Search Results

The OptiMesh Multiplanar Expandable Interbody Fusion System is indicated for use as an adjunct to fusion in an intervertebral body fusion at one level in the lumbar spine from L2 to S1 in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history, physical examination, and radios. Eligible patients shall have undergone six (6) months of conservative (non-operative) care. The OptiMesh device with compatible allograft, or a bone void filler as cleared by FDA for use in intervertebral body fusion to facilitate fusion, is intended for use with supplemental posterior fixation systems intended for use in the lumbar spine.

AFT is intended for use as a bone void filler in the extremities, spine, intervertebral disc space, and pelvis for voids or gaps that are not intrinsic to the stability of the bony structure. AFT is indicated for use in the treatment of osseous defects caused by surgery or traumatic injury. When used in intervertebral body fusion procedures, AFT must be used on its own with an intervertebral body graff containment device cleared by FDA for use with a bone void filler.

The OptiMesh Multiplanar Expandable Interbody Fusion System is an intervertebral body graft containment device that is a non-rigid, implanted spinal device that is designed to contain bone graft within its internal cavity. The device is inserted into the intervertebral body space of the spine and is intended as an adjunct to intervertebral body fusion.

AFT Allograft Filler Tube is composed of human demineralized bone matrix, human nondemineralized bone, and sodium hyaluronate. All components of AFT are resorbable. AFT is aseptically processed and provided pre-loaded into a disposable delivery tube.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "OptiMesh Multiplanar Expandable Interbody Fusion System" with the addition of "AFT Allograft Filler Tube" as a compatible allograft. It outlines the purpose of the submission, device descriptions, indications for use, technological characteristics, and non-clinical/clinical testing. However, the document does not provide specific acceptance criteria or detailed study results in the format requested.

The FDA 510(k) clearance process focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device meets specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria with a detailed study report. The non-clinical and clinical data presented here are used to support this claim of substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, I can infer some aspects and highlight what is not present:

Inferred Information:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): The implied acceptance criteria revolve around demonstrating that the OptiMesh device with AFT performs comparably to the predicate device and the reference devices in terms of mechanical performance and biological impact, without introducing new safety or effectiveness concerns. This means that:
  • Mechanical performance of OptiMesh + AFT should be "as intended" and comparable to the reference device and ISO 23089-2 data.
  • Biological impact of AFT should be comparable to the reference bone graft.
  • Biocompatibility, pyrogenicity/endotoxin, sterilization, packaging, and shelf-life should be acceptable and comparable.
  • The risk profile should not be altered, and new safety/effectiveness issues should not arise.
• Study Proving Acceptance Criteria: The study used to demonstrate this is primarily a critical engineering and clinical comparison to a bone graft used in a prospective, multi-center, non-randomized, FDA and IRB approved performance goal clinical investigation.

Information NOT present explicitly in the document:

• Specific quantifications of acceptance criteria.
• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance with numerical values.
• Sample sizes used for the test set (e.g., number of patients/data points in the clinical investigation for comparison).
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective for the comparison study). While it mentions a "prospective" clinical investigation for the reference bone graft, it doesn't specify if the comparison itself involved new prospective data or a retrospective analysis of the existing investigation's data.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study details (effect size, human reader improvement). This type of study is more common for diagnostic imaging AI than for interbody fusion systems.
• Standalone algorithm performance (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop). This is a physical device, so "standalone algorithm performance" is not applicable in the typical AI/software sense.
• Type of ground truth used (pathology, outcomes data, etc.) beyond "clinical data" and "performance goal clinical investigation."
• Sample size for the training set. There's no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning model. This submission is for a physical medical device.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established. (Not applicable for this type of device submission).

Given these limitations, here is the best possible answer based only on the provided text, heavily inferring the "acceptance criteria" based on the substantial equivalence claims:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance:
* Sample Size: Not specified in the given text.
* Data Provenance: The clinical data for comparison comes from a "prospective, multi-center, non-randomized, FDA and IRB approved performance goal clinical investigation" involving a reference bone graft. The country of origin is not specified but it's an FDA-approved study, implying it was likely conducted in the US or under FDA oversight for data acceptability.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications:
* Not specified. The clinical investigation mentioned for comparison would have medical professionals involved, but the text does not detail the "ground truth" establishment process by experts in the context of this submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:
* Not specified.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size:
* No, an MRMC study is not mentioned. This type of study is typically for evaluating diagnostic imaging systems where human readers interpret medical images. This submission is for a physical interbody fusion system.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
* No, this concept is not applicable. The device is a physical medical implant, not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:
* The term "ground truth" is not explicitly used in the context of a dataset for algorithmic evaluation. However, for the clinical performance comparison, the "performance goal clinical investigation" likely established clinical outcomes (e.g., fusion rates, pain reduction, adverse events) as the de facto "truth" against which the subject device's performance (via comparison to a reference bone graft) was evaluated.

8. The sample size for the training set:
* Not applicable. This submission is for a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning model that would require a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
* Not applicable, as there is no training set for an AI model.

Ask a specific question about this device

Spineology Navigation Instruments are indicated for use during the preparation and placement of:

• Spineology's Fortress™, Threshold™, Threshold™ V2, and Palisade™ pedicle screws .
• Spineology's OptiMesh® Portal Assembly .

during spinal surgery to assist the surgeon in precisely locating anatomical structures in either open, minimally invasive, or percutaneous orthopedic procedures.

These instruments are designed for use with the Medtronic StealthStation® Spine System, which is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as the spine or pelvis, can be identified relative to images of the anatomy.

Spineology Navigation Instruments are non-sterile, reusable surgical instruments that are manufactured from stainless steel and operated manually.

Spineology Navigation Instruments for Pedicular Fixation include Awls, Bone Taps, Drills, and Screwdrivers. The navigable instruments are equipped with a dimensional feature that allows connection to Medtronic's NavLock Trackers. A Navigation Adapter is also available with dimensional features that allows the same instruments to Medtronic's SureTrak" II Universal Trackers. These instruments are compatible with Spineology's Fortress", Threshold" Threshold™ V2, and Palisade™ Pedicular Fixation Systems and Medtronic's StealthStation® S7 (v2.1.0) and S8 (v1.0.0) Spine System.

Spineology Navigation Instruments for Portal Placement include a Dilator, Portal, Tightener, Wrench, and a Portal Surrogate. The navigable instruments are equipped with dimensional features that allow connection to Medtronic's SureTrak II Universal Trackers. These instruments are compatible with Spineology's OptiMesh Expandable Interbody Fusion System for Access Portal Placement and Medtronic's StealthStation® S8 (v1.2.0) Spine System.

Spineology Navigation Instruments are intended to be used during the preparation and placement of spinal implants in optically navigated procedures.

This document (K213876) is a 510(k) premarket notification for Spineology Navigation Instruments. While it describes non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device, it does not detail a clinical study with an AI component or the specific acceptance criteria and performance data for an AI-powered device.

The document discusses "Spineology Navigation Instruments" which are physical surgical tools used for navigation during spinal surgery. The testing described (mating, registration, accuracy) relates to the mechanical and optical tracking performance of these instruments when used with Medtronic's StealthStation system, not the performance of an AI algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required to answer your prompt because the provided input does not describe an AI/ML-based medical device.

**To answer your prompt, I would need a document describing the clearance/approval of an AI/ML device, ideally one that includes: **

• Specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) for the AI model.
• Details about the datasets used (training and test sets, including provenance and size).
• Information on ground truth establishment (expert review, pathology, etc.).
• If applicable, details of MRMC studies or human-in-the-loop performance.

Without such information, any attempt to answer would be speculative and not based on the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device