Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(133 days)
The ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System is intended to help provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the lumbar and/or sacral spine, specifically as follows:
For pedicular use: When used as pedicle screw fixation system of the non cervical posterior spine in skeletally mature patients, these systems are indicated for one or more of the following: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).
In addition, this system is indicated for pedicle screw fixation in skeletally mature patients with severe spondylolisthesis (grade 3 & 4) at the L5-S1 joint having fusion with autogenous bone graft, having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (with pedicle placement at L3 and below) with removal of the implants after the development of a solid fusion mass.
The ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System is also intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis other than either sever spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment.
When used as non pedicular fixation system:
The ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation Systems, when used as an anterior screw fixation system and posterior sacral/iliac screw fixation system are indicated for the following:
- · Degenerative disc disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies).
- o Spondylolisthesis
- Fracture o
- Spinal deformities such as scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis o
- o Tumor
- Revision of failed fusion attempts o
- o Pseudarthrosis
- Spinal stenosis o
When used in the anterior indication the ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation Systems are indicated for use in the thoracic and lumbar spine.
The ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System is comprised of a variety of pedicle screws, rods, cross connectors and staples sizes that may uniquely fitted for each individual case. All implants are manufactured from medical grade titanium alloy (Ti6A14V-ELI).
The provided 510(k) summary for the ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a detailed clinical study demonstrating device performance against such criteria.
Instead, the submission relies on the concept of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. This means that instead of proving the device meets specific performance metrics through a new study, the manufacturer asserts that the new device is as safe and effective as existing, legally marketed devices.
Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled directly from the provided text.
Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred and what is missing:
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System
Given the nature of a 510(k) submission, particularly for a device like a spinal fixation system, the "acceptance criteria" are generally tied to demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This often involves mechanical testing and assessment of material properties rather than clinical performance metrics in the same way an AI diagnostic device might have.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Note: The document only mentions "pre-clinical testing" and "substantial equivalence." It does not list specific numerical acceptance criteria or performance metrics in a table.
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criteria (Expected for this type of device based on general regulatory standards, but not explicitly stated in the provided text) | Reported Device Performance (as inferred from "Pre-clinical testing performed indicated that the ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices.") |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical Strength & Durability | (e.g., Fatigue Strength, Static Bending Strength, Torsional Strength, Pull-out Strength; often tested to ISO or ASTM standards) | Demonstrated to meet the performance characteristics of predicate devices, implicitly indicating it withstands anticipated physiological loads and provides appropriate stability. The specific quantitative results are not provided but are assumed to be "equivalent" to predicate devices. |
| Material Biocompatibility | (e.g., Biocompatibility as per ISO 10993 for medical devices; no adverse tissue reaction, cytotoxicity, sensitization, etc.) | Manufactured from medical grade titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V-ELI), a commonly accepted biocompatible material for implants. Implied to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices in terms of material safety. |
| Design Characteristics | (e.e.g., Rod diameter, screw dimensions, thread design, locking mechanisms) | "The ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System is comprised of a variety of pedicle screws, rods, cross connectors and staples sizes that may uniquely fitted for each individual case." "has the same indications for use, design, function, and materials used [as predicate devices]." |
| Indications for Use Alignment | The new device's intended use should align with, or be a subset of, the predicate device's indications. | Explicitly states: "ISSYS LP Spinal Fixation System was shown to be substantially equivalent to previously cleared devices and has the same indications for use..." |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of a clinical test set from the provided document. The "tests" were pre-clinical (likely mechanical and material characterization). The sample size for these pre-clinical tests (e.g., number of screws tested for fatigue) is not mentioned.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable for clinical data. For pre-clinical data, it would typically be internal laboratory testing or testing by a contract research organization. No specific origin is mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Not applicable. This device is a surgical implant, and the assessment is based on physical and mechanical properties, not expert interpretation of diagnostic images or clinical assessments for "ground truth."
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- Not applicable. As described in point 3.
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 is not an AI/diagnostic device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or diagnostic device.
7. The type of ground truth used
- For a device like this, "ground truth" relates to validated engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti6Al4V-ELI, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility), and performance benchmarks established by predicate devices. No external "ground truth" (like pathology or outcomes data) for clinical performance is mentioned as part of this 510(k) submission's evidence for substantial equivalence.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable. This is not a machine learning device, so there is no "training set."
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable. As described in point 8.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1