Search Results

When intended to promote fusion of the cervical spine and occipito-cervico-thoracic junction (Occiput-T3), the STRYKER Spine Oasys System is intended for:
· Degenerative Disc Disease (as defined by neck and back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies)

• · Spondylolisthesis
• · Spinal Stenosis
• · Fracture/Dislocation
• Atlanto/axial fracture with instability
• · Occipitocervical dislocation
• · Revision of previous cervical spine surgery
• Tumors
  When used with the occipital plate, the bone screws are limited to occipital fixation only. The bone screws are not intended to be used in the cervical spine.

The use of the polyaxial screws is limited to placement in the upper thoracic spine (T1 -T3 ). They are not intended to be placed in the cervical spine.

The hooks and rods are also intended to provide stabilization to promote fusion of fracture/dislocation or trauma in the cervical/upper thoracic (C1-T3) spine.

The Stryker Spine OASYS® System can be linked to the Xia® System and Xia® 4.5 Spinal System via the rod-to-rod connectors and transition rods.

The Stryker Spine OASYS® System can also be linked to the polyaxial screws of Xia® II and Xia® 3 System via the saddle connector.

The Stryker Spine OASYS® System is comprised of rods, polyaxial screws, bone screws, hooks, connectors, and occiput plates. The components are available in a variety of lengths in order to accommodate patient anatomy. The components are fabricated from Titanium alloy and CP Titanium and are provided non-sterile. The subject system also offers Vitallium® rods. The Stryker Spine OASYS® System can be linked to the Stryker Spine Xia® family and Xia 4.5 Systems and SR90D System.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Stryker Spine OASYS® System, a spinal interlaminal fixation orthosis. The submission is for a modification to an already legally marketed predicate device (Stryker Spine OASYS® System: K111719) and therefore does not include a comprehensive study on a new AI device or a detailed acceptance criteria table with reported device performance metrics in the way one might expect for a new diagnostic device.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating that a modification to an existing device (the addition of screws with a modified drive mechanism) does not negatively affect the device's performance compared to the predicate.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a table of reported device performance values against those criteria, as it's a 510(k) for a modification to an existing device rather than a de novo submission for a novel device or AI diagnostic.

However, the "Summary of Performance Data" section implies the acceptance criteria for this specific modification:

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance

The document states an "engineering analysis was performed." This is typically a mechanical test, not a clinical study involving a "test set" of patients or data in the way an AI diagnostic would require. Therefore, there's no information on a patient-based sample size or data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The "test set" would likely refer to the physical screws and system components used in the engineering analysis.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

Not applicable. This is not a study requiring expert readers to establish ground truth for a diagnostic outcome. The "ground truth" here would be the physical integrity and mechanical performance of the modified screws and system components, assessed through engineering principles and testing.

4. Adjudication Method

Not applicable, as this is an engineering analysis, not a study involving expert readers and diagnostic assessments.

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

Not conducted. This is not an AI device, and no human-in-the-loop performance or comparison to human readers is described.

6. Standalone Performance

Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm but a physical medical device. The "engineering analysis" would represent the standalone evaluation of the modified components' mechanical performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is based on engineering and mechanical testing standards and performance benchmarks, comparing the modified components to the previously cleared predicate device. This would involve stress tests, fatigue tests, and other mechanical property assessments to ensure the new square drive mechanism does not compromise the device's integrity or function.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is not an AI device that requires a training set.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device