Search Results

The Synthes USS are non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients with the exception of the Small Stature USS, which includes small stature and pediatric patients. These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis, Scheuermann's Disease), tumor, stenosis, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

When treating patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), transverse bars are not cleared for use as part of the posterior pedicle screw construct.

When used with the 3.5 mm/6.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5mm Systems. In addition, when used with 3.5 mm/5.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5mm Systems. When used with the 5.0 mm/6.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems. When used with the 5.5 mm/6.0mm parallel or extension connectors, Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems. 5.5 mm/5.5mm parallel or extension connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems to one another. 6.0 mm/6.0mm parallel or extension connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems to one another.

Rod-to-rod connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems to one another.

When used with the 3.5 mm/6.0mm and 4.0 mm/6.0mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 3.5 mm/5.5mm and 4.0 mm/5.5 mm tapered rods, Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 5.5 mm/6.0mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems.

In addition, Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 6.0 mm rods and transconnectors except Synthes 6.0 mm cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy and titanium grade 3 rods, which can only be used with Pangea. Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 5.5 mm rods and transconnectors.

This is an addition to Synthes' existing non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for are non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). The current system is comprised of monoaxial and polyaxial screws, rods, locking caps, transverse bars and connectors. The additional locking cap in this submission is manufactured of cobalt chrome (Cobalt- 28Chromium - 6Molybdenum per ASTM F1537 - 08).

The provided text describes a 510(k) Summary for a medical device called the "Synthes Matrix System," which is an addition to an existing line of non-cervical spinal fixation devices. The document explicitly states that clinical data and conclusions were NOT needed for this device. This means that the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training sets is not available in this document because a clinical study was not performed or deemed necessary for this 510(k) submission.

The acceptance criteria and proof of meeting them are based on non-clinical performance data (bench testing), which demonstrated equivalence or superiority to predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

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

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. (Refers to mechanical testing specimens, not human subjects or a data set for an AI model).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of human data. The data comes from bench testing of the device components.

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

• Experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering specifications and direct measurement, not expert consensus on medical images or diagnoses.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This is mechanical bench testing, not a clinical study requiring adjudication of diagnostic outcomes.

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

• MRMC Study: No. This device is a spinal implant, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device. No human reader studies were performed or relevant.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (spinal implant), not an algorithm or AI.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Ground Truth: For mechanical testing, the ground truth is based on the physical properties and performance characteristics defined by engineering standards (e.g., ASTM F1717-11a) and compared against the performance of legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. There is no AI model or learning algorithm mentioned or relevant to this device.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable. There is no AI model or learning algorithm mentioned or relevant to this device.

In summary, this 510(k) submission relied on non-clinical (bench) testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and explicitly stated that clinical data was not required. Therefore, all questions pertaining to clinical study design, human data, expert review, and AI model specifics are not addressed by the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Synthes USS are non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (TI-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (TI-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients with the exception of the Small Stature USS, which includes small stature and pediatric patients. These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis, Scheuermann's Disease), tumor, stenosis, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

When treating patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), transverse bars are not cleared for use as part of the posterior pedicle screw construct.

When used with the 3.5 mm/6.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5mm Systems. In addition, when used with 3.5 mm/5.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5mm Systems. When used with the 5.0 mm/6.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems. When used with the 5.5 mm/6.0mm parallel or extension connectors, Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems. 5.5 mm/5.5mm parallel or extension connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems to one another. 6.0 mm/6.0mm parallel or extension connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems to one another.

When used with the 3.5 mm/6.0mm and 4.0 mm/6.0mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 3.5 mm/5.5mm and 4.0 mm/5.5 mm tapered rods, Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 5.5 mm/6.0mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems.

In addition, Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 6.0 mm rods and transconnectors except Synthes 6.0 mm cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy and titanium grade 3 rods, which can only be used with Pangea. Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 5.5 mm rods and transconnectors.

Synthes USS
6.0 mm Rod Systems: USS Side-Opening, USS Dual-Opening, USS VAS variable axis components, USS Fracture, Click'X, Click'X Monoaxial, Pangea, Pangea Monoaxial, USS Polyaxial, USS Iliosacral, ClampFix
5.5 mm Rod System: Matrix, MIRS
5.0 mm Rod System: USS Small Stature

CerviFix
3.5 mm Rod Systems: CerviFix, Axon, Synapse
4.0 mm Rod System: Synapse

This is an addition to Synthes' existing non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (TI-S2/ilium). posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). The current system is comprised of monoaxial and polyaxial screws, rods, locking caps, transverse bars and connectors. The new sagittal screw that is the subject of this submission is similar to the already-cleared polyaxial screw and is manufactured of TAN (Titanium-6 Aluminum-7 Niobium Alloy per ASTM F1295 - 05 ). These screws restrict head angulation to the direction parallel to the rod slot (typically the cranial/caudal direction).

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Synthes Matrix System, a medical device for spinal fixation, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/algorithm performance and study design are not applicable as this document pertains to a medical device submission, not an AI or software study.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding performance data and acceptance criteria based on the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as numerical thresholds for specific performance metrics in the context of an AI study. Instead, it refers to the device demonstrating "equivalently or superiorly" to predicate devices.

