Search Results

The Plateau Spacer System is intended for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). It is to be used in patients who have had at least six months of non-operative treatment. This device is intended to be used with autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone and supplemental internal spine fixation system (e.g., pedicle screw or anterolateral plating system) that is cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine.

The Plateau-V Spacer System is intended to serve as an intervertebral body fusion device. The implant is available in a range of sizes and footprints to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. It is fabricated and manufactured from either PEEK-OPTIMA LT1 or Zeniva PEEK ZA-500 with tantalum markers. The implant is hollow to permit packing autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone to help promote intervertebral body fusion. The superior and inferior surfaces have teeth to assist in the interface with the vertebral endplates to prevent rotation and/or migration.

The provided text describes a medical device, the Life Spine Plateau Spacer System, and its clearance process with the FDA. However, it does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or a study proving that an AI-powered device meets such criteria.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for an intervertebral body fusion device, which is a physical implant, not an AI device. The included "Performance Data" section solely refers to mechanical testing of the implant itself (e.g., static axial compression, expulsion, subsidence, and dynamic axial compression tests) to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on physical and material properties.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the following sections because the provided text does not contain this type of information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: No AI device is described, so no such criteria or performance data is available.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: No AI device or test set for an AI device is mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as there is no AI device or ground truth for an AI device.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
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: Not applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document discusses substantial equivalence for a physical medical device (intervertebral body fusion device) based on its design, materials, indications for use, and mechanical performance relative to existing predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device