Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(85 days)
TRIO PLATE SYSTEM, TRIO SPINAL FIXATION SYSTEM, TRIO+ SPINAL SYSTEM
The Stryker Spine Trio® Plate System is intended for posterior, noncervical (T10-S1) pedical and nonpedical fixation of the spine for the following indications: Degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); Spondylolisthesis; Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); Spinal stenosis; Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthrosis; and Failed previous fusion.
The Stryker Spine Trio® Spinal Fixation System is intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation of the spine. The Stryker Spine Trio® Spinal Fixation System is indicated for: Degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); Spondylolisthesis; Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); Spinal stenosis; Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthrosis; and Failed previous fusion. The Trio® Spinal Fixation System is intended to be used in conjunction with the OSS Diapason Rods, Opus Spinal System Rods, and the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.
The Stryker Spine Trio®+ Spinal System is intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation of the spine. The Stryker SpineTrio®+ Spinal System is indicated for: Degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); Spondylolisthesis; Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); Spinal stenosis; Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthrosis; and Failed previous fusion. The Trio + Spinal System is intended to be used in conjunction with the OSS Diapason Rods, Opus Spinal System Rods, Xia " Pre-bent Rods, and the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.
The Stryker Spine Trio® Plate System is comprised of spinal screws, plates and locking components, fabricated from Titanium alloy.
The Stryker Spine Trio® Spinal Fixation System is comprised of spinal screws, rods, and offset connectors, fabricated from Titanium alloy.
The Stryker Spine Trio®+ Spinal System contains spinal screws, rods, and connectors, fabricated from Titanium alloy.
The provided submission does not include information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the way typically found for AI/ML-based medical devices.
This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Stryker Spine Trio® Plate System, Trio® Spinal Fixation System, and Trio®+ Spinal System. This is a traditional medical device (spinal fixation system) and not an AI/ML-based device. The "study" mentioned refers to mechanical testing in compliance with FDA's Guidance for Spinal System 510(k)s, not a clinical study involving human or AI performance evaluation.
Therefore, the requested information elements related to AI/ML device performance (like sample sizes for test/training sets, experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment) are not applicable to this submission.
Here's a breakdown based on the characteristics of this traditional medical device submission:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Criteria Category | Acceptance Criteria (N/A for AI/ML) | Reported Device Performance (N/A for AI/ML) |
|---|---|---|
| Material Properties | Compatibility with Titanium alloy standards, mechanical strength, fatigue resistance. | Implied: Passed mechanical testing, demonstrating sufficient strength and durability as per FDA guidance for spinal systems. The device is fabricated from Titanium alloy. |
| Biocompatibility | Biocompatibility with human tissue. | Implied: Met biocompatibility standards for implantable devices made of Titanium alloy, as it's a predicate-based submission. |
| Sterilization | Ability to be sterilized. | Implied: Sterilization methods are suitable for the device as an implantable medical device. |
| Functional Equivalence | Equivalent mechanical performance to predicate devices. | Stated: "Testing in compliance with FDA's Guidance for Spinal System 510(k)'s May 3, 2004 was performed... and was presented in their respective predicate 510(k)s." |
| Indications for Use | Expanded Class III indications (NKB) are appropriate and consistent with predicate devices and FDA guidance. | Stated: The submission "addresses the additional Class III indications associated with product code NKB." The expanded indications were "modeled on the suggested indications for use statement for posterior thoracolumbar systems... suggested by FDA in FDA's 'Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Spinal System 510(k)s,' dated May 3, 2004." |
Explanation: For this type of traditional spinal implant, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily established through bench testing (mechanical, material, biocompatibility) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to relevant FDA guidance and recognized standards. The submission highlights that no new components are being introduced; rather, it is seeking approval for additional Class III indications based on existing predicate device testing and FDA guidance. There is no performance reported in terms of diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes of the device itself beyond its mechanical integrity and intended use alignment.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Not applicable. This submission is for a traditional spinal fixation system, not an AI/ML device that would have a "test set" of data in the AI/ML context. The testing referenced is bench/mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
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. See point 2.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Not applicable. See point 2.
