Search Results

When used as a vertebral body replacement device, the InFix System is intended for use in the thoracic and/or lumbar spine (T3-L5) to replace a collapsed, damaged or unstable vertebral body resected or excised (i.e., partial vertebrectorny procedures) due to tumor or trauma (i.e., fracture). The InFix System is designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle and posterior spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period. The InFix intended to be used with bone graft.

When used as an intervertebral body fusion device, the InFix System is indicated for use with autogenous bone graft at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbosacral region (12-S1) in the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at involved level may be treated with the device. Patients should be skeletally mature and six months of non-operative treatment. When used as an intervertebral body fusion device, the InFix implant is intended to be used with supplemental fixation.

For both of the indications listed above, the InFix implant is intended to be implanted via an open anterior approach.

The Ardis Interbody System is indicated for use with autogenous bone graft as an intervertebral body fusion device at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbosacral region (12-S1) in the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at involved level may be treated with the device. Patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non- operative treatment.

The Ardis Interbody System is implanted using a posterior or transforaminal approach and is intended to be used singly or in pairs with supplemental fixation.

The BAK/C implant is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine with accompanying radicular symptoms at one disc level. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. BAK/C implants are used to facilitate fusion in the cervical spine and are placed via an anterior approach at the C-3 to C-7 disc levels using autograft bone.

The BAK device is indicated for use with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels form L2-S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved levels(s). BAK devices are to be implanted via an open anterior or posterior approach. 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.

Standard BAK devices and BAK/Proximity devices are to be implanted via an open anterior or posterior approach. BP/Lordotic devices are to be implanted via an open anterior approach.

All BAK devices are also indicated for lapantation at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels for the same clinical indications described above.

Cadence and TraXis are vertebral body replacement devices that are intended for use in the thoracic and/or thoracolumbar spine (T3-LS) to replace a collapsed, damaged or unstable vertebral body resected or excised (i.e., partial or total vertebres) due to tumor or trauma (i.e., fracture). These devices 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. These devices are intended to be used with bone graff.

The Zimmer Spine Interbody Fusion and Vertebral Body Replacement Device Systems are intended for use in the cervical, thoracic and/or lumbar spine to mitigate and/or replace the disc space. The interbody fusion devices are intended for use with autogenous bone graft in patient with degenerative disc disease (DDD); defined as discogenic back pain and degeneration of the disc space. The vertebral body replacement (VBR) devices are intended to replace a collapsed, damaged or unstable vertebral body. VBR devices are designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle and posterior spinal column in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period.

The subject devices are to be implanted by either an anterior approach or a posterior approach or a transforaminal approach per the indications for use and/or the instructions of the surgical technique quide(s). The BAK devices are also indicated for laparoscopic implantation, per the device indications for use.

The Zimmer Spine Interbody Fusion and Vertebral Body Replacement Device System implants are manufactured from medical grade Ti-6AI-4V ELI titanium alloy or Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) OPTIMA with tantalum markers. The InFix system allows for the use of an optional Endcap made from Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE).

System(s) with instrumentation, the instruments are manufactured from one (or more) of the following materials: Surgical Grade Stainless Steel, Aluminum, Silicone Rubber, Radel, AITiN PVD coating, TiN PVD Coating, Nylon.

The subject implants are provided terminally sterilized with the exception of the InFix System, which is provided Non-Sterile. The InFix System must be sterilized by the end-user/healthcare facility prior to use. The subject implants are designed for single-use only. The System(s) instrumentation is provided to the end-user/healthcare facility clean but not sterile. The end-user/healthcare facility ensures through cleaning and sterilization of instrumentation before use.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for several spinal implant devices, primarily focused on updating product specific package inserts with MRI Conditional language. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" discussed relate to MRI compatibility, rather than clinical efficacy or diagnostic accuracy.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

2. Sample size 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 size for the MRI compatibility tests. It refers to "interbody fusion and VBR devices contained in the Zimmer Spine Interbody Fusion and Vertebral Body Replacement Device Systems," implying that representative samples of the various devices (Ardis, BAK, InFix, TraXis, etc.) were tested.

Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not mentioned as this type of testing is typically controlled laboratory testing of the devices themselves, not patient 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)

This type of information is not applicable to the performance testing described. MRI compatibility testing involves standardized physical measurements in a laboratory setting, not expert interpretation of clinical data to establish a "ground truth."

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

Not applicable. This testing is based on objective physical measurements according to ASTM standards, not subjective assessments requiring adjudication.

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 document is a 510(k) submission for spinal implants, specifically addressing MRI compatibility, not an AI-based diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This document does not describe an algorithm or AI.

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

Not applicable. For MRI compatibility testing, the "ground truth" is adherence to the physical and safety limits defined by the ASTM standards and regulatory requirements for MRI Conditional labeling.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Ardis Interbody System is indicated for use with autogenous bone graft as an intervertebral body fusion device at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbosacral region (L2-S1) in the treatment of degenerative disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at involved level may be treated with the device. Patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment.

The Ardis Interbody System is implanted using a posterior or transforaminal approach and is intended to be used singly or in pairs with supplemental fixation.

The Ardis® Interbody System is an implant device for interbody fusion of the anterior column of the spine. It is available in various height, width and length options. The device has a textured "tooth" pattern on both the cranial and caudal sides of the device and teardrop holes on the medial and lateral sides of the device. The implant incorporates an internal cavity that allows for the placement of bone graft material.

The system includes the single-use spacer implant, as well as the associated reusable instruments used for site preparation, trialing, and placement/extraction of the device, such as rasps, tamps, shavers, bone funnel, bone tamp, slap-hammer, T-handle and trials.

