Search Results

The Z-Link Cervical is a stand-alone anterior cervical interbody fusion device indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with accompanying radicular symptoms at one level from C2-T1. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should have had six weeks of non-operative treatment. The Z-Link Cervical should be packed with autogenous bone graft and implanted with an anterior approach.

The Zavation Z-Link Cervical includes a PEEK spacer, titanium interbody plate and screws. The spacer component is assembled to an interbody plate and implanted anteriorly. The endplate contacting surfaces of the spacer component include serrations, and the plate component includes two holes for inserting one bone screw in each vertebral body. The plate component also includes a screw lock at each hole. The bone screws are available in a variety of diameters and lengths. The interbody plate components are available in a variety of heights. The spacer components are available in a variety of depths, widths, and heights.

The provided document describes the Zavation Z-Link Cervical, an intervertebral body fusion device, and its acceptance criteria as demonstrated by mechanical testing. However, it does not include information about a study involving an AI algorithm or human readers. The acceptance criteria and the study proving it relate directly to the physical properties and performance of the medical device itself.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document refers to "mechanical test results" but does not specify the number of devices or components tested. Data provenance is not applicable as this describes mechanical testing of a physical device, not analysis of human patient data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

This information is not applicable to the type of study described. The "ground truth" for this device's mechanical performance is established by standardized engineering tests (ASTM standards) rather than expert human interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Mechanical testing according to established ASTM standards does not involve adjudication by experts in the same way clinical or imaging studies might. The results are objective measurements.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document describes mechanical testing of a physical medical device, not a study involving human readers or AI.

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

No, a standalone algorithm study was not done. This document is about a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" used for this device's acceptance is based on the results of standardized mechanical engineering tests (ASTM F2077, ASTM F2267, ASTM Draft F04.25.02.02). The device's performance must meet the requirements of these standards to be considered "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this document describes mechanical testing of a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment described for an AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device