Search Results

When used as a pedicle screw fixation system of the non-cervical posterior spine in skeletally mature patients, the COLORADO 21th Spinal System is indicated for one or more of the following: (1) degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, (2) fracture, (3) dislocation, (4) scoliosis, (6) spinal tumor, and/or (7) failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

In addition, when used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the COLORADO 2™ Spinal System is indicated for skeletally mature patients: (a) having severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the fifth lumbar-first sacral (LS-S1) vertebral joint; (b) who are receiving fusions using autogenous bone graft only; (c) who are having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 and below); and (4) who are having the device removed after the development of a solid fusion mass.

When used as a posterior, non-cervical, non-pedicle screw fixation system, the COLORADO 2™ Spinal System is intended for the following indications: (1) degenerative disc disease (as defined by back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), (2) spinal stenosis, (3) spondylolisthesis, (4) spinal deformities (i.e., scoliosis, and/or lordosis), (5) fracture, (6) pseudarthrosis, (7) tumor resection, and/or (8) failed previous fusion.

When used as an anterolateral thoracic/lumbar system, the COLORADO 2™ Spinal System is intended for the following indications: (1) degenerative disc disease (as defined by back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), (2) spinal stenosis, (3) spondylolisthesis, (4) spinal deformities (i.e., scoliosis, and/or lordosis), (5) fracture, (6) pseudarthrosis, (7) tumor resection, and/or (8) failed previous fusion.

The COLORADO 2 The Spinal System consists of a variety of shapes and sizes of rods, hooks, screws, cross connectors, and connecting components. COLORADO 2 114 implant components can be rigidly locked into a variety of configurations, with each construct being tailor-made for the individual case. COLORADO 2™ Spinal System implant components are fabricated from medical grade stainless steel described by such standards as ASTM F138 or ISO 5832-1 or ISO 5832-9. Alternatively, the entire system may be made out of medical grade titanium or titanium alloy described by such standards as ASTM F67 or ISO 5832-3 or 5832-2.

The COLORADO 2TM Spinal System can be connected to only 5.5mm rods of the TSRH® Spinal System, CD HORIZON® Spinal System, GDLH®, and the TENOR™ Spinal Systems through 5.5mm axial rod connectors (i.e., CD Horizon Domino, COLORADO 2™ Connector for Sacral and Illio-Sacral Plates, TSRH® Offset and Axial Plates, etc.). Components from other systems may not be combined with components of the COLORADO 2™ Spinal System. When used with the COLORADO 2™ Spinal System components from the other systems may only be used for the COLORADO 2™ Spinal System indications.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the COLORADO 2TM Spinal System. It details the product description, indications for use, and a statement of substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the document does not contain information regarding:

• Acceptance criteria for device performance.
• Any specific study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria.
• Reported device performance metrics.
• Sample sizes for test or training sets.
• Data provenance.
• Number or qualifications of experts.
• Adjudication methods.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance studies.
• Type of ground truth used.
• How ground truth for training was established.

The 510(k) process for spinal systems primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to already legally marketed predicate devices, focusing on materials, design, indications, and successful track record of the predicate. It does not typically involve the kind of performance studies with explicit acceptance criteria, ground truth, or expert review that would be found in submissions for diagnostic AI/ML devices or novel medical technologies without clear predicates.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the questions based on the provided text. The document states:
"The COLORADO™ 2 Spinal System is substantially equivalent to other legally marketed devices and Itself. A risk analysis was provided or referenced to demonstrate substantial equivalence."
This indicates that the primary "study" for this device was a demonstration of substantial equivalence, not a direct performance study against specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device