Search Results

The Saxxony™ Posterior Cervical Thoracic System is intended to immobilize and stabilize cervical (C1 to C7) and thoracic (T1 to T3) spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities: traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical/thoracic spine; and degenerative disease, including intractable radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, neck and/or arm pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by radiographic studies, and degenerative disease of the facets with instability.

The Saxxony™ Posterior Cervical Thoracic System is also intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage tumors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion.

In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the Saxxony™ Posterior Cervical Thoracic System rods may be connected to cervicothoracic or thoracolumbar stabilization systems ranging in diameter from 3.5mm to 6.5mm, using corresponding rod to rod connectors and/or transition rods.

SaxxonyTM Posterior Cervical Thoracic System consists of longitudinal members, anchors, interconnecting devices and fasteners in a variety of sizes to accommodate differing anatomic requirements. The implants are sold non-sterile.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Saxxony™ Posterior Cervical Thoracic System, focusing on the absence of information typically found in studies related to AI/ML device performance:

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device, specifically a surgical implant system, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device. As such, it does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, ground truth, or expert involvement for an AI study. The performance data presented is for mechanical testing of the physical implant, demonstrating its structural integrity and equivalence to predicate devices.

Therefore, for the information you requested about AI/ML device performance, the answer is that none of the requested information is present in this document because it is not an AI/ML device.

Here's a breakdown of why each point is not applicable:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document does have performance data, but it's for mechanical tests (static and dynamic compression bending, static torsion) according to ASTM F1717, showing the physical device's load-bearing capabilities. It does not relate to accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or other metrics common for AI/ML performance.

   Table of Mechanical Performance (from document):

   Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
   Static and dynamic compression bending and torsion	Demonstrated performance substantially equivalent to predicate devices according to ASTM F1717. (Specific numerical criteria and results are not detailed in this summary.)

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable. The "test set" here refers to physical implant constructs for mechanical stress tests, not data for an AI algorithm.

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): Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is based on engineering standards and physical measurements, not expert consensus on medical images or diagnoses.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. There's no human adjudication in evaluating mechanical properties 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: Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable in the context of AI. For the mechanical testing, the "ground truth" would be established engineering principles and ASTM standards for material strength and fatigue.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

In summary, the provided document describes a medical hardware device (a spinal implant system) and its mechanical performance testing for substantial equivalence to other legally marketed predicate devices. It does not involve any Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning components, and therefore, the questions pertaining to AI device performance are not addressed.

Ask a specific question about this device