Search Results

CERVICAL INTERBODY FUSION DEVICE

When used as a cervical intervertebral body fusion device (C-Plus), the Interbody Fusion (IBF) / Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) System ("IBF/VBR System") is indicated for intervertebral body fusion of the spine in skeletally mature patients. Cervical IBFs are intended for use at one level in the cervical spine, from the C2-C3 disc to the C7-T1 disc, for the treatment of cervical disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies). The cervical device is to be used in patients who have had six weeks of non-operative treatment. IBFs are designed for use with autogenous bone graft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous, cortical, and/or corticocancellous bone graft to facilitate fusion. IBFs are intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation cleared for the implanted level, such as Streamline OCT, SlimFuse, Cequence, PAC, or Aspect Systems.

LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION DEVICE

When used as a lumbar intervertebral body fusion device (Rotate, Bullet-Tip, T-Plus, Contact, CrossFuse, and CrossFuse II), the Interbody Fusion (IBF) / Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) System ("IBF/VBR System") is indicated for intervertebral body fusion of the spine in skeletally mature patients. Lumbar IBFs are intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Lumbar IBFs are to be used in patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. IBFs are designed for use with autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. IBFs are intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation cleared for the implanted level, such as Quantum, Streamline TL, Contact ALP, Streamline MIS Systems, or Lat-Fuse Lateral Plate System.

VERTEBRAL BODY REPLACEMENT

When used as a vertebral body replacement (VBR) device (C-Plus, Rotate, Bullet-Tip, T-Plus, Contact, CrossFuse, and CrossFuse II), the Interbody Fusion (IBF) / Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) System ("IBF/VBR System") is intended for use in the thoracolumbar spine (TI-L5) for partial replacement (i.e., partial vertebrectomy) of a diseased vertebral body resected or excised for the treatment of tumors in order to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body. VBRs are also indicated for treating fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. VBRs are designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle and posterior spinal column, even in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period of time. The system must be used with supplemental fixation cleared for the conditions listed above (i.e., tumor or trauma of TI-L5) such as the Streamline TL Spinal Fixation System. Streamline MIS Spinal Fixation System or Quantum Spinal Fixation System. Additionally, the VBR device is intended to be used with bone graft.

The system includes implantable devices manufactured from PEEK with tantalum or titanium alloy radiographic markers that are available in a variety of different shapes and sizes to accommodate varying patient anatomy and surgical approach. The IBF/VBR implants may be implanted via a variety or open or minimally invasive approaches, including anterior, lateral, posterior and oblique.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Interbody Fusion (IBF) / Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) System". It concerns the clearance for the use of allogenic bone graft with the existing C-Plus cervical intervertebral body fusion device.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

This document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria or specific device performance metrics in numerical form. Instead, the basis for clearance is substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Pioneer IBF/VBR System K133455) and a literature analysis. The "performance" in this context refers to demonstrating that the expanded indication (use of allogenic bone graft) poses no new risks and is equivalent to the established performance with autogenous bone graft.

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 the test set: Not applicable and not explicitly stated. The submission relies on a "literature analysis of published clinical data" rather than a new test set generated for this 510(k). The literature analysis would have encompassed various studies, each with its own sample size.
• Data provenance: Not specified in terms of country of origin or whether the individual studies in the literature analysis were retrospective or prospective. The submission only states it's "published clinical data."

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 a literature analysis, not a new study with a ground truth established by experts specifically for this submission. The "ground truth" (clinical outcomes) would have been established within the original published studies by the researchers and clinicians involved.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable. No new test set or adjudication process was performed for this 510(k) submission.

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. This is a spinal implant device, not an AI/imaging device.

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

Not applicable. This is a spinal implant device, not an AI/imaging device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" implicitly referred to in the literature analysis would be the clinical outcomes data from previously published studies on cervical interbody fusion devices using allogenic bone graft. This would include fusion rates, pain reduction, adverse events, etc.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. No new algorithm or model was trained for this submission. The device is a physical implant.

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

Not applicable. No new algorithm or model was trained for this submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for use as a soft tissue patch to reinforce soft tissue where weakness exists and for the surgical repair of damaged or ruptured soft tissue membranes. Indications for use include the repair of hernias and /or body wall defects which require the use of reinforcing or bridging material to obtain the desired surgical outcome. The device is intended for reinforcement of soft tissues in plastic and reconstructive surgery.

The device is intended for single patient use only.

The proposed device is an implantable surgical mesh comprised of non-crosslinked porcine dermis that has been processed, terminally sterilized and is stored hydrated and ready to use. The proposed device is designed to perform as a scaffold that allows for neovascularization and permits replacement of the device with host tissue. The device in its unopened, undamaged package is sterile.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Fortiva™ porcine dermis and Tutoplast® porcine dermis surgical meshes. The purpose of this submission is to demonstrate that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device (K123356). The document describes the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and performance data supporting its substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a numerical or target-based format. Instead, it demonstrates equivalence to a predicate device through various tests. Equivalence is the de-facto acceptance criteria in this context for a 510(k) submission.

• Tensile maximum load
• Burst strength
• Suture pullout strength | Unimplanted tensile maximum load, burst strength and suture pullout strength were equivalent for the proposed and predicate devices. |
  | Viral Inactivation | Demonstrated ability of process to inactivate model viruses with a wide range of characteristics. | Results demonstrate the ability of the process to inactivate viruses with a wide range of characteristics (enveloped and non-enveloped, RNA and DNA, low resistance and high resistance). |
  | Pyrogenicity | Device did not elicit a pyrogen response in rabbit test; Endotoxin level

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is indicated as a dura substitute for the repair of dura mater.

The proposed device is composed of bovine pericardium processed through a proprietary tissue preservation and sterilization process which includes gamma irradiation. The proposed device is composed of collagenous connective tissue with three-dimensional intertwined fibers and can be fixed regardless of the direction of the device. Collagenous connective tissue with multidirectional fibers retains the mechanical strength and elasticity of the native tissue, while providing the basic structure to support replacement by new endogenous tissue. The proposed device in its unopened, undamaged package is sterile.

The provided document describes the K132850 submission for a Bovine Pericardium Suturable Dural Graft, Tutopatch™ DM Graft, or Tutoplast® Bovine Pericardium DM. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than establishing novel acceptance criteria with a specific study framework for entirely new performance standards.

Here's a breakdown based on the information provided, tailored to your request but highlighting the context of a 510(k) submission:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

In a 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence, "acceptance criteria" are typically defined by demonstrating performance comparable to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than predefined absolute thresholds for a novel device. The document uses predicate device performance as the benchmark for "substantial equivalence."

Ask a specific question about this device