Search Results

The Sovereign™ Spinal System is indicated for use with autogenous bone and/or allograft bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft, and/or demineralized allograft bone marrow aspirate in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Additionally, the Sovereign™ Spinal System is indicated for use in patients diagnosed with multilevel degenerative scoliosis and sagittal deformity conditions as an adjunct to fusion. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had 6 months of non-operative treatment. When used in patients as an adjunct to fusion in patients diagnosed with multilevel degenerative scoliosis and sagittal deformity conditions, additional supplemental fixation) must be used. These implants may be implanted via a variety of open or minimally invasive approaches include anterior and oblique.

The Sovereign™ Spinal System may be used as a stand-alone device or in conjunction with supplemental fixation. When used as a stand-alone device, the Sovereign™ Spinal System is intended to be used with 3 titanium alloy fixed or variable angle screws. The accompanying cover plate MUST be used anytime the device is used with any number of variable angle screws. If the physician chooses to use less than 3 or none of the provided screws, additional supplemental fixation in the lumbar spine must be used to augment stability. Implants with lordosis angles greater than 18° are intended to be used with supplemental fixation (e.g. facet screws or posterior fixation).

The SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System is an intervertebral body fusion device with internal screw fixation. The subject devices in this submission add additional polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant lordosis options with corresponding trials and PTC implant options with a Commercially Pure Titanium (CP Ti) coating, to the existing SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Medtronic SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System, which is an intervertebral body fusion device. The submission focuses on adding new polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant lordosis options and PTC implant options with a Commercially Pure Titanium (CP Ti) coating to the existing system. The document primarily discusses substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on mechanical testing and MRI compatibility. It does not describe an AI medical device or a study with clinical endpoints involving human readers or ground truth established by experts/pathology.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, study design, expert involvement, and AI performance metrics are not applicable to the information provided in the given text.

Based on the available information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The acceptance criteria for the SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System are based on mechanical testing standards. The reported device performance indicates that the subject implants met these criteria.

2. Sample size 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 the document describes mechanical and MRI compatibility testing of a physical medical device (intervertebral body fusion device), not a software or AI device with a test set of data.

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 information is not applicable as the document describes mechanical and MRI compatibility testing of a physical medical device. Ground truth by experts is not established for this type of testing.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not applicable as the document describes mechanical and MRI compatibility testing of a physical medical device. Adjudication methods are not used for this type of testing.

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 information is not applicable. The document does not describe an AI medical device or any study involving human readers.

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

This information is not applicable. The document does not describe an AI medical device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

For the mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the performance requirements set forth in the referenced ASTM standards. For MRI testing, it's about meeting safety and compatibility guidelines outlined by the FDA for the MR environment. These are objective engineering and regulatory standards, not clinical ground truth like pathology or expert consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as the document describes mechanical and MRI compatibility testing of a physical medical device, not an AI model requiring a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

This information is not applicable as the document describes mechanical and MRI compatibility testing of a physical medical device, not an AI model requiring a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SOVEREIGN® Spinal System is indicated for use with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to SI. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment. These implants may be implanted via a laparoscopic or an open anterior approach.

The SOVEREIGN® interbody system may be used as a stand-alone device or in conjunction with supplemental fixation.

When used as a stand-alone device, the SOVEREIGN® interbody device is intended to be used with the three titanium alloy fixed or variable angle screws. The accompanying cover plate MUST be used anytime the device is used with any number of variable angle screws. If the physician chooses to use less than three or none of the provided screws. then additional supplemental fixation for use in the lumbar spine must be used to augment stability.

The SOVEREIGN® Spinal System is an intervertebral body fusion device with integrated screw fixation. The screws protrude through the interbody portion of the device and stabilize the vertebral body while preventing expulsion of the implant. The implant is lens-shaped with three holes for placement of titanium screws. The SOVEREIGN® Spinal System contains both a fixed and a variable angle screw option. The fixed angle screw option provides an interference fit with the PEEK interbody implant. The variable angle screw option provides a slight clearance between the PEEK interbody implant and the screw which allows for a small amount of variable screw angulation. This system is intended to be radiolucent and the interior space of the product is to be used with autogenous bone graft. The accompanying cover plate is designed to resist screw backout and must be used when the variable angle screws are implanted. The SOVEREIGN® Spinal System interbody device is manufactured from PEEK (polyetheretherketone) and contains tantalum radiopaque markers. The screws used with this device are manufactured from titanium alloy.

The SOVEREIGN® Spinal System includes instrumentation that enables the surgeon to implant the devices via a laparoscopic or an open anterior approach. The purpose of this Special 510(k) submission is to make modifications to the inserter sleeve that is part of SOVEREIGN® Spinal System. The inserter sleeve is a cylindrical stainless steel sleeve, incorporating a polymer bushing, which is used in conjunction with the inserter knob and one of three inserter shafts to securely hold a SOVEREIGN® interbody implant during insertion and impaction into the vertebral disc space.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the SOVEREIGN® Spinal System. It describes modifications to an inserter sleeve, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, supported by non-clinical tests. However, it does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or a study that proves a device meets such criteria in a manner relevant to artificial intelligence or diagnostic performance.

