Search Results

The Spartan S2 Facet System is indicated for the posterior surgical treatment of any or all of the following at the C2 to S1 (inclusive) spinal levels:

1. Trauma, including spinal fractures and/or dislocations;

2. Spondylolisthesis;

3. Pseudoarthrosis or failed previous fusions which are symptomatic or which may cause secondary instability or deformity;

4. Degenerative diseases which include: (a) degenerative disc disease (DDD) as defined by neck and/or back pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by patient history with degeneration of the disc as confirmed by radiographic studies and/or (b) degenerative disease of the facets with instability.

The Spartan S2 Facet System will provide temporary stabilization as an adjunct to spinal fusion.

The Spartan S Facet System is a permanent implant device made from a titanium alloy TI 6AL4V-ELI. It is to be implanted from the posterior approach. The device is provided in two diameters and each diameter screw is provided in multiple lengths to accommodate the various anatomy of the spine. The device is intended to provide mechanical support and stability to the implanted level until biologic fusion is achieved.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Spartan S2 Facet System, a medical device. This document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence for market clearance, rather than presenting a study demonstrating the device meets a predetermined set of acceptance criteria based on performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

Therefore, many of the requested sections (e.g., acceptance criteria table, sample size, expert qualifications, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, ground truth types for test/training sets, training set size, ground truth establishment for training) cannot be answered from the provided text.

The document states: "The pre-clinical testing performed indicates that the Spartan S2 Facet System is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices and is adequate for the intended use." This implies that the 'acceptance criteria' for this clearance process was the demonstration of substantial equivalence through pre-clinical testing, likely mechanical or material testing as is common for implants. However, the specific details of these tests and their results are not provided.

Here is what can be inferred or explicitly stated from the provided text, recognizing the limitations:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. The document refers to "pre-clinical testing," which typically involves mechanical and material testing, not human subject data or a "test set" in the context of AI performance evaluation. The type of data provenance would likely be laboratory test results, not country of origin for patient data.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. Ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is relevant for diagnostic or AI-driven devices. This document refers to a physical implant.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving observer interpretation, not for mechanical device testing.

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 a 510(k) summary for a physical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance would not be performed.

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

• No. This is a physical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Not Applicable / Not Provided for typical AI/diagnostic ground truth. For a physical implant, "ground truth" would relate to material properties and mechanical performance meeting engineering specifications, rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in a clinical sense for diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. Training sets are relevant for machine learning algorithms.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Facet Fixation System is indicated for the posterior surgical treatment of any or all of the following at the C2 to S1 (inclusive) spinal levels: 1) Trauma, including spinal fractures and/or dislocations; 2) Spondylolisthesis; 3) Spondylolysis; 4) Pseudoarthrosis or failed previous fusions which are symptomatic or which may cause secondary instability or deformity; 5) Degenerative diseases which include: (a) degenerative disc disease (ddd) as defined by neck and/or back pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by patient history with degeneration of the disc as confirmed by radiographic studies and/or (b) degenerative disease of the facets with instability.

When properly used, facet screws will provide temporary stabilization as an adjunct to spinal bone grafting processes.

The US Spine Facet Fixation System consists of two implantable components, the screw in various lengths and an optional washer. Both components are made from implant grade wrought Titanium 6-Aluminum 4-Vanadium (Ti6Al4V) alloy.

The provided text describes a medical device, the "US Spine Facet Fixation System," and its 510(k) submission. However, it does not include information about a study based on AI/ML.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text, with "N/A" indicating information not present:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Missing Information: The specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "withstanding X N of force for Y cycles") and the actual quantitative results achieved by the device are not provided in this summary. It only states that testing was performed.

Study Details (Focusing on AI/ML, which is not present)

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
N/A - The document describes biomechanical testing, not a study involving a test set of data for an AI/ML device.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
N/A - This is not an AI/ML study.

4. Adjudication method for the test set
N/A - This is not an AI/ML study.

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
N/A - This is not an AI/ML study.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
N/A - This is not an AI/ML study.

7. The type of ground truth used
N/A - The performance data is based on biomechanical testing of the physical device. For a physical device, the "ground truth" would be objective measurements from these tests and observation of the device's physical integrity and stability under load.

8. The sample size for the training set
N/A - This is not an AI/ML study.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
N/A - This is not an AI/ML study.

Ask a specific question about this device