Search Results

The Stryker Spine Reflex® Translational Anterior Cervical Plating (ACP) System is intended for use as an aid in cervical spinal fusion and is intended for unilateral fixation.

The Reflex® Translational Anterior Cervical Plating System is intended for anterior intervertebral screw fixation of the cervical spine at levels C2-T1. The system is indicated for temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of cervical spine fusions in patients with the following indications:

. Degenerative Disc Disease (as defined by neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies)
피 Trauma (including fractures)
Tumors
E Deformities or curvatures (including kyphosis, lordosis, or scoliosis)
트 Pseudarthrosis
트 Failed previous fusion
Decompression of the spinal cord following total or I partial cervical vertebrectomy
트 Spondylolisthesis
Spinal stenosis

WARNING: This device is not approved or intended for screw attachment or fixation to the posterior elements (pedicles) of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine.

Device Description

This Special 510(k) premarket notification is intended to introduce the following line extensions to the Reflex Hybrid Plates approved under K000742 and K000536: Translational plates in 1-level, 2-level, 3-level, and 4-level configurations and in lengths ranging from 14mm through 96mm.

The subject system consists of various length plates that have Titanium clips which hold the plate in the "fully open" position. After the plate is placed and secured, Titanium clips are removed allowing the plate to decrease in size up to 2mm per level treated. This translational plate design uses the same screws and locking mechanism used in the predicate Stryker Spine Reflex® Hybrid ACP System.

AI/ML Overview

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Stryker Spine Reflex® Translational Anterior Cervical Plating System. This notification is for a line extension to an existing product and, therefore, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through engineering analysis and performance testing, rather than a clinical study evaluating diagnostic or prognostic performance.

As such, the information typically requested for AI/diagnostic device studies (such as sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth for training/test sets) is not applicable to this type of submission. This device is a mechanical implant, not an AI or diagnostic tool.

The document explicitly states: "Engineering analysis and performance testing verify that the subject device system is substantially equivalent in terms of performance characteristics to the predicate device systems." This indicates that the "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria was based on engineering and performance benchmarks, rather than a clinical trial with human subjects.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and details because the submission is not focused on an AI or diagnostic device that would involve such criteria and studies.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria (implied by the substantial equivalence claim) and the general nature of the "study" reported:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria Category	Description (Implied)	Reported Device Performance
Functional Equivalence	The device must perform its intended function (e.g., aid in cervical spinal fusion, temporary stabilization) similarly to the predicate devices. This includes the translational mechanism allowing up to 2mm decrease in size per level.	The subject device features Titanium clips that allow the plate to decrease in size up to 2mm per level treated after removal of the clips. This translational plate design uses the same screws and locking mechanism as the predicate device.
Material Equivalence	The materials used in the device must be comparable to or the same as the predicate devices to ensure biocompatibility and mechanical integrity.	The intended use and materials of the subject anterior cervical plates are identical to those of the predicate anterior cervical plates.
Mechanical Performance	The device must withstand expected physiological loads and stresses without failure, similar to the predicate devices. This includes screw retention, plate integrity, and translational mechanism reliability.	Engineering analysis and performance testing verify that the subject device system is substantially equivalent in terms of performance characteristics to the predicate device systems. (This implies satisfactory mechanical performance validated through testing).
Safety	The device must demonstrate a similar safety profile to the predicate devices, with no new safety concerns introduced by the translational design.	The successful 510(k) clearance indicates that the FDA found the device to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to the predicate devices, implying no new safety concerns were identified that would preclude market entry. The warning regarding posterior elements is consistent with predicate device limitations.
Indications for Use Equivalence	The device's indications for use must be the same as the predicate devices.	The indications for use match those listed for the predicate devices, including specific conditions like Degenerative Disc Disease, Trauma, Tumors, etc., and C2-T1 spinal levels.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

Not applicable. This was an engineering and performance testing study, not a clinical study on human subjects where a "test set" and "data provenance" (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) would be relevant. The "test set" would refer to mechanical test specimens.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of clinical expert consensus, is not relevant for this type of engineering and performance study. The "ground truth" here would be established by validated engineering standards and test methods.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical studies or image interpretation, not in mechanical engineering verification.

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

Not applicable. This device is a surgical implant, not an AI tool.

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

Not applicable. This device is a surgical implant, not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

Engineering specifications and validated performance testing methods. The "ground truth" for this submission is based on established engineering and material science principles, biomechanical testing standards, and direct comparison to the performance characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI or machine learning device; therefore, there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not applicable.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1