Search Results

Valeo® Spacer System and Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System -Cervical are indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine with accompanying radicular symptoms at one disc level or two contiguous levels. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. Valeo® Spacer System-C and Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System -Cervical are used to facilitate intervertebral body fusion in the cervical spine and are placed via an anterior approach from the C2-C3 disc space to the C7-T1 disc space using autograft or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft. Valeo® Spacer System-C and Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System -Cervical are to be used with supplemental fixation. Patients should have at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

Valeo® Spacer System-L and Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System - Lumbar are indicated for use with autogenous bone graft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). Valeo® Spacer System-L and Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System – Lumbar are intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation systems, such as Preference Pedicle Screw System. Patients should be skeletally mature and have six months of non-operative therapy prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

The Valeo® Spacer System and Valeo IIIM Interbody Fusion Device System consist of a variety of hollow intervertebral body spacers featuring convex, bullet nose design and an axial void designed to hold bone graft material (autograft or allograft). The subject device is offered in various geometries to accommodate different surgical approaches and vertebral body dimensions. The subject devices are designed with angular teeth to allow the implant to grip the superior and inferior end plates, thus allowing expulsion resistance. The Valeo® Spacer System and Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System is manufactured from Si3N4 ceramic material (silicon nitride), and is provided sterile.

The provided text is related to a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (Valeo® Spacer System; Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System) and describes its indications for use, technological characteristics, predicate devices, and a summary of the substantial equivalence determination.

However, the document does not contain the kind of information requested in the prompt, which typically relates to performance studies for AI/machine learning devices. The document explicitly states that a "comprehensive, clinical literature review has been provided to investigate the risks and benefits associated with the use of the Valeo® Spacer System - L and Valeo II™ Interbody Fusion Device System - Lumbar devices in lumbar fusion procedures with allograft." This indicates that the device's acceptance was based on a literature review and comparison to predicate devices, not on a new study with specific acceptance criteria, test sets, ground truth establishment, or expert reviews for its own performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table or detailed information because it is not present in the provided text. The document does not describe:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: No such criteria or performance results are listed for the described device.
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: No test set or related data is mentioned.
3. Number of experts and qualifications for ground truth: Not applicable as no new study was conducted.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable as it's not an AI device.
6. Standalone performance study: Not applicable.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable as it's not an AI/ML device.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The submission is for an interbody fusion device, which is a physical implant, and the FDA's review for this type of device typically focuses on material safety, mechanical performance, design equivalence to predicate devices, and clinical literature supporting its intended use. It is not an AI/ML powered device, so the requested information categories (e.g., test set, training set, ground truth by experts, MRMC studies) are not applicable to this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device