Search Results

When used as a cervical intervertebral body fusion device, the Aleutian implants are indicated for spinal fusion procedures to be used with autogenous bone graft in skeletally mature patients. Cervical IBF implants are intended for use at one level in the cervical spine, from C2 to T1, for the treatment of cervical disc disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies). The cervical device is intended to be used in patients who have had six weeks of non-operative treatment.

When used as a lumbar intervertebral body fusion device, the Aleutian implants are indicated for spinal fusion procedures to be used with autogenous bone graft in skeletally mature patients. The lumbar IBF implants 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 (DDD) 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. The lumbar device is intended to be used in patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment.

When used as vertebral body replacement devices the Aleutian implants are indicated for use in the thoracolumbar spine (T1 to L5) for partial replacement (i.e., partial vertebrectomy) of a diseased vertebral body, resected or excised for the treatment of tumors or trauma/fracture in order to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body. The Aleutian implants 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.

For all the above indications the Aleutian implants are intended to be used with supplemental internal fixation appropriate for the implanted level, including K2M Pedicle Screw and Hook Systems, and K2M Spinal Plate Systems.

The Aleutian IBF System consists of a hollow tube or horseshoe-shaped structures manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetheretherketone). The devices are available in a variety of different sizes and heights to match more closely the patient's anatomy. The implants have machined teeth which are designed to engage with the vertebral body end plates.

Materials: The devices are manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) OPTIMA® LT1 (Invibio™) per ISO 10993-1 USP Class VI and ASTM F2026. Tantalum beads /rods to be Grade UNS R05200, UNS R05400 according to ASTM F560.

Function: The system functions as an intervertebral body fusion device to provide support and stabilization of the cervical and lumbar segments of the spine.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Aleutian IBF System, which is an intervertebral body fusion device. The focus of the document is on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, primarily through comparison of technological characteristics and preclinical testing.

Based on the information provided, here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study as requested:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This submission relies on preclinical testing (Finite Element Analysis and static mechanical testing) and comparison to predicate devices, not clinical patient data with a test set.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective human data. The testing described is preclinical engineering analysis and mechanical testing.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• Not applicable. As a preclinical mechanical evaluation, there's no "ground truth" derived from expert clinical interpretation of data in the way one would for diagnostic imaging. Expertise in biomechanical engineering and material science would have been involved in the design and interpretation of the Finite Element Analysis and mechanical testing.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. There is no clinical test set requiring adjudication in this submission.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic devices (e.g., AI in radiology) comparing human performance with and without AI assistance. This document is for an intervertebral body fusion device, which is a physical implant.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This concept is applicable to software or AI algorithms. The device is a physical medical implant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the preclinical testing mentioned (Finite Element Analysis and static compression/torsion), the "ground truth" refers to established engineering principles, material properties (e.g., ASTM F2077 standards for spinal implants), and the performance characteristics of the predicate devices. The aim was to demonstrate that the new device components do not introduce new safety or effectiveness concerns compared to these established benchmarks.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable. As there is no training set, there is no corresponding ground truth to establish for it.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a physical medical implant, the Aleutian IBF System. The "study" described is a preclinical engineering evaluation consisting of Finite Element Analysis validated by static compression and torsion testing. Acceptance criteria revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence in technological characteristics (materials, design, mechanical performance) and intended use to existing legally marketed predicate devices, rather than clinical performance metrics in a patient population or AI model performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Aleutian Spacer System is indicated for use in the thoracolumbar spine (T1 to L5) for partial replacement (i.e., partial vertebrectomy) of a diseased vertebral body, resected or excised for the of tumors or trauma/fracture in order to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord on and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body. The Aleutian Spacer System is designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle, and posterior spinal column even is the anserve of fusion for a prolonged period.

The Aleutian Spacer System is intended to be used with supplemental internal fixation. The supplemental fixation systems that may be used with this implant are the Denali System, Denali Deformity and Mesa Spinal system.

The Aleutian Spacer System consists of a hollow tube structure manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetheretherketone). The devices are available in a variety of different sizes ond heights to match more closely the patient's anatomy. The ends of the implants have machined teeth which are desired to angage with the vertebral body end plates.

Materials: The devices are manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) OPTIMA® LT1 (Invibio™) per ISO 10993-1 USP Class VI and ASTM F2026. Tantalum beads /rods to be Grade UNS R05200, UNS R05400 according to ASTM F560.

Function: The system functions as a partial vertebral body replacement device to assist in fusion and to provide support and stabilization of the thoraco-lumbar segments of the spine.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Aleutian Spacer System, a medical device. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device, rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them as would be found in a performance study for a novel AI/software medical device.

Therefore, the requested information elements related to AI device performance evaluation (such as sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth types) are not present in this document.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or a formal performance study against such criteria. Instead, it emphasizes substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The "performance" reported is that the device is manufactured from medical-grade materials and its function is described.

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

Not applicable. This is not a performance study for an AI/software device involving a 'test set' of data. The "study" is a demonstration of substantial equivalence.

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

Not applicable. No ground truth was established by experts for a test set in the context of this 510(k) submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. No adjudication method was used as there was no test set requiring ground truth establishment.

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 medical implant device, not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical implant device, not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

Not applicable. The "ground truth" for a 510(k) for a physical implant device is typically established through engineering testing, material specifications, and comparison to existing, legally marketed devices (predicate devices).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable. No training set was used.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Aleutian Spacer System is indicated for use in the thoracolumbar spine (T1 to L5) for partial replacement (i.e., partial vertebrectomy) of a diseased vertebral body, resected or excised for the treatment of tumors or trauma/fracture in order to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body. The Aleutian Spacer System is designed to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period.

The Aleutian Spacer System is intended to be used with supplemental internal fixation. The supplemental internal fixation intended to be used with this implant is the K2M Denali Spinal System.

The Aleutian Spacer System consists of a hollow tube structure manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetheretherketone). The devices are available in a variety of different sizes and heights to match more closely the patient anatomy and which are designed to engage with the vertebral body end plates.

Materials: The devices are manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetherether): OPTIMA I T1 (Invibio™) per ISO 10993-1 USP Class VI and ASTM F2026. Tantalum beads to be Grade UNS R05200 according to ASTM F560.

Function: The system functions as a vertebral body replacement device to assist in fusion and to provide stabilization of the thoraco-lumbar segments of the spine.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Aleutian Spacer System, a vertebral body replacement device. It establishes substantial equivalence by comparing it to predicate devices. However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria.

Such information would typically be found in a performance study or clinical data section, which is absent from this summary. The 510(k) process primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring extensive de novo clinical trials with predefined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the input text.

Ask a specific question about this device