Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(60 days)
RANGE SPINAL SYSTEM, UNIT ROD
The Range Spinal System is comprised of the DENALI DEFORMITY, and MESA Spinal Systems and the ARI Anterior Vertebral Body Staples, all of which are cleared for the following indications:
Non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation devices for posterior stabilization as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: trauma ( i.e. fracture or dislocation ); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion. It is also indicated 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 ( LS to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.
Non-cervical, non-pedicle spinal fixation devices intended for posterior or anterolateral thoracolumbar screw stabilization as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: 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 Range Spinal System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (thoracic-lumbar) spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, locking set screws, and hooks.
Materials: The devices are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and Cobalt Chrome per ASTM and ISO standards.
Function: The system functions as an adjunct to fusion to provide immobilization and stabilization of the posterior thoracic and lumbar spine.
The K120899 submission is for the Range Spinal System, specifically to add a "unit rod" component. This is a spinal fixation system, which is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/ML device studies, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, and how ground truth was established for training sets, are not applicable.
The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through design comparisons and mechanical performance testing.
Here's the relevant information based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are implied by the comparison to predicate devices and adherence to ASTM standards for mechanical testing. The reported performance demonstrates substantial equivalence to these established benchmarks.
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Substantial equivalence in design to predicate devices | The design features and sizing of the components were compared to predicate devices and the Range Spinal System was found to be substantially the same as these systems. |
| Compliance with ASTM F1717 mechanical testing for implant safety | Modified implants were tested in static compression, static torsion, and dynamic compression in accordance with ASTM F1717. |
| Mechanical performance of modified implants comparable to original Range Spinal System components | The modified implants were determined to be substantially equivalent to the predicate devices based on mechanical testing. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
Not applicable. This is a physical device, and the "test set" refers to physical implants undergoing mechanical stress testing, not a dataset of patient information or images.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of device performance, refers to objective mechanical measurements rather than expert human interpretation.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. Mechanical testing involves quantitative measurements, not expert adjudication.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done
No, an MRMC study was not done. This is a physical spinal implant system, not a diagnostic or prognostic AI/ML algorithm that would involve human readers interpreting cases.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
No, a standalone performance study was not done. This is a physical device, not an AI algorithm.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
For the mechanical performance testing, the "ground truth" would be the objective, quantitative measurements obtained from the physical tests (e.g., force, displacement, cycles to failure) as defined by ASTM F1717. For the design comparison, the "ground truth" was a comparison of design features and sizing against legally marketed predicate devices.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1