Search Results

The STALIF C® is intended to be used as an intervertebral body fusion cage as a standalone system used with bone screws provided and requires no additional supplementary fixation systems. It is inserted between the vertebral bodies into the disc space from levels C2 to T1 for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies). The device system is designed for use with autograft bone to facilitate fusion. STALIF C® is intended to be used at one level.

The cervical cage is to be used in a skeletally mature patient who has had six weeks of non-operative treatment prior to implantation of the cage.

STALIF C® is a radiolucent intervertebral body fusion cage with unicortical cancellous bone screws. It is intended to be used as an IBF cage without supplementary fixation. The cross section profile of the STALIF C® is similar to that of the vertebral body endplate with central cavity that can be packed with autograft. STALIF C® is manufactured from PEEK-OPTIMA® LTI with titanium alloy screws and X-ray marker wires manufactured from unalloyed Tantalum (ASTM F-560). The purpose of this 510(k) was to include a titanium coating (ASTM F1580) on both endplates.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for STALIF C®

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes for each mechanical test. It mentions that "Testing performed indicate that the STALIF C® is as mechanically sound as predicate devices," suggesting the tests were performed on the device itself.

The data provenance is from laboratory testing (mechanical testing), not from patient data, and is therefore neither retrospective nor prospective in the clinical sense.

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

Not applicable. The ground truth for this device is based on mechanical engineering standards (ASTM F2077 and F2267) and the device's ability to meet those established criteria, not on expert clinical interpretation of data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The "adjudication" is determined by whether the device's performance meets the defined mechanical standards, rather than expert consensus on a test set.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted as this is a medical device (intervertebral body fusion cage), not an AI algorithm or diagnostic tool that relies on human interpretation.

6. If a Standalone Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This is a physical medical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is based on established mechanical engineering standards (ASTM F2077 and F2267) for intervertebral body fusion devices. The device's performance was compared against these universally recognized standards for mechanical soundness.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI model, so there is no "training set." The device itself underwent the mechanical tests.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI model, there is no ground truth to establish for it. The standards (ASTM F2077 and F2267) that define the "ground truth" for mechanical performance were established by industry experts and regulatory bodies.

Ask a specific question about this device