Search Results

When used as a pedicle screw fixation system in skeletally mature patients, the Silhouette™ Spinal Fixation System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

In addition, when used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the Silhouette™ Spinal Fixation System is indicated for use in patients:

• having severe spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) at the L5-S1 joint a)
• who are receiving fusions with autogenous graft only b)
• who are having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar or sacral spine c)
• who are having the device removed after the development of a solid fusion mass d)

When used as a hook and sacral screw system, the Silhouette™ Spinal Fixation System is intended for use in the treatment of degenerative disc disease (as defined by chronic back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), idiopathic scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, kyphotic deformity of the spine. loss of stability due to tumors, spinal stenosis, vertebral fracture or dislocation. pseudoarthrosis, and previous failed spinal fusion. When used for this indication, screws of the Silhouette™ Spinal Fixation System are intended for sacral iliac attachment only. Hook and transverse connectors of the system are intended for posterior thoracic and/or lumbar use only. As a whole, the levels of use for hook and sacral screw fixation of this system are T1 to the sacrum.

The Silhouette™ Spinal Fixation System is a temporary implant system used to correct spinal deformity and to facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral areas of the spine. Implants in this system consist of hooks and/or screws connected to rods that are intended to be removed after solid fusion has occurred. The system includes polyaxial screws of varying diameters and lengths, fixed screws of varying diameters and lengths, rods in varying lengths, hooks in varying designs, and transverse connectors in fixed widths. All implant components are top loading and top tightening. The implants in this system are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6A1-4V) that conforms to ASTM F-136.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Silhouette™ Spinal Fixation System. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria in the context of a typical AI/medical device performance evaluation.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the Silhouette™ Spinal Fixation System to a predicate device (K980288), primarily based on design, operating principle, materials, shelf life, packaging materials/process, and sterilization. The key change is a modification of labeling to include expanded indications for use, an additional warning, and an additional precaution.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for a typical AI device study are not applicable to this 510(k) submission.

Here's an attempt to extract relevant information and note where the requested information is not present:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

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

• Not applicable / Not specified for human subject data. The "test" in this context refers to biomechanical testing of components, not a clinical trial with a "test set" of patients or data for an AI algorithm.
• The provenance of data for biomechanical testing is not detailed (e.g., country of origin).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Not applicable. This submission focuses on hardware equivalence and biomechanical properties, not diagnostic or interpretive tasks where expert ground truth would be established.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. See point 3.

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

• No. This is not an AI device.

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

• No. This is not an AI device.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Biomechanical testing results: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is based on the results of biomechanical tests comparing its components to other commercially available systems. The specific metrics (e.g., stiffness, fatigue strength) are not detailed but are implied by "equivalent mechanical performance."
• Predicate device's established safety and effectiveness: The ultimate "ground truth" for the overall device approval is its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (K980288), which has already established its safety and effectiveness.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device