Search Results

The GALAXY MIS Screw System is intended to provide immobilization of the posterior, non-cervical spine as an adjunct to fusion in skeletally mature patients for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), spinal stenosis, curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis and/or lordosis), tumor, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion. The GALAXY MIS Screw System can be used in an open approach and a percutaneous approach with MIS instrumentation.

The GALAXY MIS Screw System consists of GALAXY MIS SCREW (cannulated polyscrews), GALAXY MIS ROD (straight type rods and pre-bent type rods) and GALAXY Set Screw (set screw components) that can be inserted via percutaneous surgical approach. The components are available in a variety of diameters and lengths in order to accommodate patient anatomy and are fabricated from titanium alloy (ASTM F 136). The implants will be provided non-sterile.

This FDA submission is for a medical device, the GALAXY MIS Screw System, which is a pedicle screw spinal system used for spinal fixation. As such, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical performance testing rather than clinical studies involving human patients or complex AI algorithms. Therefore, many of the requested categories regarding clinical study details (like sample size for test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details) are not applicable in this context.

Here's the information that can be extracted from the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

This information is not provided in the document. For non-clinical (mechanical) testing, sample sizes typically refer to the number of devices or components tested, and provenance is not relevant.

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

This is not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of clinical studies and AI, refers to expert-validated diagnoses or outcomes. This submission involves non-clinical mechanical testing, where the "ground truth" is defined by the physical properties measured against engineering standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical studies to resolve disagreements among experts or raters. Mechanical tests are typically performed according to standardized protocols without expert adjudication in this sense.

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 is not applicable. The device is a surgical implant, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, and therefore no MRMC study would be conducted.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical testing was defined by the acceptance criteria established in the ASTM F1717 standard for various mechanical properties (static compression, tension, torsion, dynamic compression bending). This is a technical standard rather than an expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the clinical sense.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI model, so there is no "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

This is not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device