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

Not Applicable (N/A) - This document describes non-clinical bench testing for a physical medical device (spinal fixation system), not a study with a test set of data (images, clinical records, etc.) for an AI algorithm. The performance data is from mechanical bench testing, not a clinical data set.

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

N/A - Ground truth as defined for an AI study (e.g., expert consensus on image interpretation) is not applicable here. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing would be the physical properties and performance metrics measured using established engineering standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

N/A - This concept is relevant for studies involving human judgment or interpretation (like image reading). For mechanical bench testing, data is typically collected directly from instruments and analyzed against engineering standards.

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

N/A - This is an AI-specific study type. The document describes a physical medical device and its mechanical testing.

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

N/A - This refers to AI algorithm performance. The Synthes Matrix System is a physical implantable device.

7. The type of ground truth used

For the non-clinical performance data, the "ground truth" (or reference standard) inherently comes from established engineering standards and physical measurements obtained during mechanical bench testing. Specifically, it adheres to ASTM F1717-11a, an American Society for Testing and Materials standard for spinal implant constructs.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A - This document does not describe the development or testing of an AI algorithm, and therefore there is no "training set."

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

N/A - As there is no training set for an AI algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Synthes USS are non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients with the exception of the Small Stature USS, which includes small stature and pediatric patients. These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis, Scheuermann's Disease), tumor, stenosis, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

When treating patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), transverse bars are not cleared for use as part of the posterior pedicle screw construct.

When used with the 3.5/6.0 mm parallel connectors, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm Systems. In addition, when used with 3.5/5.0 mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm Systems. When used with the 5.0/6.0 mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems.

When used with the 3.5/6.0 mm and 4.0/6.0 mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 3.5/5.5 mm and 4.0/5.5 mm tapered rods, Matrix can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 5.5/6.0 mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the Matrix System.

In addition, Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 6.0 mm rods and transconnectors.

The Synthes Matrix System is an addition to Synthes' existing posterior thoracolumbar spine systems. The Matrix System consist of a family non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (TI-S2), posterior hook fixation (TI-L5) or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). The implants include pedicle bone screws, polyaxial pedicle screws, monoaxial pedicle screws, polyaxial heads, reduction screws, reduction heads, locking caps, transconnectors, transverse bars, rods and hooks. The implants are primarily manufactured from titanium (ASTM F67-06), titanium alloy (ASTM F1295-05), cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy (ASTM F1537-08) or nitinol (ASTM F2063-05), similar to the predicates.

The Synthes Matrix System, a spinal fixation device, demonstrated substantial equivalence to its predicate devices through non-clinical performance testing.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with numerical targets in the conventional sense. Instead, the performance data focused on demonstrating that the Synthes Matrix System performs "as well as or better than" the predicate devices in various biomechanical tests. The implied acceptance criterion is that the device's performance in these tests is comparable to or exceeds that of the predicate devices.

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

The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of implants tested) for each non-clinical test. The testing was conducted by Synthes, implying an internal or contracted laboratory setting, but the country of origin of the data is not explicitly stated. The nature of these tests (biomechanical/mechanical) means they are retrospective in the sense that they are conducted on manufactured devices in a controlled environment, not on live patients.

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

This question is not applicable. The study involved non-clinical biomechanical testing of medical devices, not evaluations by human experts to establish "ground truth" for clinical conditions or diagnoses. The ground truth for these tests is defined by the objective measurements obtained from the testing equipment according to the specified ASTM standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are relevant for expert consensus in clinical or imaging studies, not for non-clinical mechanical testing where performance is determined by objective measurements.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The submission explicitly states, "Clinical data was not needed for this device." The evaluation was based solely on non-clinical performance data.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance):

This question is not applicable. This is a physical medical device (spinal fixation system), not a software algorithm or AI-powered system where "standalone" performance would be a relevant metric.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests was established by objective physical measurements obtained from testing the devices according to specific ASTM standards (ASTM F1798-97 and ASTM F1717-09). These standards define the methodology for evaluating the mechanical properties of spinal implants.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

This question is not applicable. There is no information about a "training set" as this is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model or algorithm. The non-clinical tests evaluate the physical properties and performance of the manufactured device.

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

This question is not applicable. As stated above, there is no "training set" in the context of this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Synthes USS are non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients with the exception of the Small Stature USS, which includes small stature and pediatric patients. These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis, Scheuermann's Disease), tumor, stenosis, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

When treating patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), transverse bars are not cleared for use as part of the posterior pedicle screw construct.

When used with the 3.5/6.0 mm parallel connectors, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm Systems. In addition, when used with 3.5/5.0 mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm Systems. When used with the 5.0/6.0 mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems.

When used with the 3.5/6.0 mm and 4.0/6.0 mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 3.5/5.5 mm and 4.0/5.5 mm tapered rods, Matrix can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 5.5/6.0 mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be lined to the Matrix System.

In addition, Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 6.0 mm rods and transconnectors.

