Search Results

When intended to promote fusion of the cervical spine and occipito-cervico-thoracic junction (Occiput-T3), the Stryker Spine OASYSTM System is intended for:

• Degenerative Disc Disease (as defined by neck or back pain of discogenic origin with . degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies)
• Spondvlolisthesis .
• Spinal Stenosis .
• Fracture/Dislocation ●
• Atlanto/axial fracture with instability .
• Occipitocervical dislocation .
• Revision of previous cervical spine surgery .
• Tumors .

When used with the occipital plate, the bone screws are limited to occipital fixation only. The bone screws are not intended to be used in the cervical spine.

The use of the polyaxial screws is limited to placement in the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3) in treating thoracic conditions only. They are not intended to be placed in the cervical spine.

The hooks and rods are also intended to provide stabilization to promote fusion following reduction of fracture/dislocation or trauma in the cervical/upper thoracic (C1-T3) spine.

The Stryker Spine OASYSTM System can also be linked to the Xia System, SR90D System and Xia 4.5 Spinal System via the rod-to-rod connectors.

This Special 510(k) submission is intended to introduce a line extension to the predicate OASYSTM System, which consists of two rod-to-rod connectors (axial and parallel versions) used to link the 3.5mm OASYS™ System rods with the Xia® 4.5 Spinal System rods (510(k) numbers #K050461 and #K060361). The Xia® 4.5 Spinal System rods will retain their original cleared name.

This document is a Special 510(k) Premarket Notification for a line extension to the Stryker Spine OASYS™ System. It does not describe a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria in the traditional sense of a clinical or performance study with numerical targets. Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on material composition and validated mechanical properties.

Therefore, the requested information elements related to clinical study design, ground truth, expert adjudication, sample sizes for test/training sets, and comparative effectiveness studies are not applicable in this context.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The primary "acceptance criterion" for this 510(k) is demonstrating equivalent mechanical properties to the predicate device.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not applicable. This document describes a Special 510(k) submission for a line extension, not a clinical study involving human or animal subjects that would require a "test set" and associated data provenance in this manner. The "testing" mentioned refers to mechanical property validation on the device components themselves.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not applicable. See point 2. The "ground truth" here is the established mechanical properties of the predicate device.

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

• Not applicable. See point 2.

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

• Not applicable. This submission is for spinal fixation components, not an AI or imaging device involving human readers or AI assistance.

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

• Not applicable. This submission is for spinal fixation components, not an algorithm or software device.

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

• The "ground truth" in this context is the established mechanical properties of the predicate device, as determined by engineering standards and testing, and the material composition of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this type of device submission.

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

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this type of device submission. The "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence (as described in point 7) would have been established through engineering design, material specifications, and standardized mechanical testing processes.

Ask a specific question about this device