Search Results

The JAZZ Spinal System is intended for posterior, non - cervical fixation as an adjunct to fusion for skeletally mature patients for the 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; pseudarthrosis; and/or failed previous fusion. In addition, when used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the JAZZ Spinal System is intended for skeletally mature patients with severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the fifth lumbar-first sacral, L5-S1 vertebra, who are receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft only, who are having the device attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (levels may be from L3 to the sacrum/ilium), who are having the device removed after the attainment of a solid fusion.

The JAZZ Spinal System consists of a variety of shapes and sizes of screws and rods that can be rigidly locked in a variety of configurations, with each construct being tailor-made for the individual case. Fixation is provided via a posterior approach. The components are made from titanium alloy, unalloyed titanium, or cobalt chrome alloy. Implant components of the system include straight and pre-bent rods, monoaxial and polyaxial screws, reduction screws, domino connectors, crosslinks, dual headed screws and connectors, transverse and sagittal uniplanar screws, favored angle screws, modular screws, iliac screws, along with associated set screws.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the JAZZ Spinal System does not describe a study related to AI/algorithm performance for a diagnostic or imaging device. Instead, it details a clearance for a medical implant device (Thoracolumbosacral Pedicle Screw System).

Therefore, I cannot extract the information requested about acceptance criteria, study design, ground truth establishment, or human-in-the-loop performance related to an AI/algorithm. The document focuses on the mechanical performance and material safety of the spinal implant.

Specifically:

• Acceptance Criteria & Reported Performance (Table): Not applicable for an AI/algorithm study based on this document. The document mentions "Performance testing" for the spinal implant, including "static compression bending, static torsion, and dynamic compression bending per ASTM F1717-21, as well as static neutral angle dissociation and static maximum angle dissociation per ASTM F1798-13." However, these are mechanical tests for the implant itself, not metrics for an AI's diagnostic performance.
• Sample size and data provenance, number of experts, adjudication, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set size and ground truth: None of this information is present in the document because it pertains to the validation of a software algorithm or AI, not a spinal implant. The "ground truth" for a spinal implant would be its material properties and mechanical integrity, tested in a lab setting, not clinical annotation by experts.

In summary, the provided document is irrelevant to the prompt's request for details on an AI/algorithm performance study.

Ask a specific question about this device