Search Results

The Universal MultiAXis (UNIMAX™) Pedicle Screw System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of non-cervical posterior 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: (1) Degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective neurological impairment; (2) Fracture; (3) Dislocation; (4) Scoliosis; (5) Kyphosis; (6) Spinal tumor, and (7) Failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis). " When used as a pedicle screw fixation system the UNIMAX Pedicle Screw System is indicated for skeletally mature patients: (a) having severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the fifth lumbar-first sacral (L5-S1) vertebral joint; (b) who are receiving fusions using autogenous bone graft only; (c) who are having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 and below); and (4) who are having the device removed after the development of a solid fusion mass.

The UNIMAX Pedicle Screw System consists of plates, bolts, screws and is used to build a spinal construct. The purpose of the UNIMAX System is to provide stabilization during the development of a solid spinal fusion. The system is available in a variety of sizes. The components and instruments needed for this system are described in the Surgical Technique Manual. The UNIMAX Pedicle Screw System components are made from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ASTM standard F-136. The UNIMAX components will be provided non-sterile.

The provided text describes a 510(k) pre-market notification for the UNIMAX Pedicle Screw System. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or study details (like sample size, ground truth, expert qualifications) typically associated with AI/ML-based medical devices or diagnostic tools.

The document is for a traditional medical device (spinal implant) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based primarily on:

• Intended Use/Indications: Comparing the conditions the device is designed to treat.
• System Components and Materials: Verifying that the materials (titanium alloy, Ti-6Al-4V) conform to established ASTM standards.
• Biomechanical Test Results: These verify design specifications and support substantial equivalence in terms of safety and performance. However, specific acceptance criteria or detailed results of these biomechanical tests are not enumerated in the provided summary.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or answer most of the specific questions about the study design, as that information is not present in the provided text. The questions posed ("What was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance," "If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done," etc.) are relevant for AI/ML devices, not for a pedicle screw system, which is a physical implant.

Based on the provided text, the following information can be extracted/inferred:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the summary. For a device like a pedicle screw system, acceptance criteria would typically relate to mechanical strength, fatigue life, torsional rigidity, pull-out strength, and material biocompatibility, often benchmarked against the predicate device. The summary generally states "Biomechanical test results verify the design specifications and support substantial equivalence."
• Reported Device Performance: The summary states: "Test results support the safety and performance of the UNIMAX System for its intended use." No specific performance metrics (e.g., specific load capacities, cycles to failure) are provided.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. The "test set" here would refer to the samples used in biomechanical testing, not a dataset for an AI model. Details about the number of components or constructs tested are not in the summary.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. This question is for AI/ML diagnostic devices, where "ground truth" often involves expert annotation of medical images or data. For a mechanical device, performance is typically measured through physical tests with objective outcomes, not expert consensus on diagnostic interpretations.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable/Not provided.

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:

• For the biomechanical studies, the "ground truth" would be objective physical measurements of strength, durability, and material properties, compared against pre-defined engineering specifications and/or performance of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not provided. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. This is not an AI/ML device.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) summary for a traditional medical device (spinal implant) and therefore does not contain the type of information requested regarding AI/ML device evaluation criteria, study design, or performance metrics. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison of intended use, materials, and generic mention of biomechanical test results.

Ask a specific question about this device