Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(28 days)
MODIFICATION TO CAPSURE PS SYSTEM
When used as a pedicle screw fixation system of the noncervical spine in skeletally mature patients, the CapSure® PS System is indicated for degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).
The CapSure® PS System is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation in skeletally mature patients with severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) at the L5-S1 vertebral joint, having fusions with autogenous bone graft, with the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (levels of pedicle screw fixation are L3-S1), and for whom the device is intended to be removed after solid fusion is attained.
The CapSure® PS System consists of a selection of non-sterile, single use titanium alloy rod, screw, and cross connector components that are assembled to create a rigid spinal construct. The components of the CapSure® PS System are attached to the non-cervical spine in order to stabilize the spine during fusion of the vertebral bodies, and are intended to be removed after spinal fusion is achieved.
This purpose of this submission is to gain clearance for the addition of the LP Cross Connector component to the CapSure® PS System. The LP Cross Connector is a non-sterile, single use, titanium allow device which can be used with the CapSure® PS System for added stability. The LP Cross Connector is available in lengths ranging from 38mm to 81mm.
This document is a 510(k) summary for the CapSure® PS System, a pedicle screw spinal system. It does not describe an AI/ML device or present a study comparing AI performance against acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted.
However, I can provide what is available regarding the device and its equivalence.
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for a clinical study comparing the device to a predicate. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" here refers to demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices through mechanical testing.
| Acceptance Criteria Type | Acceptance Criteria (Implicit) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial Equivalence | The device (CapSure® PS System with LP Cross Connector) must demonstrate substantial equivalence to its predicate devices (CapSure® PS System K083743, K083353) in terms of intended use, technological characteristics, and safety/effectiveness, particularly through mechanical testing. | "mechanical testing demonstrated that the CapSure® PS System is equivalent to the predicate CapSure® PS System. The differences between the CapSure® PS System and the predicate device do not raise any new questions of safety or effectiveness. Thus, the CapSure® PS System is substantially equivalent to its predicate device." The FDA concurred with this assessment, stating "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification...and have determined the device is substantially equivalent...to legally marketed predicate devices." This implies that the device met the implicit acceptance criteria for mechanical performance that allowed it to be considered equivalent to its predicates. |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
This information is not applicable as this is a 510(k) summary for a physical medical device (pedicle screw system), not an AI/ML device requiring a test set of data. The "study" mentioned is mechanical testing. Details about the sample size (number of constructs tested) and data provenance for this mechanical testing are not provided in this summary.
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)
This is not applicable. For mechanical testing of a physical device, ground truth is established by engineering standards and measurements, not by expert consensus on clinical data.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
This is not applicable as there is no test set in the context of clinical data requiring expert adjudication.
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. This document pertains to a physical spinal implant device, not an AI system that assists human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This is not applicable as this is not an AI algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
For the mechanical testing, the "ground truth" would be the established engineering standards, material properties, and biomechanical parameters against which the device's performance was measured. No clinical ground truth from patient data (expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes) is mentioned in the context of this 510(k) summary for the equivalence determination.
8. The sample size for the training set
This is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML system requiring a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML system.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1