Search Results

The Rods from the Osteonics® Spinal System and Opus Spinal System are intended to be used with the components of the Xia Spinal System.

The Xia Spinal System is intended for use in the noncervical spine. When used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the Xia Spinal System is intended for patients: (a) having severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) at the fifth lumbar - first sacral (L5-S1) vertebral joint; (b) who are receiving fusions using autogenous bone graft only; (c) who are having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine; and (d) who are having the device removed after the development of a solid fusion mass.

When used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the XIA Spinal System is also 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 neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

When used as an anterior screw fixation system or a posterior hook and sacral/iliac screw fixation system, the XIA Spinal System is indicated for patients with degenerative disc disease which is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies, spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, spinal deformities such as scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis, tumor, pseudoarthrosis or revision of failed fusion attempts.

The submission involves no change to the components themselves. This submission covers use of predicate OSS and Opus 6 mm diameter Rods with the predicate Xia Spinal System.

This 510(k) submission (K013688) focuses on allowing the use of previously cleared Osteonics® Spinal System (OSS) and Opus Spinal System rods with the Xia Spinal System. It does not describe a study involving an "AI device" or "algorithm" in the conventional sense of machine learning or diagnostic imaging. Instead, the "device" in question is a medical implant (spinal fixation system components). Therefore, acceptance criteria and study details related to AI performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, effect size of human readers with/without AI) are not applicable here.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the mechanical performance study conducted to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of using these combined components, which serves as the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context.

Here's the information structured to best fit your request, adapting the columns where necessary:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details (Mechanical Testing)

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated as a numerical sample size. The description refers to "Construct fatigue testing," implying multiple test specimens were subjected to fatigue loads. Data provenance is not applicable in the human subject or imaging sense; this is a laboratory-based mechanical test.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is established through standardized testing protocols (e.g., ASTM standards for fatigue testing of medical implants) and measured physical properties by engineers. No human expert "ground truth" establishment in the diagnostic sense is mentioned.

3. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. This is mechanical testing, not a clinical review of images or data requiring adjudication among experts.

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 submission for a physical medical device (spinal implant components), not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. There is no algorithm involved. "Standalone" performance here refers to the mechanical integrity of the device itself.

6. The type of ground truth used: For mechanical properties, the "ground truth" is typically defined by established engineering standards and material specifications that define acceptable performance limits (e.g., fatigue life, stiffness, strength) for spinal implants. The comparison is against predicate constructs (existing, legally marketed spinal systems). The phrase "comparable mechanical properties" indicates the tested construct's performance met or exceeded the performance of the predicate devices.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is a mechanical test for a physical device, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as no training set exists for this type of submission.

Ask a specific question about this device