Search Results

The ASSURE® Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine C2-C7 for 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), trauma (including fractures), tumors, deformity (defined as kyphosis, lordosis, or scoliosis), pseudarthrosis, failed previous fusion, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

The PROVIDENCE™ Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine C2-C7 for 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), trauma (including fractures), tumors, deformity (defined as kyphosis, lordosis), pseudarthrosis, failed previous fusion, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

The VIP® Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine C2-C7 for 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), trauma (including fractures), tumors, deformity (defined as kyphosis, lordosis, or scoliosis), pseudarthrosis, failed previous fusion, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

The XTEND® Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine C2-C7 for 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), trauma (including fractures), tumors, deformity (defined as kyphosis, lordosis, or scoliosis), pseudarthrosis, failed previous fusion, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

The UNIFY® Dynamic Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine (C2-C7) for 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), trauma (including fractures), tumors, deformity (kyphosis, lordosis or scoliosis), pseudarthrosis, failed previous fusions, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

The CITADEL® Anterior Lumbar Plate System is intended for use by an anterior or anterolateral approach in the treatment of lumbar and lumbosacral (L1-S1) spine instability as a result of fracture (including dislocation and subluxation), tumor, degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), pseudarthrosis, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, kyphosis, kyphosis, lordosis, spinal stenosis, or failed previous spine surgery.

The TRUSS® Thoracolumbar Plate System is intended for use in the treatment of thoracolumbar (T1-L5) spine instability as a result of fracture (including dislocation and subluxation), tumor, degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal stenosis, or failed previous spine surgery.

The PLYMOUTH® Thoracolumbar Plate System is intended for use in the treatment of thoracolumbar (T1-L5) spine instability as a result of fracture (including dislocation and subluxation), tumor, degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis, spinal stenosis, or failed previous spine surgery.

The SP-Fix® Spinous Process Fixation Plate is a posterior non-pedicle supplemental fixation device, intended for use at a single level in the non-cervical spine (T1-S1). It is intended for plate fixation/attachment to the spinous processes for the purpose of achieving supplemental fusion in the following conditions: degenerative disc disease (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), and/or tumor. The SP-Fix® Spinous Process Fixation Plate is intended for use with allograft or autograft bone and is not intended for standalone use.

The RELIEVE® Laminoplasty Fixation System is intended for use in the lower cervical and upper thoracic spine (C3-T3) in laminoplasty procedures. The RELIEVE® Laminoplasty Fixation System is used to hold the bone allograft material in place in order to prevent the allograft from expulsion, or impinging the spinal cord.

These plate and screw systems are used to provide structural stability in skeletally mature individuals following discectomy, corpectomy, vertebrectomy, or laminectomy and may be inserted using an anterior, posterior, anterolateral, or lateral approach. The devices are available in various lengths and widths to accommodate varying patient anatomy. The plates are secured through the plate's screw holes into the vertebral bodies or a ratchet design which automatically locks during compression on the spinous process. Some devices can be used in conjunction with autograft and/or allogenic bone graft to be packed inside the device. These devices are manufactured from titanium alloy, or radiolucent PEEK polymer with titanium alloy or tantalum markers.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the MRI compatibility update and addition of sterile components for a range of spinal plate systems. It does not present acceptance criteria or detailed study results in the typical format of a clinical or performance study summary. Instead, it refers to standard ASTM tests conducted to determine MRI compatibility and confirms that no further performance or biocompatibility testing was required for this specific submission because the core device performance and technological characteristics remain unchanged from previously cleared versions.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted, and where the requested information is absent:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not provide a table with specific acceptance criteria or quantitative performance results. It states that MRI testing was performed according to specific ASTM standards (F2052, F2119, F2182, F2213). For such MRI compatibility tests, the "acceptance criteria" usually refer to the device meeting the requirements outlined within those ASTM standards to be labeled as MR Conditional at a certain field strength. The document implies compliance without listing the specific numerical outcomes or acceptance thresholds used.

