Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(76 days)
MODIFICATION TO:RADIUS SPINAL SYSTEM
The Radius® Spinal System is intended for use in the noncervical spine. When used as an anterior/anterolateral and posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation system, the Radius Spinal System is intended to provide additional support during fusion using autograft or allograft in skeletally mature patients in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities: degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.
The Radius Spinal System can also be linked to the Xia® Titanium Spinal System via the Ø5.5 mm to Ø6.0 mm Radius® rod-to-rod connector.
This 510(k) is intended to introduce an extension to the existing Radius ® Spinal System. The proposed line extension includes the additional screws, rods, and cross connectors.
The provided text describes a Special 510(k) Premarket Notification for a line extension to the Radius Spinal System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through mechanical performance testing.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria (What the device needed to achieve) | Reported Device Performance (What the device actually achieved) |
|---|---|
| Mechanical performance comparable to predicate devices. | The results obtained from Static Compression Bending testing, Static Torsion testing, and Fatigue Compression Bending testing per ASTM F1717 were compared to those of a predicate system to demonstrate substantial equivalence. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not explicitly state the sample size for the mechanical performance tests. It mentions that "tests were conducted" without specifying the number of components or repetitions. The data provenance is described as being generated through in-vitro mechanical testing conducted by the manufacturer, Stryker Spine. It is not patient data, so "country of origin of the data," "retrospective or prospective" are not applicable in this context.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
Not applicable. The ground truth for this device is based on objective mechanical testing against industry standards (ASTM F1717) and comparison to predicate devices, not expert human assessment.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. As noted above, the assessment is based on objective 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
Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic tool. There is no human reader component to its evaluation.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant, not an algorithm. However, the mechanical testing can be considered "standalone" in that it evaluates the device's physical properties independently.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth used is based on:
- Industry Standard Mechanical Testing: Adherence to ASTM F1717 for Static Compression Bending, Static Torsion, and Fatigue Compression Bending.
- Comparison to Predicate Devices: Performance results were compared to a legally marketed predicate system to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant and does not involve AI algorithms that require a "training set" in the conventional sense.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.
Summary of the Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:
The study proving the Radius Spinal System line extension meets its acceptance criteria is a mechanical performance testing study. This study involved:
- Testing Method: Static Compression Bending testing, Static Torsion testing, and Fatigue Compression Bending testing, all conducted according to ASTM F1717.
- Comparison: The results from these tests on the new components of the Radius Spinal System were compared to those of a predicate system.
- Outcome: The comparison demonstrated substantial equivalence in terms of mechanical performance between the new components and the predicate devices. This approach aligns with the recommendations provided in the "Guidance for Industry & FDA Staff Spinal System 510(k)s, May 3, 2004."
The ultimate acceptance criterion for this device, based on the 510(k) process, is demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate devices, particularly in terms of material, design, mechanical performance, and indications for use. The mechanical testing described is the mechanism through which this equivalence for performance was established.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1