Search Results

The Zavation Spinal System is a pedicle screw system 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 neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The Zavation Spinal Systems is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

The Zavation Spinal Systems when used as anterior thoracic/lumbar screw fixation systems, is indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (fracture and/or dislocation), spinal stenosis, deformities (scoliosis, lordosis and/or kyphosis), tumor, and previous failed fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The Zavation Spinal System is comprised of polyaxial pedicle screws, rods and crosslinks. The Zavation Spinal System can be used for single or multiple level fixations. The pedicle screws are available in various lengths and diameters. The rods are available in straight and pre-lordosed (curved) configurations. The system has variable length cross connectors.

The provided text describes the Zavation Spinal System, a medical device. This document is a 510(k) summary submission to the FDA, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through mechanical performance testing.

Therefore, the study described here is not a clinical study involving human patients or AI algorithms. It is a biomechanical performance study of a spinal implant system. As such, many of the requested fields related to clinical studies and AI are not applicable.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Note: The specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., maximum load, cycles to failure) are not provided in this summary. The comparison is made against the performance of the predicate devices.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated, but mechanical testing typically involves a sufficient number of constructs to ensure statistical validity for the specific tests performed (e.g., 5-6 samples per test arm). The text mentions "a worst-case construct," implying specific configurations were tested.
• Data Provenance: This is a retrospective comparison against existing data for the predicate devices. The tests were performed in a lab setting ("biomechanical test lab"). There is no mention of country of origin as it's a lab study.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• Not Applicable. This was a mechanical engineering study, not a clinical study involving expert interpretation of data. The "ground truth" is defined by the physical properties and performance metrics of the materials and constructs themselves, as measured by testing equipment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. As a mechanical performance study, there's no adjudication in the sense of clinical agreement or consensus. The results are quantitative measurements from standardized tests.

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 study is not about AI or human reader performance. It's a mechanical device performance study.

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

• Not Applicable. This study is not about an algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" for this study is the measured mechanical performance of the device components and construct under various load conditions, compared against the known mechanical performance of the predicate devices according to established ASTM standards (F1717).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this mechanical performance study. The study involves physical testing of the device.

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

• Not Applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device