Synthes USS

• 6.0 mm Rod Systems: USS Side-Opening, USS Dual-Opening, USS VAS variable axis components, USS Fracture, Click'X, Click'X Monoaxial, Pangea Monoaxial, USS Polyaxial, USS Iliosacral, ClampFix
• 5.5 mm Rod System: Matrix
• 5.0 mm Rod System: USS Small Stature

CerviFix

• 3.5 mm Rod Systems: CerviFix, Axon, Synapse
• 4.0 mm Rod System: Synapse

The Synthes Matrix System is an addition to Synthes' existing posterior thoracolumbar spine systems. The Matrix System consists of a family of non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5) or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). The implants include pedicle bone screws, polyaxial pedicle screws, monoaxial pedicle screws, polyaxial heads, reduction screws, reduction heads, locking caps, transconnectors, transverse bars, rods and hooks. The implants are primarily manufactured from titanium (ASTM F67 - 06), titanium alloy (ASTM F1295 - 05), cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy (ASTM F1537 - 08) or nitinol (ASTM F2063 - 05), similar to the predicates.

The subject of this submission is the addition of transverse bars and tapered rods.

The document describes the Synthes Matrix System, a spinal fixation device. The study provided focuses on non-clinical performance testing rather than clinical trials with human subjects or AI performance.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document states "Synthes conducted the following non-clinical testing..." but does not detail the number of units tested for each type of test.
• Data Provenance: The testing was non-clinical, conducted by Synthes. It does not involve human subjects, so concepts like country of origin or retrospective/prospective don't apply in the medical imaging 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 study is a non-clinical, mechanical performance test, not a study evaluating human judgment or diagnostic accuracy. The "ground truth" here is compliance with ASTM standards, not expert consensus on medical images or patient outcomes.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. As noted above, this is a mechanical performance test, not a study involving human readers or adjudicators of medical data.

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

• No. This is a non-clinical performance study of a spinal fixation device, not a study involving AI or human readers of medical images.

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

• No. This is a non-clinical performance study of a spinal fixation device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The "ground truth" implicitly used for this non-clinical testing is the mechanical performance requirements specified in ASTM F1717–09 standards for static compression bend, static torsion, and dynamic compression bend testing. The device's performance was compared against these established industry standards and against predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a non-clinical performance study of a physical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Synthes USS (including Matrix, USS Side-Opening, USS Dual-Opening, USS Small Stature (which includes small stature and pediatric patients), USS VAS variable axis components, USS Fracture, Click'X, Click'X Monoaxial, Pangea, Pangea Monoaxial, USS Polyaxial, USS Iliosacral, and ClampFix) are non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for use as posterior pedicle screw fixation systems (T1-S2/ilium), a posterior hook fixation system (T1-L5), or as an anterolateral fixation system (T8-L5). Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients with the exception of the Small Stature USS. These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications regardless of the intended use: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis, Scheuermann's Disease), tumor, stenosis, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

When treating patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), transverse bars are not cleared for use as part of the posterior pedicle screw construct.

When used with the 3.5/6.0-mm parallel connectors, the Synthes USS (including USS Side-Opening, USS Dual-Opening, USS VAS variable axis components, USS Fracture, Click'X, Click'X Monoaxial, Pangea, Pangea Monoaxial, USS Polyaxial, USS Iliosacral, and ClampFix) can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm Systems (including CerviFix, Axon, and Synapse). In addition, when used with 3.5/5.0 mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm Systems (including CerviFix, Axon, and Synapse). When used with the 5.0/6.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the Synthes USS (including USS Side-Opening, USS Dual-Opening, USS VAS variable axis components, USS Fracture, Click'X, Click'X Monoaxial, Pangea, Pangea Monoaxial, USS Polyaxial, USS Iliosacral, and ClampFix).

In addition, Synthes USS (including USS Side-Opening, USS Dual-Opening, USS VAS variable axis components, USS Fracture, Click'X, Click'X Monoaxial, Pangea, Pangea Monoaxial, USS Polyaxial, USS Iliosacral, and ClampFix) can be interchanged with all USS 6.0 mm rods and transconnectors.

The Synthes Matrix System is an addition to Synthes' existing posterior thoracolumbar spine systems. The Matrix System consist of a family non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for use as a posterior pedicle screw fixation system (T1-S2), posterior hook fixation system (T1-L5) or anterolateral fixation system (T8-L5). The implants include pedicle bone screws, polyaxial pedicle screws, monoaxial pedicle screws, polyaxial heads, reduction screws, reduction heads, locking caps, transconnectors, rods and hooks. The implants are primarily manufactured from titanium, titanium alloy, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy or nitinol, similar to the predicates.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Synthes Matrix System, a pedicle screw spinal system. This summary details the device's description, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or study results related to those criteria for an AI/CADe device.

The document specifically states under "Performance Date (Non-Clinical and/or Clinical)":

• "Non-Clinical Performance and Conclusions: Bench testing results demonstrate that the Synthes Matrix System is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."
• "Clinical Performance and Conclusions: Clinical data and conclusions were not needed for this device."

This explicitly indicates that the submission did not include clinical studies or data that would typically demonstrate performance against acceptance criteria. The approval was based on substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices through bench testing, not on new clinical performance data.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and device performance as it is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device