Search Results

The Genesys Spine AIS-C Cervical Anchored Interbody System is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine with accompanying radicular symptoms at one-disc level from C2-T1. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The system is designed for use with supplemental fixation (i.e. cleared cervical plating system) and with autograft to facilitate fusion. These patients should have had six weeks of non-operative treatment.

The Genesys Spine AIS-C Cervical Anchored Interbody System includes PEEK interbodies and titanium interbodies, which utilize an integrated titanium alloy locking mechanism. Both PEEK interbodies and titanium interbodies are to be anchored to patient anatomy via two (2) titanium allov bone anchors. The Cervical Anchored Interbody System (AIS-C) was designed to provide additional biomechanical strength to traditional ACDF procedures through integrated fixation combined with supplemental fixation.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Genesys Spine AIS-C Cervical Anchored Interbody System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices primarily through non-clinical (mechanical) testing. It does not contain information about a study involving human-in-the-loop performance, AI assistance, or the establishment of ground truth by medical experts for a diagnostic or AI-powered device. Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, expert qualifications, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and the (mechanical) study that proves the device meets those criteria.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The acceptance criterion for the mechanical tests was set as follows:

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a numerical sample size. The document mentions "all possible configurations of the AIS-C System constructs were analyzed in order to determine the worst case to be used for testing." This implies a selection of specific configurations for mechanical testing rather than a statistical sample size in the context of human data.
• Data Provenance: The data is from non-clinical mechanical testing, not human or patient data. Therefore, country of origin or retrospective/prospective classification is not applicable in the typical sense. The testing was conducted to U.S. standards (ASTM).

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. This document describes mechanical testing of a medical implant, not a diagnostic device or AI system that requires expert-established ground truth from medical images or patient data. The "ground truth" here is the physical performance against established industry standards and predicate device performance.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

• Not Applicable. Pertains to human review of data, not mechanical testing.

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:

• No. This was not an MRMC study and did not involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

• No. This device is a physical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is objective mechanical testing per established ASTM standards (F2077-11 for static and dynamic axial compression, compressive-shear, and torsion; F2267-04 for static subsidence; and ASTM draft standard F-04.25.02.02 for expulsion testing). The "truth" is whether the device meets or exceeds the mechanical performance of predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI or machine learning device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI or machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device