Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(182 days)
The G Surgical OCT Spinal System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the craniocervical junction, cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the thoracic spine (T1 to T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical/thoracic spine; and degenerative disease, including intractable radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, neck and/or arm pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by radiographic studies, and degenerative disease of the facets with instability.
The G Surgical OCT Spinal System is also intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage tumors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion.
In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the G Surgical OCT Spinal System may be connected to the G Surgical Pedicle System (GPS™) using 3.5mm/6.0mm axial connectors, domino connectors and transition rods.
G Surgical OCT Spinal System consists of longitudinal members, anchors, interconnecting devices and fasteners in a variety of sizes to accommodate differing anatomic requirements. The implants are sold non-sterile.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the G Surgical OCT Spinal System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on mechanical testing benchmarks, not on clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy of an AI-powered device. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI device performance, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies is not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document.
However, I can provide the available information regarding the device's performance data as it relates to mechanical testing.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria for the G Surgical OCT Spinal System are not explicitly stated in a quantitative table within this document. Instead, the document refers to industry standards for mechanical testing and implies that performance equivalent to predicate devices is the acceptance criterion.
| Acceptance Criterion (Implicit) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Mechanical performance of worst-case constructs according to ASTM F1717 for static and dynamic compression bending and static torsion, and ASTM F2706 for static and dynamic compression bending and torsion. | "The mechanical test results demonstrate that G Surgical OCT Spinal System performance is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." (Specifically, the Synapse OCT - K142838, Virage OCT Spinal System - K153631, CerviFix StarLock System - K994187, and Uniplate Anterior Cervical Plate - K042544). The document does not provide specific quantitative results from these mechanical tests, only the conclusion of substantial equivalence. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
This document describes a medical device (surgical implant) and its mechanical performance, not an AI device or a diagnostic test. Therefore, the concept of a "test set" in the context of clinical data, along with data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable to the information provided. The "test set" here refers to the physical samples of the device constructs used for mechanical testing. The sample size for these mechanical tests is not specified in this summary.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
This information is not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of this document, refers to the physical properties and mechanical behavior of the device components as tested against established engineering standards (ASTM F1717, ASTM F2706). The "ground truth" is verified through engineering testing, not by expert interpretation of clinical data.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not applicable. Given that this concerns mechanical testing of an orthopedic implant, there is no expert adjudication process for a "test set" of clinical data.
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
This information is not applicable. The device described is a spinal implant for surgical use, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool or an imaging system requiring human readers.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This information is not applicable as the device is a physical surgical implant, not an algorithm.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation in this document is primarily based on engineering standards and mechanical test results. The device's performance is compared against the performance of legally marketed predicate devices, as demonstrated through adherence to ASTM F1717 and ASTM F2706 standards for spinal implant testing.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI device for this document. The mechanical testing does not involve machine learning or AI.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
This information is not applicable. As explained above, there is no training set for an AI device in this context.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1