Search Results

The Monarch Spine System is a pedicle screw system intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of 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: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).
The Monarch Spine System is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.
The Monarch Spine System is also a hook and sacral/iliac screw fixation system of the noncervical spine indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (fracture and/or dislocation), spinal stenosis, deformities (scoliosis, lordosis and/or kyphosis), tumor, and previous failed fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The CrossOver Cross Connector is designed to transversely connect two rods used in spinal instrumentation constructs. The connector minimizes the torsional forces on the construct, thus reducing the micromotion and the probability of the construct shifting after placement.

I am sorry, but the provided text from K013294 does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a spinal system and primarily focuses on the device description, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. While "Performance data were submitted to characterize the CrossOver Cross Connector" is mentioned, the specific criteria, the study design, results, or any of the other requested details are not included in this summary.

Therefore, I cannot provide:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes or data provenance for a test set.
3. Number or qualifications of experts for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method for a test set.
5. Information about a multi-reader multi-case comparative effectiveness study or effect size.
6. Information about a standalone performance study.
7. The type of ground truth used.
8. Sample size for the training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device