Search Results

When used as an interbody fusion device, the ProLift® Expandable 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. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at involved level(s) may be treated with the device. This device is intended to be used with autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone and a supplemental internal spinal fixation system (e.g., pedicle screw or anterolateral plating system) that is cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine.

The ProLift Expandable System is available in a range of sizes and footprints and can expand to the desired height (8mm to 16mm) to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. It is fabricated and manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) as described by ASTM F136. The implant allows packing autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone to help promote fusion. The superior and inferior surfaces have teeth to assist in the interface with the vertebral bodies to prevent rotation and/or migration.

This document describes the ProLift® Expandable System, an intervertebral body fusion device. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria. Instead, it is a 510(k) Pre-market Notification for a medical device submitted to the FDA, demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document explicitly states: "No additional testing was performed, see comparison analysis." This indicates that the approval was based on demonstrating the new device's substantial equivalence to a previously approved device (the predicate device) through a comparison analysis of design, materials, indications for use, and mechanical performance, rather than through new performance studies with specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device