The provided document pertains to the 510(k) summary for the Ardis® Interbody System, an implantable medical device, not an AI/ML powered device. As such, it does not contain information typically found in studies for AI/ML devices, such as acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity), sample sizes for test sets in an AI/ML context, data provenance, ground truth establishment by experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details.

The "Summary of Performance Testing" section describes a simulated surgical evaluation using a cadaver specimen. This type of test is for the physical and functional aspects of the surgical device and instruments, not for an AI/ML algorithm's performance.

Here's the relevant information that can be extracted, interpreted in the context of a non-AI medical device:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
   Meet documented user needs and intended use (of the Ardis Interbody System and associated instruments)	"All responses met the established acceptance criteria."
   Function (of the associated instruments)	Evaluated and met criteria.
   Performance (of the associated instruments)	Evaluated and met criteria.
   Conformance to user needs and intended use (of the associated instruments)	Validated and met criteria.

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

   • Sample Size: A "cadaver specimen" was used. The document does not specify the number of cadaver specimens.
   • Data Provenance: The cadaver specimen provides biological/anatomical data. The study involved "participating healthcare professionals" suggesting a U.S. or similar clinical setting for the evaluation. Prospectiveness is implied as it's a simulated surgical evaluation.

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

   • Number of Experts: "Participating healthcare professionals" were involved. The exact number is not specified.
   • Qualifications of Experts: Not explicitly stated, but "healthcare professionals" implies medical doctors or other qualified clinical staff who would typically perform or assist in spinal surgeries.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable in the context of this type of performance testing for a physical device. The "function, performance, and conformance to user needs and intended use" were "validated based on responses received from the participating healthcare professionals," indicating an expert review or feedback process. It doesn't describe a formal adjudication method as understood for diagnostic accuracy studies.

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:

   • No, an MRMC study was not done. This study is for a physical surgical implant system, not an AI tool.

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

   • No, this is not an AI/ML algorithm. The performance testing was for the physical device and instruments, involving human interaction (healthcare professionals performing a simulated surgery).

7. The type of ground truth used:

   • For this type of device, "ground truth" relates to the physical and functional suitability of the device and instruments during a simulated surgical procedure. The "ground truth" was established by the feedback and validation from participating healthcare professionals on whether the device and instruments met their needs and intended use in a cadaver model.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device; therefore, there is no "training set." Device development would involve design, engineering, and iterative testing, but not in the sense of training a machine learning model.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set for an AI/ML model.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Ardis Interbody System is indicated for use with autogenous bone graft as an intervertebral body fusion device at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbosacral region (L2-S1) in the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at involved level may be treated with the device. Patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment.

The Ardis Interbody System is implanted using a posterior or transforaminal approach and is intended to be used singly or in pairs with supplemental fixation.

The Ardis® Interbody System is a device for interbody fusion of the anterior column of the spine. The Ardis implant may be used to replace the disc. These cages are hollow so that bone can grow through the device. fusing the adjacent bony surfaces.

The Ardis implant is a hollow device with texture on two opposing convex sides, and is offered in various lengths, widths and heights. Zimmer Spine designed Ardis to be placed through a posterior or transforaminal approach and to address vertebrae in the lumbosacral region of the spine. The system contains implants of various sizes to accommodate different patient anatomy. and instruments for site preparation. trialing and insertion. The device is crafted from (polvetheretherketone) PEEK-OPTIMA (ASTM F2026). As PEEK-OPTIMA is radiolucent, radiographic markers are included in the distal and proximal ends of the PEEK implants. The markers consist of tantalum wires and beads (ASTM F560) that are press fit into small holes in the implant. Additionally. the Zimmer Spine Ardis® Interbody System includes the instrumentation to facilitate the implantation of the system is comprised of instruments and perforated instrument cases that are generally comprised of aluminum, stainless steel. and/or polvmeric materials.

The Ardis Inserter that is the subject of this premarket notification is an instrument intended for use with the Ardis® Interbody System. The instrument is designed specifically to implant the PEEK interbody device into a prepared disc space. The inserter threads into the posterior hole of the PEEK implant securing the implant in place with a secondary locking (anti-rotation) mechanism. The inserter design is specific to the width measurement of the PEEK implant. A 9mm width implant will be used in conjunction with the PEEK Ardis Inserter, 9mm, and an 1 Imm implant will be inserted using the PEEK Ardis Inserter, 1 I mm.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Zimmer Spine Ardis® Interbody System and Ardis Inserter. However, it does not include information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML-enabled medical device.

The document discusses:

• The device description (spinal intervertebral body fusion device and its inserter).
• Its classification (Class II, Spinal Intervertebral Body Fusion Device).
• The predicate device (Zimmer Spine Ardis® Spacer System, K073202).
• Indications for Use.
• Technological characteristics and comparison to the predicate device (stating substantial equivalence).
• Performance Data: It briefly mentions "Design Verification Testing and Design Validation studies conducted on the Ardis Interbody System implants and instruments demonstrated the performance of the subject device was substantially equivalent in design, function, material, biocompatibility and sterilization when compared to the predicate device."
• Substantial Equivalence: It reiterates that documentation was submitted to demonstrate substantial equivalence, and that the design modification (the inserter itself) does not present new issues of safety or effectiveness.

Based on the provided text, none of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance tables, sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance for an AI/ML-enabled medical device is available.

This document is a traditional 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (an intervertebral body fusion device and its inserter), focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through engineering design verification and validation, material testing, biocompatibility, and sterilization, rather than AI/ML performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device