Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K230583
    Device Name
    Tryptik Ti
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2023-03-22

    (20 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3080
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    TRYPTIK®Ti cages are indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine with accompanying radicular symptoms at one level or two contiguous disc levels from C2 to T1 disc. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radios. TRYPTIK®Ti cages are used to facilitate intervertebral body fusion in the cervical spine using autogenous and/or allogeneic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft. TRYPTIK®Ti cages are to be used with supplemental fixation that has been cleared for use in the cervical spine. Patients should have at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

    Device Description

    Spineart Tryptik® Ti spinal implants consist in a range of intervertebral body spacers with various shapes and designs so as to be implanted via an anterior cervical approach and to adapt different patient's conditions. The Tryptik® Ti spacers are all made from medical grade titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 standard and are produced by additive manufacturing (SLM) according to ASTM F3001. Subsequently the spacer is machined (thread tapping) and polished. The subject implants Tryptik® Ti will extend the previously cleared Tryptik® Ti range of implants (K200312) which presents similar design features and the same manufacturing technology, i.e. additive manufacturing (SLM), and join the previously cleared Tryptik® Ti range of implants (K200312) which addresses the same indications and utilize the same instrumentation designed purposely. The Tryptik® Ti spinal implants are delivered sterile (gamma sterilization) and supplied with dedicated surgical instruments (reusable – provided non-sterile).

    AI/ML Overview

    This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called Tryptik® Ti, an intervertebral body fusion device. The document states that "No additional testing has been performed for the Spineart Tryptik® Ti line extension spinal implants." and relies on an "engineering rationale" to support substantial equivalence to a previously cleared version of the same device and other predicate devices.

    Therefore, the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria. It explicitly states that no additional testing was performed for this particular submission.

    The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on:

    1. Technological characteristics: The device uses the same manufacturing technology (additive manufacturing - SLM) and material (medical grade titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 and ASTM F3001) as the primary predicate device.
    2. Design features: The device presents similar design features and range of devices, and is designed for the same anterior approach as the previously cleared Tryptik® Ti spinal implants.
    3. Indications for use: The indications for use are identical to the predicate device.

    The document also mentions that non-clinical tests (Static axial compression, Static shear compression, Static torsion according to ASTM F2077 and subsidence testing according to ASTM F2267) were conducted on the predicate devices, not this current submission.

    **Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
    2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
    4. Adjudication method
    5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
    6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
    7. The type of ground truth used
    8. The sample size for the training set
    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established**

    as this information is not present in the provided text. The submission relies on prior testing of predicate devices and an engineering rationale for substantial equivalence.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1