Search Results

The MANTIS® Spinal System and MANTIS® Redux Spinal System is intended for percutaneous, posterior, non-cervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation of the spine to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion 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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthrosis; and Failed Previous Fusion.

The Radius® Spinal System is intended for use in the noncervical spine. When used as an anterior/anterolateral and posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation system, the Radius® Spinal system is intended to provide additional support during fusion using autograft or allograft in skeletally mature patients in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities: Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) (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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthorisis; and Failed Pervious Fusion. The Radius® Spinal System can also be linked to the XIA® Titanium Spinal System via the Ø5.5mm to Ø6.0mm Radius® rod-to-rod connector.

The Stryker Spine TRIO® Plate System is intended for posterior, noncervical (T10-S1) pedical and nonpedical fixation of the spine for the following indications: Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) (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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthorisis; and Failed Pervious Fusion.

The Stryker Spine TRIO® Spinal Fixation System is intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation of the spine. The Stryker Spine TRIO® Spinal Fixation System is indicated for: Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) (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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthorisis; and Failed Pervious Fusion. The TRIO® Spinal Fixation Sytem is intended to be used in conjunction with the OSS Diapason Rods, Opus Spinal System Rods, and the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.

The Stryker Spine TRIO® Spinal System is intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle and nonpedicle fixation of the spine to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segements in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) (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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthorisis; and Failed Pervious Fusion. The TRIO® + Spinal System is intended to be used in conjunction with the OSS/Diapason Rods or Opus Rods, XIA® Pre-bent Rods, and the Multi-Axis Cross Connectors.

The Stryker Spine TRIO® TRAUMA Spinal System is intended for percutaneous, posterior, non-cervical pedicle fixation of the spine to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: Degenerative Disc Disease (DD) (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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthorisis; and Failed Pervious Fusion.

The XIA® Spinal System and XIA® 4.5 Spinal System are intended for anterior/anterolateral and posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation for the following indications: Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) (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; Pseudoarthrosis and; Failed previous fusion. The 6mm diameter rods from the DIAPASON® Spinal System and OPUS® Spinal System are intended to be used with the other components of the XIA® Titanium Spinal System. The Titanium Multi-Axial Cross Connector are intended to be used with the other components of the XIA® Titanium Spinal System.

The XIA® 3 Spinal System is intended for use in the noncervical spine. When used as an anterior/anterolateral and posterior, noncervical pedicle fixation system, the XIA® 3 Spinal System is intended to provide additional support during autograft or allograft in skeletally mature patients in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities: Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) (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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor, Pseudoarthorisis; and Failed Pervious Fusion. The Ø5.5mm rods from the Stryker Spine Radius® Spinal System and the Ø6.0mm Vitallium Rods from the XIA® Spinal System are intended to be used with the other components of the XIA® 3 Spinal System. When used for posterior noncervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the XIA® Spinal System implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scollosis. The XIA® 3 Spinal System for pediatic use is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The XIA® 4.5 Spinal System is intended for anterior/anteriolateral and posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation for the following indications: Degenerative Disc Disease (DD) (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; Curvature (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); Tumor; Pseudoarthorisis; and Failed Pervious Fusion. The Stryker Spine DIAPASON® Spinal System, OPUS® Spinal System and XIA® 4.5 Spinal System can be linked to the XIA® 4.5 Spinal System via the rod-to-rod connector when used for the aforementioned indications in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion. Except for the staples, the XIA® 4.5 Spinal System is indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when used for posterior noncervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients. The XIA® 4.5 Spinal System for pediatric use in intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The STRYKER Spine thoraco-lumbar spinal fixation systems, subject of this 510(k), are non-cervical, pedicle and non-pedicle fixation systems comprised of screws, rods, plates, hooks, connectors, washers and staples. The components are manufactured from either Titanium (Titanium Alloy and CP Titanium), Stainless Steel or Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloy (Vitallium®). This Special 510(k) submission seeks clearance for sterile labeling of the listed STRYKER Spine thoraco-lumbar spinal fixation systems. All of the components of the subject devices will be sterilized by gamma radiation, a traditional sterilization method as per FDA guidance document, Updated 510(k) Sterility Review Guidance K90-1; Guidance for Industry and FDA.