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/ML device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
- Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. For this device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating safety and effectiveness relies on established engineering principles, material science, and the functional performance of predicate devices in accordance with FDA guidance for spinal systems. It's about meeting mechanical and material performance specifications rather than diagnostic truth.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
Ask a specific question about this device
(30 days)
TRIO + SPINAL SYSTEM
The TRIO® and TRIO®+ Spinal Systems are pedicle screw systems intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocations, scoliosis, spinal tumor and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).
The TRIO® and TRIO®+ Spinal Systems are also indicated for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) at the LS-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the development of a solid fusion mass.
The TRIO® and TRIO®+ Spinal Systems are sacral/iliac screw fixation systems indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (fracture and/or dislocation), spinal stenosis, deformities (scoliosis, kyphosis and/or lordosis), tumor, pseudoarthrosis and review of failed fusion attempts.
The TRIO® Spinal System is intended to be used in conjunction with the OSS Diapason Rods, Opus Spinal System Rods, and the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.
The TRIO®+ Spinal System is intended to be used in conjunction with the OSS Diapason Rods, Opus Spinal System Rods, Xia® Pre-bent Rods, and the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.
The TRIO® and TRIO®+ Spinal Systems are pedicle screw systems intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. The TRIO® and TRIO®+ Spinal Systems are sacral/iliac screw fixation systems indicated for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, trauma, spinal stenosis, deformities, tumor, pseudoarthrosis and review of failed fusion attempts. The TRIO® and TRIO®+ Spinal Systems are comprised of bone screws, rods, and connectors. The components are available in a variety of lengths in order to accommodate patient anatomy and are fabricated from titanium alloy.
This 510(k) premarket notification for the TRIO®+ Spinal System is for a line extension to an existing device, the TRIO® Spinal System. As such, the submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through material, design, and intended use comparisons, along with mechanical testing. It is not a submission for an AI/ML powered device, nor does it describe a clinical study of the type that would typically involve acceptance criteria, ground truth establishment, or human reader performance comparisons.
Therefore, many of the requested details are not applicable or cannot be extracted from the provided text for this specific type of medical device submission.
Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the provided document, noting where the information is not present or relevant:
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for TRIO®+ Spinal System
This submission pertains to a line extension (TRIO®+ Spinal System) to an existing spinal fixation system. The primary method for demonstrating device performance and meeting acceptance criteria is through mechanical testing to confirm comparable mechanical properties to predicate devices, and through demonstrating substantial equivalence in materials, design, and intended use. The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria in terms of clinical outcomes or performance metrics typically seen for diagnostic AI/ML devices.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criteria (as implied by submission type) | Reported Device Performance (as implied by submission type) |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical Properties | Comparable strength, fatigue life, and other relevant mechanical characteristics to predicate devices (e.g., TRIO®, Xia® Spinal Systems). | "Mechanical testing also demonstrated comparable mechanical properties to the predicate devices..." (Details of specific tests and numerical results are not provided in this summary, but would have been in the full submission). |
| Material Composition | Use of the same material (Titanium alloy) as predicate devices. | "The subject system consists of Titanium alloy bone screws, rods, and connectors..." |
| Basic Design Concepts | Shares basic design concepts with predicate devices. | "The subject components share the same intended use, material, and basic design concepts as that of the predicate device..." |
| Intended Use | Same intended use as predicate devices. | "The subject components share the same intended use..." (Indications for use are explicitly listed and are consistent with predicate devices). |
2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance
- Sample Size (Test Set): Not applicable in the context of this device and submission type. The "test set" for this device would refer to the samples used in mechanical testing, not a clinical data set. The document does not specify the number of implants/components tested.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for this device. Mechanical testing data would typically be generated in a laboratory setting.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications
- Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant, not a diagnostic tool requiring expert interpretation for ground truth establishment on a test set.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical studies involving expert disagreement, which is not described for this device.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
- No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for evaluating the impact of diagnostic or AI-assisted tools on human reader performance, which is not applicable to a spinal implant line extension.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study
- No, a standalone study of an algorithm was not done. This device is a physical medical implant, not an algorithm.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
- Not applicable in the clinical sense. For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" would be established by validated test methods and engineering standards.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device requiring a training set.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- Not applicable.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1