Search Results

MARVEL™ Growing Rods are indicated in patients under 10 years of age with potential for additional spine growth who require surgical treatment to obtain and maintain correction of severe, progressive, life threatening, early onset spinal deformities associated with thoracic insufficiency, including early onset scoliosis, as part of a growing rod construct.

MARVEL™ Growing Rods are posterior stabilization rods that can be surgically lengthened by manual mechanical actuation on a periodic basis as the patient grows. These rods are used as part of a growing rod construct consisting of MARVEL™ rods and screws, and are limited to a posterior approach. The rods include a tapered distal tip for a minimally invasive surgical approach. MARVEL ™ Growing Rods are manufactured from titanium alloy and PEEK.

The provided text describes a medical device submission (K213196) for MARVEL™ Growing Rods. This document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and study results in the format you requested for an AI/algorithm-based device.

Therefore, the information required to answer your specific questions about acceptance criteria, study data, ground truth, and expert involvement for an AI medical device cannot be found in this document.

This document describes a physical medical device (growing rods for spinal deformities) and primarily relies on mechanical performance testing and material biocompatibility to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not the performance of an AI algorithm.

To explicitly answer your points:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not applicable. The document describes mechanical performance tests (static and dynamic compression bending, static component torsion) in accordance with ASTM F1717 and ASTM F543, and bacterial endotoxin testing (BET) per ANSI/AAMI ST-72:2011. It states "Performance data demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate devices" but does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or reported performance values for these tests.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This refers to mechanical testing of physical rods, not a test set for an algorithm.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth and expert review are not relevant for the mechanical testing of a physical device.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
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 device is not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device