Search Results

The ISOLA Spinal System is a pedicle screw system intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The ISOLA Spinal System is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

The ISOLA Spinal System is also a hook and sacral/iliac screw fixation system of the noncervical spine indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with deqeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (fracture and/or dislocation), spinal stenosis, deformities (scoliosis, lordosis and/or kyphosis), tumor, and previous failed fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The ISOLA Spinal System when used with pedicle screws is indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies). Levels of fixation are for the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The additional ISOLA Spinal components are connectors, open and closed iliac screws, iliac bolts, and anqled closed iliac screws. These components have been designed to allow for rigid fixation of the sacral, iliac and pelvic regions of the spine. The ISOLA Spinal System also contains Class 1 manual surgical instruments and cases that are considered exempt from premarket notification.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the ISOLA Spinal System, a medical device. It describes the device, its intended use, and indicates that performance data was submitted. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study description to prove the device meets said criteria.

The document states: "PERFORMANCE Performance data were submitted to characterize the DATA: ISOLA Spinal System components." This indicates that performance testing was conducted and the results were provided to the FDA, but the summary itself does not elaborate on the specific tests, criteria, or outcomes.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based solely on the input text. The information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth, and expert qualifications is not present in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Posterior ISOLA Spinal System, when used with pedicle screws, is indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis). Levels of fixation are for the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The Posterior ISOLA Spinal System is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation for severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1, when autogenous bone graft is used, when affixed to the posterior lumosacral spine, and intended to be removed after solid fusion is attained. Levels of fixation are from L3-S1.

The Posterior ISOLA Spine System, when not used with pedicle screws, is intended for hook, wire, and/or sacral/iliac screw fixation from T1 to the ilium/sacrum. The nonpedicle screw indications are spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), deformities (scoliosis, lordosis and kyphosis), tumor, fracture, and previous failed fusion surgery.

The Anterior ISOLA Spine System is intended for use in correcting scolictic, lordotic or kyphotic spinal deformities by establishing an axially and rotationally rigid fixation bridge parallel to the long axis of the system is indicated in situations where loss of correction is expected, where severe scoliosis exists or where pelvic obliquity is present.

The Anterior ISOLA Spine System is used for the correction and stabilization of scoliotic curves, for the prevention or recurrence of undesired scoliotic curves, and for the stabilization of weakened trunks. Specific indications include:

1. Collapsing and unstable paralytic deformity
2. Progressively increasing scollosis.
3. Decreasing cardio-respiratory function, secondary to spinal or rib deformity or collapse.
4. Inability to maintain sitting balance, necessitating the use of the hands.
5. Increasing pelvic obliquity coincident with back pain or loss of sitting balance.
6. Spinal fractures (acute reduction or late deformity).
7. Degenerative Disc Disease (Defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies).
8. Spinal turnor.
9. Previous failed fusion surgery.

Spinal levels for Anterior ISOLA are from T5-L4.

The primary purpose of this premarket notification is to add indications to the marketing clearance for the pedicle screws which may be used as a spinal anchor in the ISOLA Spinal System. The ISOLA Spine System is manufactured from either stainless steel conforming to ASTM F-138 or F-1314 specifications, or titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F-136 specifications.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the ISOLA Spinal System's acceptance criteria and studies:

Based on the provided document, the "ISOLA Spinal System" is a medical device, specifically a spinal fixation system, cleared through a 510(k) premarket notification process. This process focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring extensive clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety in the same way a PMA (Premarket Approval) submission would.

Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described in the input refer to the performance data provided to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices, not a clinical study proving device performance against specific, pre-defined outcome criteria in a patient population.

Here's the breakdown of the information requested:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria (Implicit - based on 510(k) requirements for spinal fixation systems):
For spinal fixation systems in a 510(k) submission, the primary acceptance criteria for performance data revolve around demonstrating that the mechanical properties of the new device are at least equivalent to or better than those of previously cleared predicate devices under similar testing conditions. This typically involves:

• Static Mechanical Performance: Ability to withstand applied loads without permanent deformation or failure.
• Fatigue Mechanical Performance: Ability to withstand cyclic loading for a specified number of cycles without failure, simulating the stresses of in vivo use over time.

Reported Device Performance:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in terms of the number of device constructs tested. The description simply refers to "constructs of the ISOLA Spinal System."
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. This "performance data" refers to in-vitro mechanical testing, not clinical data from patients. Therefore, terms like "country of origin" or "retrospective/prospective" are not applicable in this context.

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

• Not applicable. The performance data is based on engineering mechanical tests, not expert interpretation of clinical data or images.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. As this involves mechanical testing, there is no "adjudication method" in the sense of reconciling different expert opinions. The outcome is determined by physical measurements and material science principles.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document describes a 510(k) submission for a spinal implant, which relies on mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not clinical effectiveness studies comparing human readers with and without AI. AI is not mentioned in this document.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only)

• No. This is not an AI-driven device. The "performance data" relates to the mechanical properties of the physical spinal implant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Mechanical Testing Standards/Specifications: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by recognized engineering and material science standards (e.g., ASTM standards for materials) and internal test protocols designed to simulate in vivo conditions, allowing for comparison to predicate devices' performance data. The explicit statement is "Static and fatigue testing show the constructs of the ISOLA Spinal System to perform consistently with previously cleared components."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires "training data."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable. Again, this is not an AI/machine learning device.

Summary and Context:

The 510(k) process is primarily about demonstrating that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. For implants like the ISOLA Spinal System, this typically means showing that its materials, design, and mechanical performance are comparable to devices already on the market. The provided text confirms this through the statement: "Static and fatigue testing show the constructs of the ISOLA Spinal System to perform consistently with previously cleared components." This demonstrates that the device meets the implicit acceptance criteria of being mechanically equivalent to established devices in its class.

Ask a specific question about this device