Search Results

The TIGER® Spine System is intended to provide immobilization 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 thoracic, lumbar, and sacral/iliac spine (TT Sifleum): degenerative discogenic back pain with degeneration of disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective widence of neurological impairment, frecture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal turnor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The TIGER® Spine System is composed of rods, connectors, and pedicle screws. It can be used for single or multiple level fixations.

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) Summary for the TIGER® Spine System. It focuses on the substantial equivalence of the device to existing predicate devices based on non-clinical testing. Crucially, the document explicitly states that no clinical studies were performed. Therefore, this device submission does not contain information regarding acceptance criteria for a device's performance based on clinical data, nor does it describe a study that proves the device meets such criteria through clinical outcomes.

Instead, the document details non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate mechanical safety and performance in comparison to predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based only on the provided text, acknowledging the absence of clinical performance data:

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

Since this is a non-clinical submission based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly meeting or exceeding the performance of the predicate device(s) in specified mechanical tests. The "reported device performance" is the conclusion that the TIGER® Spine System is equivalent.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not specify the sample size (number of devices or test repetitions) used for the non-clinical mechanical tests. It also does not discuss data provenance as it pertains to patient data, as no clinical studies were performed. The tests are laboratory-based mechanical tests.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

This question is not applicable. No ground truth based on expert clinical assessment (e.g., radiologists) was established because no clinical studies were performed. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on established ASTM standards and comparative analysis to predicate devices.

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

This question is not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication of expert opinions was created.

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

This question is not applicable. No MRMC study was performed, as no clinical studies involving human readers or AI assistance were conducted.

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

This question is not applicable. No algorithm or standalone software performance was evaluated, as this submission is for a physical spinal implant system.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is based on established engineering standards (ASTM F1717, ASTM F1798) and the performance characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices. This is a technical, rather than clinical, ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. There was no training set, as no algorithms requiring training were involved in this submission.

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

This question is not applicable. There was no training set.

Summary of Study (Based on Provided Document):

The submission describes a non-clinical study involving mechanical and dimensional testing of the TIGER® Spine System. The study's purpose was to demonstrate substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices (e.g., Expedium™/Viper™ Spine System, Scient'x Polyaxial LP) for the addition of new components. The study involved:

• Tests performed: Static and dynamic compression (ASTM F1717), static torsion (ASTM F1717), static axial and torsional grip (ASTM F1798), and dimensional comparison.
• Conclusion: The results indicated that the TIGER® Spine System is equivalent to the predicate device(s) in terms of principles of operation, technology, materials, and indications of use.
• Sample Size and Ground Truth: Not explicitly detailed for the specific tests, but generally refers to standard testing protocols. The "ground truth" for this equivalence claim is the established performance and safety profile of the predicate devices.
• Clinical Studies: Explicitly stated as not performed. Therefore, no clinical acceptance criteria or performance studies were conducted or reported in this submission.

Ask a specific question about this device