This is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for sterile packaging of a range of spinal systems. The key claim is substantial equivalence to previously cleared non-sterile versions of the same devices. Therefore, the "device" in question for this submission is specifically the sterile packaging and the sterilization process, not the spinal implant itself as a medical device performing a physiological function. The "performance" being evaluated is the ability to maintain sterility and the structural integrity of the device within its packaging over its shelf life.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document primarily discusses the sterilization process and packaging rather than clinical performance of the implant itself. Therefore, typical "test set" in the context of clinical or diagnostic AI/software devices (e.g., patient data) is not applicable here.

• Sterilization and Packaging Validation Data: The document mentions "accelerated aging data" for validating the 5-year shelf life. It does not specify the sample size for this testing, nor the country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective. However, these types of tests are typically prospective laboratory studies conducted in controlled environments.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. This submission is about the sterility and packaging of medical implants, not a diagnostic or clinical performance study that would require expert ground truth labeling. The "ground truth" here is the scientific validation of sterilization methods and shelf life according to recognized standards and FDA guidance.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies for establishing ground truth, which is not relevant to this submission on sterile packaging.

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 is not an AI/software device and no MRMC study was conducted.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device.

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

The "ground truth" for this submission relies on:

• Scientific Validation of Sterilization: Adherence to established scientific principles and FDA guidance for sterilization (gamma radiation), demonstrating a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL).
• Accelerated Aging Data: Laboratory testing to simulate real-time aging and demonstrate that the sterile barrier packaging system maintains sterility for the stated shelf life.
• Material and Design Specification Conformity: Confirmation that the components are manufactured from specified materials and that their design, technical requirements, and intended use are identical to the non-sterile predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As this is not a machine learning or AI device, there is no training set and therefore no ground truth establishment for a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sintea Posterior Lumbar System is a posterior, nonpedicle screw system of the noncervical spine indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, fracture, tumor, pseudarthrosis, and failed previous fusion.

The Sintea Biotech Posterior Lumbar System is a pedicle screw system 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).

The Sintea Biotech Posterior Lumbar System is a pedicle screw system indicated for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-SI 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.

PLS recovery screws and screws for ring are available with the same material, shape, fillet, diameters and length of PLS standard screws. They have the same characteristics as PLS standard screws with the exception of a locking ring adopted in place of a locking cap.

The PLS Multi-axial screws are made of the same material as the PLS standard (monoaxial) screws. The somatic thread is the same as the thread of the PLS standard screws. The lengths and diameters of the multi-axial screws are the lengths and diameters of the PLS standard screws. The design of this screw allows for up to 25 degrees of angulation in any direction to accommodate different anatomic conditions.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Sintea Biotech Posterior Lumbar System Multi-axial Screw and Recovery Screw with Ring). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through mechanical testing and comparison of design, materials, and intended use.

Therefore, it does not describe a clinical study in the traditional sense that would involve patient data, ground truth established by experts, or human reader performance. The "acceptance criteria" here refer to the performance of the device in biomechanical tests compared to a predicate device, as required for 510(k) clearance rather than clinical efficacy/diagnostic accuracy.

However, based on the information provided, I can infer and extrapolate the relevant parts that would correspond to your requested sections, focusing on the device performance within a biomechanical study context.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted or inferred:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not explicitly stated, as this was a biomechanical (material/engineering) study, not a clinical study involving patients. "Test set" in this context would refer to the number of device constructs tested. This detail is typically found in the full biomechanical report, not the 510(k) summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of geographical origin or retrospective/prospective for a biomechanical study. The studies were "conducted on the Sintea Biotech Posterior Lumbar System multi-axial screw, recovery screw, screw for ring and ring implant constructs," implying testing in a lab setting.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• This is not applicable to this type of submission. "Ground truth" established by experts (e.g., radiologists) is relevant for diagnostic devices or those involving interpretation of medical images/patient data. For a biomechanical study, the "ground truth" would be established by validated engineering test standards and measurements, interpreted by engineers or scientists.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable for this type of biomechanical study. Adjudication typically refers to resolving discrepancies between human readers or experts, which is not relevant here.

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, an MRMC study was not done. This is a submission for a spinal implant, not an AI/diagnostic device.

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

• No, this is not applicable. This is a hardware device (spinal implant), not an algorithm or software.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the biomechanical studies, the "ground truth" would be the physical measurements and performance under established mechanical testing standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO standards mentioned, though specific test numbers are not listed in the summary). This would be based on empirically measured properties and engineering specifications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device