Search Results

The PASS Spinal System consists of pedicle screws, rods, nuts and crosslink members utilized 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 thoracic, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological imparment, fracture, soliocations, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

As a pedicle screw system, the PASS Spinal System is intended for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebrae in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by auto genouville 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 subjects of this Special 510(k) submission are the addition of polyaxial crosslink components for the PASS Spinal System (K001024). All components are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) that conforms to ASTM F136.

The hooks can be used for single or multiple level fixation. The polyaxial hooks have attachment mechanism of the PASS Spinal System polyaxial components cleared in K001024 and K012175.

The laminar hooks are inserted inferior and superior around the polyaxial pedicle hooks are inserted inferior and superior around the pedicles. The double laminar hooks are available in standard and polyaxial configurations. The low profile of the hooks allows it to be used in conjunction with a pedicle screw assembly without any problem of superimposition.

The laminar hooks are inserted under the lamina and the polyaxial pedicle hooks are inserted under the pedicle. The low profile of the hook allows it to be used in conjunction with a pedicle screw assembly without any poblem of superimposition.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the "PASS Spinal System" and its additional components. It focuses on the device's description, intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the detailed performance study information required to fill out all aspects of your request.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation: The document explicitly states, "The Food and Drug Administration have established no performance standards applicable to pedicle screw spinal systems. However, static and fatigue compression testing of the PASS Spinal System was performed according to ASTM F1717-96." While the standard used is mentioned, the specific acceptance values (e.g., minimum compression strength, number of cycles survived at a given load) and the results achieved by the device against these values are not detailed.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document only mentions "static and fatigue compression testing of the PASS Spinal System." It does not provide the number of units tested.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not specified. This was a mechanical engineering test, not a clinical study involving patients or data origin.

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

• Not Applicable. This submission is for a mechanical spinal implant. "Ground truth" in the context of expert review (e.g., for image analysis or diagnostics) does not apply here. The "ground truth" for mechanical performance is defined by the ASTM F1717-96 standard.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not Applicable. As this is a mechanical test, there is no expert adjudication process. The results are objectively measured against the test standard.

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

• No. This is a medical device (spinal implant), not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI assistance metrics are not relevant.

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

• Not Applicable. As above, this is not an algorithm or AI device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Mechanical Test Standard (ASTM F1717-96): The "ground truth" for evaluating the device's mechanical performance is defined by the specified parameters and methodologies within the ASTM F1717-96 standard for static and fatigue compression testing of spinal systems.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a mechanical device like a spinal implant. This term typically refers to data used to train AI/ML models.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

In summary: The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a spinal implant through mechanical testing against a recognized standard (ASTM F1717-96). It lacks the detailed quantitative performance data and the clinical/AI study information requested in your prompt.

Ask a specific question about this device