Search Results

The CD HORIZON® Spinal System is intended for posterior, non-cervical 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 and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudarthrosis; and/or failed previous fusion.

When used in a percutaneous, non-cervical, posterior approach with the SEXTANT instrumentation, the CD HORIZON® screws are intended 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/or failed previous fusion.

Except for hooks, when used as an anterolateral thoracic/lumbar system, CD HORIZON® components such as ECLIPSE® components are intended for the following indications: (1) degenerative disc disease fas defined by back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), (2) spinal stenosis, (3) spondylolisthesis, (4) spinal deformities (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), (5) fracture, (6) pseudarthrosis; (7) turnor resection, and/or (8) failed previous fusion.

The CD HORIZON® SPIRE Plate is posterior, non-pedicle supplemental fixation device, intended for use in the non-cervical spine (T1 - S1). It is intended for plate fixation/attachment to spinous process for the purpose of achieving supplemental fusion in the following conditions: 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); and/or tumor.

The CD HORIZON® LEGACY 3.5mm rod and associated components, when used as a pedicle screw fixation system of the non-cervical posterior spine in skeletally mature patients, are indicated for one or more of the following: (1) degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic imparment (2) fracture, (3) dislocation, (4) scoliosis, (5) kyphosis, (6) spinal tumor, and/or (7) failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

In addition, when used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the CD HORIZON® LEGACY 3.5mm rod and associated components, are indicated for skeletally mature patients: (a) having severe spondylolistlesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the fifth lumbar-first sacral (L5-S1) vertebral joint; (b) who are receiving fusionesis autogenous bone graft only; (c) who are having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacchil spine (L3 and below); and (d) who are having the device removed after the development of a solid fusion mpss.

In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the CD HORIZON® Spinal System rods may be connected to the VERTEXTM Reconstruction System with the VERTEX™ rod connector. Refer to the VERTEXTM Reconstruction System Package Insert for a list of the VERTEX™ indications of use,

The CD HORIZON® Spinal System consists of a variety of rods, hooks, screws, CROSSLINK® plates, staples, and other connecting components used to build a spinal construct. Instrumentation is also available to facilitate implantation of the device components.

The CD HORIZON® Spinal System is intended to help provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the thoracic, lumbar, and/or sacral spine. The CD HORIZON® Spinal System implant components can be rigidly locked into a variety of configurations, with each construct being tailor-made for the individual case. If necessary, the CD Connegations System can be connected to the VERTEX™ Reconstruction System through a rod connector.

Certain implant components from other Medtronic Sofamor Danek spinal systems can be used with the CD HORIZON® Spinal System. These components include TSRH® rods, hooks, screws, plates, CROSSLINK® plates, connectors, staples and washers; GDLH® rods, hooks, connectors and CROSSLINK® bar and connectors; LIBERTY® rods and screws; DYNALOK PLUS® bolts; and Medtronic Sofamor Danek Multi-Axial rods and screws.

CD HORIZON® hooks are intended for posterior use only. CD HORIZON® staples and CD HORIZON® ECLIPSE® rods and screws are intended for anterior use only. However, for patients of smaller stature, CD HORIZON® 4.5mm rods and associated components may be used posteriorly.

The purpose of this 510(k) submission is to add modified connecting components to the CD HORIZON® Spinal System.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the CD HORIZON® Spinal System's acceptance criteria and related study information:

Based on the provided K050981 document, there is no information present regarding specific acceptance criteria, device performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision), or any study designed to prove the device meets such criteria.

The document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification, which primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. The "Summary of Safety and Effectiveness" section explicitly states:

"Documentation, including a Risk Analysis, was provided which demonstrated the subject product to be substantially equivalent to the previously cleared CD HORIZON® Spinal System connectors cleared in (K041862, K050079, K040583 AND K043488) for use for the identical indications."

This means the acceptance criteria for this 510(k) submission revolve around demonstrating that the modified connecting components of the CD HORIZON® Spinal System are as safe and effective as the existing, legally marketed predicate devices for the identical indications for use. This is a regulatory pathway that doesn't typically require new clinical performance studies or the establishment of novel performance metrics for AI/software devices. The safety and effectiveness are inferred from the predicate device through design, material, and functional comparisons.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of your specific questions, as the provided text does not contain that type of information.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted based on the provided text, and what cannot:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. This 510(k) is for modified components of an orthopedic implant system and relies on substantial equivalence. It does not describe a "test set" in the context of data-driven performance evaluation.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. This information is not relevant to a substantial equivalence submission for an orthopedic implant. Ground truth establishment in this context would likely refer to clinical outcomes, which are not detailed as part of a new performance study in this document.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. No "test set" or adjudication method is described.

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 document describes a physical medical device (spinal system components), not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically undergo MRMC studies.

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

• No. This document pertains to physical spinal implant components, not a standalone algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided explicitly for a new study within this document. For a substantial equivalence claim, the "ground truth" for the predicate devices' safety and effectiveness would have been established through their original regulatory clearance, likely involving clinical experience, mechanical testing, and biocompatibility assessments. This document does not describe new ground truth generation for this specific submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. No training set is mentioned as this is not an AI/machine learning device submission.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. No training set is mentioned.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for modified components of a spinal system. The key approach for clearance is demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than presenting new performance data from a clinical trial or computational study based on acceptance criteria for novel performance metrics. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and study details for AI/software-type devices is not contained within this document.

Ask a specific question about this device