Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(110 days)
ENNOVATE Spinal System
The ENNOVATE® Spinal System is intended for anterior/anterolateral and posterior, non-cervical pedicle and nonpedicle fixation. Fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and is intended to be used as an adjunct to fusion using autograft or allograft. The ENNOVATE System can be used in both an Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). The device is indicated for treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities:
- Degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies).
- Spondylolisthesis,
- Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation)
- Spinal Stenosis,
- Deformities or Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis),
- Tumor.
- Pseudoarthrosis, and
- Failed previous fusion
The ENNOVATE Spinal System is an implant system used to correct spinal deformity and facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas of the spine. This system includes screws of varying types, diameters and lengths, hooks, rods, rod-to-rod connectors, lateral offset and cross connectors of various styles and lengths. All implant components are top loading and top tightening. The implants in this system are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ISO 5832-3 as well as CoCr alloy conforming to ISO 5832-12.
The ENNOVATE Spinal System is a spinal rod and screw system. This system's screws can be rigidly locked into a wide range of configurations, therefore allowing each construct to be formed to the needs of an individual patient. All screws within this system are not intended for use with bone cement. Rods of this system may be shaped intraoperatively to correct or maintain proper spinal curvature. The hooks have curved blades underneath the head portion of the implant that wrap around posterior anatomy of the spine to provide an alternative method of anchoring the rod to the spine.
The provided text does not contain information about an AI/ML-powered medical device or its performance criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and a 510(k) summary for the ENNOVATE® Spinal System, which is a physical medical device (a thoracolumbosacral pedicle screw system) used for spinal fusion.
Therefore, I cannot answer the questions related to acceptance criteria for an AI device, sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or training set details, as this information is not present in the provided context for this specific device.
The "Performance Data" section in the document refers to biomechanical testing of the physical spinal implant system (e.g., dynamic/static compression, torsion tests per ASTM standards, endotoxin testing), not the performance of a software algorithm.
Ask a specific question about this device
(135 days)
ENNOVATE Spinal System
The ENNOVATE Spinal System is intended for anterior/anterolateral and posterior, non-cervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation. Fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and is intended to be used as an adjunct to fusion using autograft or allograft. The ENNOVATE System can be used in both an Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). The device is indicated for treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities.
- Degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies).
- Spondylolisthesis,
- Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation)
- Spinal Stenosis.
- Deformities or Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis),
- Tumor.
- Pseudoarthrosis, and
- Failed previous fusion
The ENNOVATE Spinal System is an implant system used to correct spinal deformity and facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas of the spine. This system includes polyaxial screws of varying diameters and lengths, rod-to-rod and cross connectors of various styles and lengths. All implant components are top loading and top tightening. The implants in this system are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), conforming to ISO 5832-3.
The ENNOVATE Spinal System is a spinal rod and screw system. This system's polyaxial screws can be rigidly locked into a wide range of configurations, therefore allowing each construct to be formed to the needs of an individual patient. Rods of this system may be shaped intraoperatively to correct or maintain proper spinal curvature.
This document describes a spinal system, not a device that would typically have acceptance criteria and performance metrics in the way an AI/ML or diagnostic device would. This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "ENNOVATE Spinal System," which is a metallic implant system for spinal fusion.
The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than establishing novelty or specific performance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for a diagnostic tool.
Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to this type of device and regulatory submission. I will explain why each category is not applicable and what information is provided in the document.
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
- Not Applicable. For a spinal implant system like the ENNOVATE Spinal System, "acceptance criteria" are typically related to mechanical and material performance standards, not diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes in the same way as an AI/ML device. The "performance" reported is compliance with these standards through mechanical testing.
Acceptance Criteria (Mechanical / Material Standards) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Mechanical Testing: | |
Dynamic/Static compression (ASTM F1717-15) | Testing completed. |
Static torsion (ASTM F1717-15) | Testing completed. |
Dynamic compression/tension (ASTM F2193-14) | Testing completed. |
Dynamic/Static flexion bending (ASTM F1798-13) | Testing completed. |
Static rod grip (ASTM F1798-13) | Testing completed. |
Static rod/cross rod torsion (ASTM F1798-13) | Testing completed. |
Axial compression (ASTM F543-13) | Testing completed. |
Pull out strength (ASTM F543-13) | Testing completed. |
Driving torque (ASTM F543-13) | Testing completed. |
Material Composition: | |
Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ISO 5832-3 | Meets standard. |
Medical grade silicone, stainless steel, titanium alloy, and PEEK (for instruments) | Same materials as predicate devices. |
Note: The document states that "All required testing per 'Draft Guidance for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications (510(k)s) Applications for Orthopedic Devices-The Basic Elements' were done where applicable. In addition, testing per the guidance 'Spinal System 510(k)s May 3, 2004' was completed where applicable." This indicates that the device met the performance requirements outlined in these guidance documents, primarily through mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
The following sections are NOT APPLICABLE because this document describes a physical spinal implant system, not a diagnostic AI/ML device requiring clinical performance evaluation with ground truth.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic. No 'test set' of clinical data for diagnostic performance is described. The 'test set' here refers to physical devices tested in a lab.
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. Ground truth, in the context of expert review, is for diagnostic devices or AI, not for mechanical spinal implants.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical endpoints or diagnostic interpretations, not for mechanical testing of an implant.
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 specific to AI/ML diagnostic tools, not an orthopedic implant.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not Applicable. This is specific to AI/ML diagnostic tools.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- Not Applicable. Ground truth refers to the definitive determination of a condition for diagnostic purposes. For a spinal implant, the "truth" is whether it meets engineering specifications and functions mechanically as intended.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not Applicable. This is for AI/ML models. No training set is involved for this mechanical device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not Applicable. As above, no training set or ground truth in this context.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1