Specifically, the document discusses:

• Device Description: The SOVEREIGN® Spinal System is an intervertebral body fusion device with integrated screw fixation. The current submission focuses on modifications to an inserter sleeve.
• Indications for Use: For degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1, with autogenous bone graft, for skeletally mature patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. It can be used as a stand-alone device with screws or with supplemental fixation.
• Technological Characteristics: The subject device is largely identical to the predicate SOVEREIGN® Spinal System, with the primary modification being the material of a bushing in the inserter sleeve (Radel polyphenylsulfone vs. Delrin polyoxymethylene).
• Predicate Devices: SOVEREIGN® Spinal System (K091813, K110063) as primary predicates, and CAPSTONE CONTROL™, PERIMETER®, and TELAMON® PEEK Spinal System for sterilization and cleaning rationale.
• Non-Clinical Tests: Mechanical (axial pull) testing, tolerance analyses, and user validation were performed to confirm the modified instrument functions as intended. Cleaning and sterilization assessments were also conducted in accordance with various ISO and AAMI standards.
• Conclusions: The sponsor concludes substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on a risk analysis and verification/validation testing of the instrument modifications.

The document does not include:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to diagnostic accuracy or efficacy studies. The "performance" discussed is related to the mechanical function of the inserter sleeve and its cleaning/sterilization.
2. Sample size, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC comparative effectiveness study, standalone performance, or type of ground truth for a diagnostic test set. These concepts are not applicable to the type of device and submission described (a modification to a surgical instrument, not an AI, diagnostic, or imaging device).
3. Sample size or ground truth establishment for a training set. Again, this is not relevant to a surgical instrument modification.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria in the context of AI, diagnostic performance, or similar efficacy studies because the provided text is about a hardware modification to a surgical intervertebral fusion device, not a diagnostic or AI-powered system.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System is indicated for use with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment. These implants may be implanted via a laparoscopic or an open anterior approach.

The SOVEREIGN™ Interbody System may be used as a stand-alone device or in conjunction with supplemental fixation.

When used as a stand-alone device, the SOVEREIGN™ interbody device is intended to be used with the three titanium alloy fixed or variable angle screws. The accompanying cover plate MUST be used anytime the device is used with any number of variable angle screws. If the physician chooses to use less than three or none of the provided screws, then additional supplemental fixation for use in the lumbar spine must be used to augment stability.

The SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System is an intervertebral body fusion device with internal screw fixation. The screws protrude through the interbody portion of the device and stabilize the vertebral body while preventing expulsion of the implant is lens-shaped with three holes for placement of titanium screws. The SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System contains both a fixed and a variable angle screw option. The fixed angle screw option provides an interference fit with the PEEK interbody implant. The variable angle screw option provides a slight clearance between the PEEK interbody implant and the screw which allows for a small amount of variable screw angulation. This system is intended to be radiolucent and the interior space of the product is to be used with autogenous bone graft. The accompanying cover plate is designed to resist screw backout and must be used when the variable angle screws are implanted.

The SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System interbody device is manufactured from PEEK Optima® (polyetheretherketone) and contains tantalum radiopaque markers. The screws used with this device are manufactured from titanium alloy.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System, specifically addressing an update to include modified screws. This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical mechanical testing.

Here's an analysis based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present acceptance criteria in a quantitative table format alongside performance data. Instead, it states that the testing was performed "in accordance with ASTM Standard F2077-03 'Test Methods for Intervertebral Body Fusion Devices'" and "ASTM Standard F2267-04 'Standard Test Method for Measuring Load Induced Subsidence of an Intervertebral Body Fusion Device under Static Axial Compression'." The acceptance criterion can be inferred to be meeting the performance requirements or demonstrating comparable performance to the predicate device as outlined by these ASTM standards.

The reported device performance is summarized as: "Based on the non-clinical testing conducted in accordance with ASTM F2077 and ASTM F2267 and additional supporting documentation provided in this premarket notification, the subject device demonstrated substantial equivalence to the predicate SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System (K091813 - S.E. 11/17/2009) in terms of design, intended use, indications for use and fundamental technology."

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each non-clinical test (e.g., number of implants, screws tested). It simply lists the types of tests performed.

Regarding data provenance, this is a pre-market notification (510(k)) for a medical device, which involves bench testing (non-clinical) of the physical device. Therefore, the data provenance is from laboratory testing, not human subjects. There is no information on country of origin for the data as it pertains to clinical studies, nor is it retrospective or prospective in a clinical sense.

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

This question is not applicable to the provided document. The "ground truth" for these types of mechanical tests is established by adherence to specified ASTM standard test methods and the resulting physical measurements (e.g., load, displacement). There are no human experts "establishing ground truth" in the way one would for diagnostic imaging.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies or studies involving expert interpretation (e.g., radiology reads). For mechanical bench testing, results are objective measurements.

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 question is not applicable. The SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System is a physical intervertebral fusion device, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant to its regulatory submission.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

As mentioned, for this type of submission, the "ground truth" is defined by the objective physical measurements obtained during controlled laboratory testing following established ASTM standards. The goal is to demonstrate that the device performs mechanically as intended and is comparable to a predicate device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. The SOVEREIGN™ Spinal System is not an AI algorithm, so there is no concept of a "training set" in this context.

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

This question is not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical medical implant.

Ask a specific question about this device