Search Results

CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System

When used as a cervical intervertebral body fusion device, the CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System is indicated for spinal fusion procedures at one or two contiguous levels within the cervical spine (C2-T1), in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). DDD is defined as neck pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies.

The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System is intended for use with autograft and /or allograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft and supplemental fixation (i.e. anterior cervical plate such as the Orthofix ACP or Hallmark® System).

Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System in the cervical spine.

When used as a Partial Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) System, the CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System is indicated for use in the thoracolumbar spine (T1-L5) for partial replacement (i.e., partial replaced vertebral body resected or excised for the treatment of tumors, to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body. The CONSTRUX Mimi PEEK Spacer System is also indicated for treating fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine.

The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer 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 of time. The Partial VBR device is intended to be used with autograft or allograft.

The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System is intended for use with internal fixation. The supplemental internal fixation system that may be used with the CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System is the Orthofix Spinal Fixation System (SFS) or the Firebird Spinal Fixation System.

CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System

The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System is indicated for spinal fusion procedures at one or two contiguous levels within the cervical spine (C2-T1), in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). DDD is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies.

The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System is intended for use with autograft and /or allograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft and supplemental fixation system (i.e. anterior cervical plate such as the Orthofix ACP or Hallmark® System).

Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System in the cervical spine.

CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System:

The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System is comprised of a variety of implants manufactured from PEEK and with titanium markers. The implants are available in two footprint sizes, a small and a large. The implants are available in various heights, in onemillimeter increments. The superior and inferior surfaces of the implant have a pattern of ridges to provide increased stability and help prevent anterior/posterior movement of the device.

CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System:

The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System is comprised of a variety of implants that has a PEEK core with integrated porous Titanium end plates. The superior and inferior Titanium plate surfaces of the implant provide increased stability for the implant. The implants are available in three footprint sizes and various heights. The CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti spacer is implanted in the cervical intervertebral disc space and is intended to facilitate vertebral fusion by stabilizing adjacent vertebrae, maintaining disc height, and preventing the collapsing of one vertebrate onto another.

This is a 510(k) submission for a medical device (CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System and CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing a performance study of a diagnostic AI device. Therefore, much of the requested information about acceptance criteria, study design, and AI-specific metrics is not applicable to this document.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the basis for substantial equivalence and the "performance data" presented, which primarily focuses on mechanical testing related to the device's physical properties or reference to existing clinical data, rather than a clinical study evaluating diagnostic accuracy.

Here's the breakdown of what can be derived from the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This document does not present a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the context of a diagnostic study with specific metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC. The "performance data" refers to the lack of need for new mechanical or clinical testing due to the nature of the submission (expanded indications for an unchanged device substantially equivalent to a predicate).

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

Not applicable. This is not a study assessing the performance of a diagnostic device on a test set. The submission is for an intervertebral body fusion device and focuses on substantial equivalence based on material, design, and intended use.

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

Not applicable. There is no diagnostic test set with ground truth established by experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. There is no diagnostic test set.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

Not applicable. This document is not about a diagnostic AI device and does not involve human readers interpreting images with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

Not applicable. This document is for a physical medical implant, not a standalone algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

Not applicable. There is no diagnostic study with a ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This document describes a medical device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable.

Summary of "Performance Data" from the Document (as it relates to the device):

The document explicitly states:

• Mechanical Testing: "No changes have been made to the actual implants and therefore no mechanical testing was performed to help determine substantial equivalence." This implies that prior mechanical testing results for the original CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System and CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System, or the predicate device (Valeo Spacer System), were deemed sufficient and applicable due to no design changes to the implants themselves.
• Clinical Testing: "Published clinical data for the cervical interbody fusion devices similar to the CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System and CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System, implants was provided in support of this application. The published clinical outcomes demonstrated that the use of PEEK interbody devices for one or two contiguous levels in anterior cervical fusion procedures, as defined above, poses no new or additional risks to patients. No changes were made to the existing devices, nor were any new components added to the system. Therefore, no additional clinical testing was required or performed."

Key Takeaway from the FDA Letter:

The FDA's review for K150619 is a 510(k) premarket notification, which aims to demonstrate that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This is different from a PMA (Premarket Approval) which often requires extensive clinical trials to prove safety and effectiveness for novel devices.

The "acceptance criteria" here are aligned with the criteria for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K142264 - Valeo Spacer System and K142152 – CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Spacer System and CONSTRUX Mini PEEK Ti Spacer System). The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is the comparison to the predicate device and reference to existing data, rather than a new, independent performance study with specific metrics. The claim is that because the device has not changed in design and has similar intended use and technological characteristics to already cleared devices, it poses no new or additional risks.

Ask a specific question about this device