Search Results

The VELOX Anterior Cervical Plate System is interior screw fixation to the cervical spine. It is to be used in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fision of the cervical spine (C2 to C7). The system is indicated for use in the temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of cervical spinal fusion in patients with:

· degenerative disc disease (as defined by neck pain of discogenion of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies),

• · spondylolisthesis,
  · trauma (i.e. fractures or dislocations),

• tumors,

· deformity,

· pseudarthrosis.

· failed previous fusion,

· spinal stenosis.

The VELOX Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation of the plate to the cervical spine. The fixation construct consists of a cervical plate that is attached to the vertebral body of the cervical spine with self-tapping bone screws using an anterior approach. The VELOX anterior cervical plate, screws and instruments were designed taking into consideration the whole procedure. Plates are available in a variety of lengths, addressing multiple levels of fixation. The VELOX plate incorporates vision ports that allow visualization of post-operative endplate/graft incorporation. Alignment notches on the cephalad and caudal ends of the plate facilitate precise midline placement and allow for Temporary Pin fixation of the plate. To accommodate normal cervical spine lordosis and, at the same time, minimize the need for additional plate contouring, the VELOX Anterior Cervical Plate comes with a pre-machined lordotic curve. Bone screws are available for fixed angle implantation in a variety of lengths.

The VELOX Anterior Cervical Plate is a medical device and is not subject to acceptance criteria in the same way an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic device would be. Instead, its approval is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices through non-clinical performance testing.

Here's an analysis of the provided information in the context of your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Derived from Substantial Equivalence Claim)

The "acceptance criteria" for a medical device like this are primarily demonstrating that its design, materials, and mechanical performance are equivalent or superior to predicate devices. The performance is reported in comparison to these predicates.

Explanation: In the context of a 510(k) submission for a traditional medical device, "acceptance criteria" are implied by the chosen predicate device's established safety and effectiveness. The manufacturer must demonstrate that the new device meets or exceeds the performance of these predicates.

Study Details (Non-Clinical)

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of the number of specific test articles. However, the study references "testing included Static Compression Bending Tests, Static Torsion Tests and Dynamic Compression Bending Tests" according to ASTM F1717-12. The ASTM standard itself would specify the number of samples required for each test.
   • Data Provenance: The testing was conducted by the manufacturer, SpineCraft, LLC, likely in a laboratory setting. The country of origin for the testing is implied to be within the USA, given the submitter's location in Westmont, IL, USA. This is a prospective non-clinical study designed for regulatory submission.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a non-clinical mechanical performance study, not a clinical study involving human patients or expert interpretation of data. "Ground truth" in this context refers to the measured physical properties and performance characteristics determined by the mechanical tests, not expert consensus on medical conditions.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not Applicable. As a non-clinical mechanical test, there is no expert adjudication process. The results are quantitative measurements against established engineering standards.

4. 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 a mechanical device, not an AI/ML algorithm. No human readers or AI assistance are involved in its primary function or testing for regulatory approval.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an algorithm.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Mechanical Test Results against ASTM Standards. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is derived from the objective measurements obtained through standardized mechanical testing (ASTM F1717-12). These results are then compared to the known performance of predicate devices.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The design of the device is based on engineering principles and potentially prior experience with similar devices, but not a data-driven training set in the AI sense.

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

   • Not Applicable. No training set was used.

Ask a specific question about this device