Search Results

RANGE/DENALI/MESA and SMALL STATURE and ARI are cleared for the following indications:

Non-cervical fixation as an adjunct to following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e. fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthosis; and/or failed previous fusion.

Except for hooks, when used as an anterolateral the Range Spinal System may also be used for the same indications as an adjunct to fusion.

Except for the ARI staples, the Range Spinal System is indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when used for posterior non-cervical fixation in pediatric patients. The Range Spinal System for pediatric use is intended to be used with autograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The Range/Denali/Mesa Spinal System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (thoraciclumbar) spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, hooks and rod connectors. The subject 510(k) adds additional screws and rods to the system.

Function: The system functions as a spinal fixation device to provide support and stabilization of the posterior thoracic and lumbar spine.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the RANGE/DENALI/MESA Spinal System. It's a regulatory submission to the FDA, not a clinical study report. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and clinical study details is not present in this type of document.

However, I can extract what is available and clarify what is not.

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

This document does not provide explicit acceptance criteria or reported device performance in the context of a clinical study. Instead, it describes a "Technological Comparison to Predicate(s)" and "Non-clinical Performance Evaluation."

• Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from Non-clinical Testing): The implicit acceptance criterion for the non-clinical performance evaluation is that the proposed implants (new screws and rods) are "substantially the same as the predicate devices" in terms of design features, materials, and sizes, and perform comparably in "worst case components" testing.
• Reported Device Performance (Non-clinical):
  • Performance evaluations were previously conducted on constructs representing the worst-case components.
  • Tests included: static torsion, static compression, and dynamic compression bending.
  • These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM F1717.
  • "Engineering rationales determined that the proposed implants were substantially the same as the predicate devices."

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This document describes non-clinical performance evaluations (mechanical testing), not a clinical test set involving human subjects. Therefore, information about human sample size, data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or provided.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This is not applicable as there is no clinical test set or ground truth established by medical experts for device performance in this document. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical testing is compliance with ASTM F1717 and comparability to predicate devices.

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

This is not applicable as there is no clinical test set or adjudication process described.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a spinal fixation system (physical implant), not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

No, this is not an algorithm or AI device.

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

For the non-clinical performance evaluation, the "ground truth" is adherence to ASTM F1717 standards and demonstrating substantial equivalence in mechanical properties to previously cleared predicate devices. There is no clinical ground truth established or used in this submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable as this is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device