Search Results

The VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System is intended for noncervical, nonpedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients. The VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System is intended for non cervical pedicle fixation for the following indications: spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4 at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment); trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System is comprised of non-sterile, single use, titanium alloy components. The VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System attaches to the vertebral body by means of screws to the non-cervical spinal and allows a surgeon to build a spinal implant construct. This system's design is intended to stabilize the spinal operative site during the fusion process of a bone graft in the disc space. The VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System is made up of rods, multi-axial and standard screws, hooks and locking caps. This submission adds both adjustable and fixed cross connectors.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System, specifically focusing on the addition of adjustable and fixed cross connectors. The submission primarily addresses substantial equivalence to predicate devices and describes the mechanical testing performed.

However, the provided text does not contain information related to a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in terms of clinical performance, diagnostic accuracy, or human reader improvement, as typically seen in studies for AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). The acceptance criteria outlined are based on mechanical testing for substantial equivalence.

Therefore, I will extract the relevant information from the document regarding the acceptance criteria and the "study" (mechanical testing) that demonstrates equivalence. Many of the questions in your prompt are not applicable to this type of device submission (mechanical implant) and the information provided.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the provided text. Mechanical testing often involves a smaller number of physical samples compared to clinical trials or AI model evaluations.
• Data Provenance: The "study" was mechanical testing performed by VERTETEBRON Inc. It's not clinical data, so country of origin or retrospective/prospective does not apply in the typical sense.

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

• Not applicable. This was mechanical testing according to a standard (ASTM 1717), not an expert-driven ground truth establishment.

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for expert-driven ground truth, not for standardized mechanical testing.

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 mechanical implant device, not an AI or diagnostic device that would involve human readers or AI assistance for interpretation.

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

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical implant device.

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

• The "ground truth" here is compliance with the ASTM 1717 standard for mechanical testing, demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It is not a clinical ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical implant device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical implant device.

Summary of the Study (Mechanical Testing):

The study referenced is "Testing in accordance with ASTM 1717". This standard applies to the "Standard Test Method for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Corpectomy Model." The purpose of this testing was to demonstrate that the modified VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System (with cross connectors) is substantially equivalent in its mechanical performance to the previously cleared VERTEBRON PSS™ Pedicle Screw System (without cross connectors) and other predicate devices (Optima Spinal Fixation System; U&I America).

The acceptance criteria implicitly revolve around meeting the performance benchmarks or being within acceptable tolerance levels as compared to the predicate devices when tested under the ASTM 1717 protocol. The "reported device performance" is that it did demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device