Search Results

The CD Horizon™ Spinal System with or without Sextant™ instrumentation is intended for posterior, non-cervical fixation as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (DDD - 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, tumor, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion.

Except for hooks, when used as an anterolateral thoracic/lumbar system, the CD Horizon™ Spinal System titanium, cobalt chrome, and stainless steel implants may also be used for the same indications as an adjunct to fusion. With the exception of DDD, the CD Horizon™ 3.5mm rods and associated components may be used for the aforementioned indications in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion. The 3.5mm rods may be used for the specific pediatric indications noted below.

When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the CD Horizon™ Spinal System titanium, cobalt chrome, and stainless steel implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat progressive spinal deformities (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis) including idiopathic scoliosis, neuromuscular scoliosis, and congenital scoliosis. Additionally, the CD Horizon™ System is intended to treat pediatric patients diagnosed with the following conditions: spondylolisthesis/ spondylolysis, fracture caused by turnor and/or trauma, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion. These devices are to be used with autograft. Pediatric pediative pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The CD Horizon™ PEEK rods are intended to provide posterior supplemental fixation when used with an interbody fusion cage for patients diagnosed with DDD. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level. This device is intended for 1-2 level use in the lumbosacral spine (1.2 - S1) in skeletally mature patients. The device is intended for use with an interbody fusion cage at the instrumented level and is not intended for stand-alone use.

The CD Horizon™ Spire™ plate is a posterior, single-level, non-pedicle supplemental fixation device intended for use in the non-cervical spine (T1-S1) as an adjunct to fusion in skeletally mature patients. It is intended for plate fixation/ attachment to spinous processes for the purpose of achieving supplemental fixation in the following conditions: DDD (as previously defined), spondylolisthesis, trauma, and/or tumor.

In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the CD Horizon™ Spinal System rods may be connected to the Vertex™ Reconstruction System with the Vertex™ rod connector. Refer to the Vertex™ Reconstruction System package insert for a list of the Vertex™ indications of use.

The CD Horizon™ Spinal System consists of a variety of shapes and size of rods, hooks, screws, CROSSLINK(R) Plates, staples, and connecting components, and well as implant components from other Medtronic spinal systems, which can be rigidly locked into a variety of configurations, with each construct being tailor-made for the individual case. The purpose of this submission is to allow the use of the patient specific UNiD Rods cleared as a part of the PASS LP Spinal System with the CD Horizon™ Spinal System to allow additional surgeon options.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the CD Horizon™ Spinal System. It does not pertain to an AI/ML-driven medical device, nor does it detail a study involving expert readers or ground truth establishment for diagnostic performance. Instead, it focuses on the substantial equivalence of a physical medical device (spinal fixation system) to previously marketed predicate devices, supported by mechanical performance testing.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design for AI performance, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, and ground truth establishment (as they relate to AI/ML device validation) cannot be extracted from this document.

The document primarily focuses on mechanical performance testing to ensure structural integrity and equivalence of the new version of the spinal system.

Here's what can be extracted about acceptance criteria and performance related to the mechanical testing of the device:

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

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

• Sample Size: Not specified quantitatively in terms of number of devices or test repetitions, but "confirmatory testing" was conducted.
• Data Provenance: The testing was conducted by Medtronic as part of the 510(k) submission to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The country of origin for the data is implicitly the USA, where Medtronic is based and submitting to the FDA. The nature of the testing (mechanical property evaluation) means it's not "retrospective" or "prospective" in the clinical study sense; rather, it's laboratory-based engineering validation.

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 information is not applicable to the type of device and testing described. Mechanical performance testing relies on established engineering standards (ASTM F1717, ASTM F1798) and physical measurements, not expert human interpretation or "ground truth" derived from clinical experts in the context of diagnostic performance.

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical studies or expert review processes, typically for diagnostic accuracy. Mechanical testing involves repeatable measurements and adherence to testing standards.

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. This device is a physical spinal implant, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance evaluation was conducted.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device.

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

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is adherence to established mechanical performance standards (ASTM) and demonstration of equivalent or superior mechanical properties compared to predicate devices. This is based on physical property measurements rather than clinical ground truth like pathology or outcomes data for diagnostic purposes.

8. The sample size for the training set:

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

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

• Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no training set or ground truth in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device