Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K120571
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2012-05-14

    (77 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3070
    Predicate For
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Synthes USS are non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients with the exception of the Small Stature USS, which includes small stature and pediatric patients. These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis, Scheuermann's Disease), turnor, stenosis, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

    When treating patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), transverse bars are not cleared for use as part of the posterior pedicle screw construct.

    When used with the 3.5 mm/6.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5mm Systems. In addition, when used with 3.5 mm/5.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5mm Systems. When used with the 5.0 mm/6.0mm parallel connectors, the Synthes Small Stature USS can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems. When used with the 5.5 mm/6.0mm parallel or extension connectors, Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be linked to the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems. 5.5 mm/5.5mm parallel or extension connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems to one another. 6.0 mm/6.0mm parallel or extension connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems to one another.

    Rod-to-rod connectors can be used to link all Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems to one another.

    When used with the 3.5 mm/6.0mm and 4.0 mm/6.0mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 3.5 mm/5.5mm and 4.0 mm/5.5mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be linked to the CerviFix 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm Systems, respectively. When used with the 5.5 mm/6.0mm tapered rods, the Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be linked to the Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems.

    In addition, Synthes USS 6.0 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 6.0 mm rods and transconnectors except Synthes 6.0 mm cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy and titanium grade 3 rods, which can only be used with Pangea. Synthes USS 5.5 mm rod systems can be interchanged with all USS 5.5 mm rods and transconnectors.

    Device Description

    The Synthes USS Connector is an addition to Synthes' existing non-cervical spinal fixation devices intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (TI-S2/ilium), posterior hook fixation (T1-L5), or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). These components are rod-to-rod connectors which can connect spinal rods of 5.5mm diameter. The rod-to-rod connectors are comprised of TAN (Titanium-6 Aluminum-7 Niobium, per ASTM F1295-05).

    AI/ML Overview

    This document describes the 510(k) summary for the Synthes USS Connector, a spinal fixation device. It details the device's intended use, indications for use, and performance data.

    Here's an analysis of the provided information, framed as acceptance criteria and study details:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    Substantial Equivalence (Overall Safety & Effectiveness):The Synthes USS Connector is considered "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices.
    Mechanical Performance (Static Compression Bending): Device withstands static compression bending.Non-clinical testing according to ASTM F1717-10 was conducted, which includes static compression bending. The results presumably demonstrated performance equivalent to predicate devices, thus meeting this (implied) criterion.
    Mechanical Performance (Dynamic Compression Bending): Device withstands dynamic compression bending.Non-clinical testing according to ASTM F1717-10 was conducted, which includes dynamic compression bending. The results presumably demonstrated performance equivalent to predicate devices, thus meeting this (implied) criterion.
    Mechanical Performance (Static Torsion): Device withstands static torsional forces.Non-clinical testing according to ASTM F1717-10 was conducted, which includes static torsion. The results presumably demonstrated performance equivalent to predicate devices, thus meeting this (implied) criterion.
    Material Biocompatibility: Materials are safe for implantation.The device is comprised of TAN (Titanium-6 Aluminum-7 Niobium, per ASTM F1295-05), which is a commonly used and accepted biocompatible material for spinal implants.

    Study used to prove device meets acceptance criteria:

    The study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is described as non-clinical testing conducted according to ASTM F1717-10. This standard covers "Standard Test Methods for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Vertebrectomy Model."

    2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
    The document does not explicitly state the sample size for the non-clinical testing (e.g., number of connectors tested). It only mentions "non-clinical testing."

    Data Provenance: Not applicable, as this was non-clinical (mechanical) testing, not human-subject or clinical data.

    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
    Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering standards and measurements, not by expert consensus.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set
    Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used for subjective assessments (e.g., image interpretation) or clinical outcomes, not for objective 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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This document describes a spinal implant, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive device.

    6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
    Not applicable. This device is a physical spinal implant, not an algorithm.

    7. The type of ground truth used
    The ground truth used for mechanical performance testing is the specifications and requirements outlined in ASTM F1717-10. The acceptance criterion for mechanical performance is that the device demonstrates mechanical characteristics (strength, fatigue resistance) that are "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, as measured against the forces described in the ASTM standard.

    8. The sample size for the training set
    Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for the mechanical testing of a physical medical device. This is not an AI/ML product.

    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
    Not applicable, as there is no training set.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1