Search Results

The SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody System Spacer, either used individually or assembled to the SIRION plate, is indicated for intervertebral body fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine at one or two contiguous levels from L1-L2 to L5-S1. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). SIRION Spacers are to be used with autogenous bone graft and supplemental fixation. Approved supplemental fixation includes the Olympic Posterior Spinal Fixation System. Patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

The SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody System Plate, in 2-hole and 4-hole configurations, is indicated for use via a lateral or anterolateral surgical approach above the bifurcation of the great vessels in the treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar (T1-L5) spine instability or via the anterior surgical approach, below the bifurcation of the great vessels in the treatment of lumbar and lumbosacral (L1-S1) spine instability as a result of: fracture (including dislocation and subluxation), tumor, degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis, spinal stenosis, or a failed previous spine surgery.

The SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody System Plate, 1-hole buttress configuration is intended for use in conjunction with traditional supplemental fixation to maintain the relative position of interbody spacers during spinal fusion. The 1-hole plate is not intended for use in load-bearing applications

Hyperlordotic interbody devices (>20° lordosis) must be used in conjunction with the SIRION plate for fixation.

The Sirion Lateral Lumbar Interbody devices are implants developed for the substitution of the classical autogenous bone graft blocks. The cages assist to avoid complications related to the bone graft donation site (chronic pain, hematoma, infection, bone removal from the donor site making it impossible to remove bone again, quality of the iliac bone, accessing a healthy donor site that may become an unhealthy site, hernias by the incision). They are available in a range of footprints and heights to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. The implants have a hollow center to allow placement of autogenous bone graft. The superior and inferior surfaces are open to promote contact of the bone graft with the vertebral end plates, allowing bone growth (arthrodesis). The Sirion cages are designed to be used in conjunction with supplemental spinal fixation instrumentation.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion device:

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion device. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through clinical performance.

Based on the provided text, a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for a clinical study to prove performance against specific metrics is not available. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed."

Instead, the submission relies on non-clinical testing and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Here's what can be extracted from the document regarding testing and comparisons:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Based on Non-Clinical Testing and Equivalence):

Note: The document only states "The results of these evaluations indicate that the Sirion implants are equivalent to predicate devices." It does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or detailed results from these non-clinical tests.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. No clinical test set was used, as "No clinical studies were performed."
• Data Provenance: The non-clinical testing (FEA and Mechanical) was conducted internally or by a contracted lab for Astura Medical. The data provenance details (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) are not specified in the summary but would be part of the full 510(k) submission.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical test set was used, and therefore no ground truth established by experts for performance evaluation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable. No clinical test set was used.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size:

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The document explicitly states "No clinical studies were performed."

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

• Not applicable. This device is a physical medical implant, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" performance in the context of an algorithm is not relevant.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" would be established by validated engineering standards (ASTM F2077, ASTM F2267, etc.) and direct physical measurements and observations during testing (e.g., expulsion force, deformation under load). This is a technical ground truth based on established engineering principles and standardized test methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm, as this is a physical medical device. The "training" for this type of device development involves established engineering design principles, material science, and manufacturing processes.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

• Not applicable, as no training set for an AI/ML algorithm is mentioned.

Summary of the K202495 Submission:

This 510(k) clearance for the SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion device is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices (Sirion Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion K192006, Half Dome K152512, K163481, K172947, K182877, and ATEC ALIF and LLIF Spacer System K182746). The equivalence is supported by non-clinical testing (FEA for static/dynamic compression and shear, subsidence, and mechanical expulsion testing) which showed the new device to be comparable. No clinical studies were performed or required for this 510(k) clearance. The acceptance criteria are therefore implicit in the demonstrated equivalence to existing legally marketed devices and adherence to relevant ASTM standards for mechanical performance.

Ask a specific question about this device