Search Results

The CapSure® PS System is a non-cervical spinal fixation system intended for posterior pedicle screw fixation (T1-S2/ilium) in skeletally mature patients. The CapSure® PS System is indicated for degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

The CapSure® PS System is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation in skeletally mature patients with severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) at the L5-S1 vertebral joint, having fusions with autogenous bone graft, with the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (levels of pedicle screw fixation are L3-S2/ilium), and for whom the device is intended to be removed after solid fusion is attained.

The predicate CapSure® PS System consists of a selection of non-sterile, single use, titanium alloy screws and connectors, and titanium alloy and cobalt chrome rod components that are assembled to create a rigid spinal construct. The components of the predicate CapSure® PS System are attached to the non-cervical spine of skeletally mature patients in order to stabilize the spine during fusion of vertebral bodies, and are intended to be removed after spinal fusion is achieved.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Important Note: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (pedicle screw system), not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). Therefore, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study aspects you've asked about (like sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, etc.) are not applicable to this type of submission.

This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device, primarily through mechanical performance testing for new components.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The core "acceptance criteria" for this specific 510(k) submission are based on demonstrating that the new components for the CapSure® PS System perform at least as well as the predicate device, specifically in terms of mechanical stability and durability.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation: For a mechanical device like a pedicle screw system, "performance" is primarily measured by its physical properties and mechanical integrity under simulated physiological loads. The standard ASTM F1717 is a recognized standard for testing spinal implant constructs. The "reported performance" is that these tests were conducted and the results demonstrated substantial equivalence.

Study Details (as applicable to a mechanical device 510(k))

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as "test set" in the context of an algorithm. For mechanical testing, the "sample size" would refer to the number of device components or constructs tested for each configuration. Specific numbers are not provided in this summary, but these tests are typically conducted on multiple samples per configuration to ensure statistical validity (e.g., n=3 or n=6 per test).
• Data Provenance: The testing was conducted internally or by a contract lab on physical components of the CapSure® PS System. This is a prospective experimental study (i.e., new tests were run on the new components) rather than a retrospective analysis of patient data. There is no "country of origin of the data" in the sense of patient data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• Not Applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of AI/SaMD (expert consensus, pathology, etc.) is not relevant for the mechanical testing of a pedicle screw system. The "truth" is established by the physical laws and mechanical properties measured in the laboratory according to established ASTM standards. The experts involved would be engineers/scientists designing and conducting the tests and analyzing the mechanical data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. Adjudication (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is a method for resolving discrepancies in expert labeling or diagnoses for ground truth establishment in clinical data. This is not performed for mechanical bench testing.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No. This type of study is specifically for evaluating the impact of AI on human readers' performance (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). It is not relevant for a physical medical device like a pedicle screw system.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Not Applicable. There is no algorithm or software being evaluated for standalone performance in this submission.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering/Mechanical Standards and Measurements: The "ground truth" for this device is its physical performance and integrity as measured against established industry standards (ASTM F1717) and compared to the known safe and effective performance of its predicate device. This is determined through controlled laboratory experiments.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of mechanical device testing. The device components themselves are the "subject" of the test, and their design is based on engineering principles and prior device knowledge, not machine learning training.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not Applicable. As there's no training set, there's no ground truth establishment for one. The design and testing methodologies are based on established engineering principles, material science, and regulatory requirements for medical devices.

Ask a specific question about this device