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

• Sample Size: The document states "MRI testing was performed on the worst case subject devices." It does not specify the exact number of devices tested for each ASTM standard.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The testing was likely conducted in a controlled laboratory setting by Globus Medical or a contracted test facility. The nature of MRI compatibility testing for medical devices is typically in-vitro (lab-based) rather than using patient data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Their Qualifications:

• Not applicable. This submission is for MRI compatibility and sterile components, not for a diagnostic or AI device that requires expert-established ground truth from clinical cases.

4. Adjudication Method:

• Not applicable. This is not a study involving human readers or expert consensus for ground truth.

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

• No. This type of study is not relevant to a submission for MRI compatibility of spinal implants.

6. Standalone Performance Study:

• Yes (for specific performance aspects implied by conformity to ASTM standards). The MRI compatibility tests are "standalone" in the sense that they assess the device's characteristics in a controlled environment as per the ASTM standards. However, it's not a standalone clinical performance study in the context of an AI algorithm performing a task. The document states "No further device performance testing was required for this submission. The performance testing remains the same for the subject and predicate devices." This implies that the fundamental mechanical/structural performance of the spinal implants was established in prior submissions (e.g., K040721 for ASSURE® and other predicates listed in {12}).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Not applicable in the conventional sense of a clinical ground truth. For MRI compatibility testing, the "ground truth" is adherence to the physical and safety parameters defined by the ASTM standards (e.g., a certain displacement force is considered safe, a certain artifact size is acceptable).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve a "training set" for an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve a "training set" or a ground truth established for it.

In summary, the document details a regulatory submission to update labeling for MRI compatibility and add sterile components. It relies on established ASTM standards for MRI safety assessment, rather than a clinical performance study with patient data and expert ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

The UNIFY™ Dynamic Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine (C2-C7) for 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), trauma (including fractures), tumors, deformity (kyphosis, lordosis or scoliosis), pseudarthrosis, failed previous fusions, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

The UNIFY™ Dynamic Anterior Cervical Plate System consists of plates and variable or fixed angle screws. The plate attaches to the anterior portion of the vertebral body of the cervical spine (C2-C7). The plate allows translation to accommodate bone graft resorption. UNIFY™ Dynamic Anterior Cervical Plate System implants are manufactured from titanium alloy, as specified in ASTM standards F136 and F1295.

This document describes the UNIFY™ Dynamic Anterior Cervical Plate System, a modified anterior cervical plate system intended for spinal fixation. The provided text outlines the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and basis for substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, the document does not contain information typically found in a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria related to AI/ML performance.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be populated from the provided text, as they pertain to aspects of AI/ML model evaluation that are not relevant to this type of device submission.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided text, and an explanation of why certain fields cannot be filled:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria for UNIFY™ Dynamic Anterior Cervical Plate System

Explanation: The "acceptance criteria" for this traditional medical device (a spinal plate system) are implicitly met by demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to legally marketed predicate devices through adherence to mechanical testing standards and material specifications. There are no explicit numerical performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity, as those are typical for diagnostic or AI-driven devices.

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 physical medical device (spinal plate), not an AI/ML system that uses a test set of data. The performance testing refers to mechanical laboratory tests, not data analysis.

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. This submission is for a physical medical device. "Ground truth" in the context of expert review is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing would be the physical properties and performance of the device under controlled laboratory conditions, as defined by ASTM standards.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable. As above, this is for a physical medical device and not an AI/ML system requiring expert adjudication of a test set.

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 for a physical medical device. MRMC studies are used to evaluate diagnostic imaging systems or AI tools.

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

• Not applicable. This is for a physical medical device. "Standalone algorithm performance" is not relevant here.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• For the mechanical performance data, the "ground truth" is defined by the ASTM F1717 standards and the "Guidance for Spinal System 510(k)s", which specify the test methodologies and acceptable limits for mechanical properties (e.g., strength, stiffness, fatigue life). The performance of the predicate device also serves as a benchmark for "substantial equivalence."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device