Search Results

The Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS) is intended to help provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the lumbar and/or sacral spine, specifically as follows:

When used as a pedicle screw fixation system of the posterior lumbar spine in skeletally mature patients, the SLPSS is indicated for one or more of the following: (1) degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment. (2) fracture, (3) dislocation, (4) spinal tumor, and/or (5) failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

In addition, when used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the SLPSS is indicated for skeletally mature patients: (a) having severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the fifth lumbar-first sacral (L5-S1) vertebral joint; (b) who are receiving fusions using autogenous bone graft only; (c) who are having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 and below); and (d) who are having the device removed after the development of a solid fusion mass.

The Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS) is also intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of the spinal segments of the lumbar and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment.

The Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System is comprised of a variety of pedicle screws sizes, couplers, a ball swivel, rods and locking nuts that can be uniquely fitted for each individual case. All implantable components are manufactured from medical grade titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V-Eli).

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS). It describes the device, its indications for use, and how it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that specifically proves the device meets such criteria.

Instead, the document states:

"The pre-clinical testing performed indicated that the Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices."

This implies that the device's performance was compared to existing, legally marketed devices (predicates) rather than against specific, predefined acceptance criteria through a standalone clinical or performance study with detailed metrics. The regulatory pathway chosen, a 510(k), relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, which often involves comparing technical characteristics and performance data to show that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate.

Therefore, for your request, the following information is largely not present in the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: No specific acceptance criteria or performance metrics are listed.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not mentioned.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as this is a surgical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable for a surgical implant.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable, as it's not a diagnostic device.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned.

Summary of available information:

• Device Name: Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS)
• Regulatory Pathway: 510(k) Premarket Notification (K072116)
• Claim of Performance: "The pre-clinical testing performed indicated that the Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices."
• Predicate Devices Listed:
  • Synthes USS Pedicle Screw System (K022949, K010108, K010658, K994121, K982987)
  • DePuy Moss Miami Spinal System (K022623, K983583, K964024, K955348, K933881)
  • U&I Optima Spinal System (K031585)
  • Stryker Spine Xia Spinal System (K001319, K984251, K951725)
• Nature of Testing: "Pre-clinical testing" was performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but details of this testing (e.g., in-vitro, mechanical, benchtop) are not provided in this summary.

Conclusion:

The provided document relies on showing substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on pre-clinical testing, rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria as you've requested for a device that might involve diagnostic performance or AI. Therefore, most of the detailed information you are seeking is not available in this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OPTIMA™ posterior spinal fixation device is a pedicle screw system indicated for the treatment of severe Spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

In addition, the OPTIMA™ is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients 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 neurological impairment; fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

When used as an anterior screw fixation system, the OPTIMA™ is indicated for patients with degenerative disc disease which is defined as back pain of the discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies, Spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, spinal deformities such as scollosis, kyphosis, tumor, pseudoarthrosis, or revision of failed fusion attempts.

The OPTIMA™ Spinal System is a top-loading multiple component, anterior / posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, set screws, connectors, and a transverse (cross) linking mechanism.

The OPTIMA™ system will allow surgeons to build a spinal implant construct to stabilize and promote spinal fusion. The OPTIMA™ implant system components are supplied non-sterile are single use and are fabricated from titanium allov (Ti-6AI-4V ELI) that conforms to ASTM F 136. Various sizes of these implants are available. Specialized instruments made from surgical grade stainless steel are available for the application and removal of the OPTIMA™ system

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the OPTIMA™ Spinal System, a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, primarily through comparison of design, materials, and intended use, along with basic bench testing to show functional equivalence.

Therefore, the study described is not a clinical study involving human participants or AI for diagnostic purposes. It is a bench test evaluating the mechanical performance of a spinal implant system. As such, many of the requested categories are not applicable or cannot be answered from the provided text.

Here's the breakdown based on the information available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for the bench testing. The ASTM F1717 standard would outline the minimum number of samples required for various tests (e.g., static compression, static torsion, fatigue).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but bench testing typically occurs in a controlled laboratory environment. It is not patient data (retrospective or prospective) from a country of origin in the traditional sense.

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

• Not applicable. For mechanical bench testing of an orthopedic implant, "ground truth" is established by adherence to a recognized international standard (ASTM F1717) and engineering principles, rather than expert clinical consensus.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. Mechanical tests are objective measurements, not subjective evaluations requiring adjudication.

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-powered diagnostic tool requiring human reader performance evaluation.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical spinal implant.

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

• For this type of device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating performance is adherence to validated mechanical testing standards (ASTM F1717) and demonstrating mechanical equivalence to predicate devices. This indicates that the device can withstand the expected physiological loads without premature failure, similar to existing approved devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The FOREX Corporation, OPTIMA™ posterior spinal fixation device is a pedicle screw system indicated for the treatment of severe Spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

In addition, the OPTIMA™ is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients 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 neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

When used as an anterior screw fixation system or a posterior hook and sacral/iliac screw fixation system, the OPTIMA™ is indicated for patients with degenerative disc disease which is defined as back pain of the discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies, Spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, spinal deformities such as scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis, tumor, pseudoarthrosis, or revision of failed fusion attempts.

The OPTIMATM Spinal System is a top-loading multiple component, anterior / posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, set screws, connectors, and a transverse (cross) linking mechanism. The OPTIMA™ system will allow surgeons to build a spinal implant construct to stabilize and promote spinal fusion. The OPTIMA™ implant system components are supplied non-sterile are single use and are fabricated from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) that conforms to ASTM F 136. Various sizes of these implants are available. Specialized instruments made from surgical grade stainless steel are available for the application and removal of the OPTIMA™ system.

The information provided describes the FOREX Corporation OPTIMA™ Spinal System, a medical device. The document primarily focuses on its 510(k) submission for market clearance, establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and thus does not directly address typical acceptance criteria and performance studies commonly seen in AI/ML device submissions.

Instead, the "acceptance criteria" for this device are met through demonstrating substantial equivalence to already legally marketed predicate devices, and the "study" proving this involves bench testing.

Here's how to frame the requested information based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • The document states "Bench testing as listed in Section XII". Section XII is not provided, so the specific sample size for the bench tests is not specified in the given text.
   • The data provenance is from bench testing, meaning in-vitro mechanical and material tests, not patient data.

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

   • This question is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. Bench testing for mechanical properties does not typically involve human expert adjudication for ground truth. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the measured physical properties compared against established engineering standards (ASTM F1717) and the properties of predicate devices.

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

   • This is not applicable. Bench testing results are typically objectively measured and do not require adjudication by experts in the same way clinical or imaging studies might.

4. 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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is a spinal implant system, not an AI or imaging device that would involve human readers.

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

   • No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This device is a physical medical implant, not a software algorithm.

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

   • The "ground truth" for the bench testing was established by standardized mechanical testing protocols (ASTM F1717) and engineering specifications. The performance was compared to that of legally marketed predicate devices.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

   • This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical implant device.

Ask a specific question about this device