Search Results

The King Cobra™ Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation of the cervical spine (C2-C7) as an adjunct to fusion. These implants have been designed to provide stabilization for the treatment of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with the degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fractures or dislocations), spinal stenosis, deformity (i.e., kyphosis, lordosis or scoliosis), tumor, pseudarthrosis or failed previous fusion.

The King Cobra™ Cervical Plate System consists of self-tapping screws and plates. Screws are available in a variety of diameter- length combinations. Plates are available in a variety of lengths.

The provided text describes the "King Cobra™ Cervical Plate System" and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than an AI/ML device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML specific aspects like acceptance criteria for algorithmic performance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, and training/test set details are not applicable here.

However, I can extract the information related to the device's technical characteristics and the study performed to support its substantial equivalence.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For medical devices, "acceptance criteria" often refer to performance standards met through specific tests. In this case, the device is a spinal plate system, and its performance is evaluated against mechanical testing standards. The acceptance criterion is that the device performs "as well as or better than the predicate device."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a "sample size" in the context of human data or test sets. The performance data is based on mechanical testing of the "worst case King Cobra™ construct." The specific number of constructs tested is not detailed.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable as this is mechanical testing of a medical device, not a study involving human data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• Not applicable as this is mechanical testing of a medical device, not a study establishing ground truth with expert review.

4. Adjudication Method

• Not applicable.

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

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done as this is a mechanical medical device, not an AI/ML system or diagnostic tool typically evaluated with such studies.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

• Not applicable as this is a mechanical medical device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for the mechanical performance was established by ASTM F1717 (Standard Test Methods for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Vertebrectomy Model), which is an industry standard for mechanical testing of spinal implants. The comparison was against the performance of a predicate device.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable as this is a mechanical medical device, not an AI/ML model that requires training data.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device