Search Results

The Osseus Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System is 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 thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, and/or lordosis), spinal tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

The Osseus Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System is also intended for non-cervical pedicle screw fixation for the following indications: 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. It is also intended for the following indications: trauma (i.e. fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The Osseus Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System is a top loading, multiple component, posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods and cross links. All of the components are available in a variety of sizes to match more closely the patient's anatomy.

This is a 510(k) summary for a spinal implant system and as such, it does not involve AI/ML device performance testing. The 'acceptance criteria' and 'device performance' in this context refer to mechanical and material performance rather than diagnostic accuracy or classification metrics.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document explicitly states "The results of this testing indicate that the Osseus Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System is equivalent to predicate devices." This implies that the device met the performance standards established by the predicate devices through these ASTM tests. The specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., maximum load, fatigue life) are not detailed in this summary document but would have been part of the full submission.

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

Given this is a mechanical engineering test of a physical device, not an AI/ML system:

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify the exact number of units or replicates tested for each static and dynamic test. These would typically be defined by the ASTM F1717 standard and the test protocol.
• Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical, meaning they were performed in a laboratory setting on manufactured devices, not on human patients or data derived from them. The data is generated from physical mechanical testing.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Experts

• This question is not applicable to this type of device submission. Ground truth, in the context of device performance described here, is established by adherence to ASTM standards for mechanical testing, not by expert interpretation of data or images.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This question is not applicable. Mechanical tests according to ASTM standards do not involve adjudication by multiple experts in the same way clinical or AI/ML studies do. The results are quantitative measurements against predefined engineering specifications.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant to diagnostic imaging devices or AI systems where human readers interpret medical images. This submission is for a physical orthopedic implant.
• Effect Size: Not applicable as no such study was performed.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• This question is not applicable. This device is a physical pedicle screw system, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering standards and specifications (specifically ASTM F136 for materials and ASTM F1717 for mechanical performance). The device's performance is compared against the known performance of legally marketed predicate devices through these standardized mechanical tests.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a pedicle screw system's mechanical testing. This concept applies to AI/ML devices.

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

• This question is not applicable. As there is no training set, there is no ground truth establishment for it.

In summary, the provided 510(k) summary describes a traditional medical device (a spinal implant) and its non-clinical mechanical testing, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or therapeutic device. Therefore, many of the questions related to AI/ML study design, readers, and ground truth are not relevant to this specific document. The "study" referenced is a series of mechanical tests to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device