Search Results

The Transcorp ACIF System is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine at one disc level. DDD is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with the degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Transcorp ACIF implants are used to facilitate fusion in the cervical spine and are placed via an anterior approach at the C3 to C7 disc levels using autogenous bone graft. Patients should have at least six weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral body fusion device. The device must be used with supplemental fixation.

The proposed modified Transcorp Anterior Cervical Intervertebral Fusion (ACIF) System includes various size implants manufactured from implant grade Solvay Zeniva ZA-500 PEEK conforming to ASTM F2026-08. The implant is hollow to allow for autogenous bone graft material. The implant is provided non-sterile.

This 510(k) summary describes a medical device, the Transcorp ACIF System, and its modifications. It does not contain information about an AI/ML device or the results of a study designed to evaluate its performance against acceptance criteria using a test set, ground truth, or expert readers.

The document describes the performance testing for a physical implantable device, not an algorithm. The relevant section states:

"Performance testing was performed on the proposed modified IBFD. Static and dynamic axial compression, static and dynamic compression shear, and static torsion testing per ASTM F2077-11 were performed. Expulsion testing was also performed on the proposed modified IBFD. Engineering analyses were conducted to evaluate the Subsidence and Wear of the proposed modified implant. No clinical testing was performed."

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance in the context of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Transcorp ACIF System is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine at one disc level. DDD is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with the degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Transcorp ACIF implants are used to facilitate fusion in the cervical spine and are placed via an anterior approach at the C3 to C7 disc levels using autogenous bone graft. Patients should have at least six weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral body fusion device. The device must be used with supplemental fixation.

The Transcorp Anterior Cervical Intervertebral Fusion (ACIF) System includes various size implants manufactured from implant grade PEEK conforming to ASTM F2026-08. The implant is hollow to allow for autogenous bone graft material. The implant is provided nonsterile.

Here's an analysis of the provided 510(k) summary regarding the Transcorp ACIF System, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

Transcorp ACIF System: Acceptance Criteria and Supporting Studies

This 510(k) summary focuses on "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices rather than clinical efficacy studies often seen with AI/software devices. The acceptance criteria and supporting studies mentioned are primarily related to non-clinical performance testing of a physical implant.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document only states that these tests were "performed" and that the results "demonstrated substantial equivalence" to predicate devices. It does not provide specific numerical outcomes or detailed acceptance ranges (e.g., maximum deflection, fatigue life cycles, subsidence amount, wear particulate size/quantity). The general statement "deemed acceptable" is inferred from the FDA's clearance based on substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test. For mechanical and wear testing of physical implants, a representative sample size of the manufactured device is typically used, often following industry standards for testing implantable devices (e.g., 5-10 samples per test condition).
• Data Provenance: The tests are explicitly stated as "non-clinical performance testing." This implies they were conducted in a laboratory setting, likely on manufactured prototypes or production units of the device. There is no mention of human-derived data, country of origin related to patient data, or retrospective/prospective studies as these are not relevant for this type of medical device's 510(k) clearance.

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

• Not Applicable. For this type of physical device (intervertebral body fusion device) undergoing mechanical and wear testing, "ground truth" is established by adherence to international standards (e.g., ASTM F2077-03, ASTM F2267-04, ASTM F1877-05) and internal engineering specifications, not by expert consensus on clinical data. The performance is objectively measured against physical criteria.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are used for resolving disagreements in expert opinion when establishing ground truth, typically in image analysis or clinical endpoint studies. Since this device underwent non-clinical laboratory testing, such an adjudication method is not relevant.

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

• No. An MRMC study is not mentioned and would be irrelevant for a physical intervertebral body fusion device undergoing mechanical and wear testing. MRMC studies are typically performed for diagnostic imaging devices or AI-powered clinical decision support tools to evaluate human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical implant, not an algorithm or software device. The concept of "standalone algorithm performance" does not apply here. The device's performance is its inherent mechanical and material properties.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Objective Engineering Standards and Physical Measurements. The "ground truth" for the performance tests relies on:
  • ASTM Standards: F2077-03 (Static and Dynamic Axial Compression, Compression Shear, Torsion), F2267-04 (Subsidence), F1877-05 (Wear Debris Analysis).
  • Material Specifications: Implant grade PEEK conforming to ASTM F2026-08.
  • Comparison to Predicate Devices: Performance is likely compared to the mechanical properties and wear characteristics of the K081730 Alphatec Novel Spinal Spacer System and P980048 BAK/C Vista Cervical Interbody Fusion Device to demonstrate "substantial equivalence."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. This device did not involve any machine learning algorithms, and therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of AI/software. If "training set" refers to samples used during product development or iteration, this information is not provided in a 510(k) summary.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no AI/software involved and thus no "training set," this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device