equivalence:

The ISOBAR Spinal System has similar design characteristics, i.e., material, screw size, lateral screw/rod connection, crosslinking connectors and indications, as the Spine System® Evolution (K980484/K982914), Synergy™ (K950099) and Mirage (K951846) systems distributed by Aesculap, Cross Medical and Alphatec Manufacturing, respectively.

{1}------------------------------------------------

Image /page/1/Picture/1 description: The image is a black and white logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo features a circular design with the text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" arranged around the perimeter. Inside the circle is a stylized image of three human profiles facing to the right, stacked on top of each other, with flowing lines suggesting movement or connection.

Food and Drug Administration 9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville MD 20850

MAR 2 2 1999

Ms. Debbie De Los Santos Regulatory/Clinical Specialist Encore Orthopedics, Inc. Representing Scient'x 9800 Metric Boulevard Austin, Texas 78758

Re: K990118 Scient'x ISOBAR Posterior Spinal System Trade Name: Requlatory Class: II Product Codes: MNH and MNI Dated: January 12, 1999 Received: January 13, 1999

Dear Ms. De Los Santos:

We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device referenced above and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to devices marketed in interstate able beaced in the enough, 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). 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.

If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (Premarket Approval), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 895. ਸੈ substantially equivalent determination assumes compliance with the current Good Manufacturing Practice requirement, as set forth in the Quality System Regulation (QS) for Medical Devices: General regulation (21 CFR Part 820) and that, through periodic (QS) inspections, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will verify such assumptions. Failure to comply with the GMP regulation may result in regulatory In addition, FDA may publish further announcements action. concerning your device in the Federal Register. Please note: this response to your premarket notification submission does not affect any obligation you might have under sections 531 through 542 of the Act for devices under the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions, or other Federal laws or regulations.

{2}------------------------------------------------

Page 2 - Ms. Debbie De Los Santos

This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial equivalence of your device to a legally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.

If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling requlation (21 CFR Part 801 and additionally 809.10 for in vitro diagnostic devices), please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4659. Additionally, for questions on the promotion and advertising of your device, please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4639. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR 807.97). Other general information on your responsibilities under the Act may be obtained from the Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 443-6597 or at its internet address "http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsmamain.html".

Sincerely yours,

Celia M. Witten, Ph.D., M.D.

Director Division of General and Restorative Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Enclosure

{3}------------------------------------------------

510(k) Number (if known): ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Device Name: __ ISOBAR Spinal System

Indications For Use:

ISOBAR Spinal System

Indications For Use

(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)

Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)

bicolee

510(k) Num

Prescription Use (per 21 CFR 801.109)

Over-The-Counter Use _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Optional Format 1-2-96)_

Regulation Number and Section

N/A