Search Results

The Quintex Cervical Plating System is intended for the immobilization and stabilization of the spine as an adjunct to fusion in patients with:

• . Degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies),
• Spondylolisthesis,
• Trauma (i.e. fracture or dislocation), ●
• Spinal Stenosis,
• . Deformity (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis),
• . Tumors.
• Pseudoarthrosis as a result of failed spine surgery,
• Failed previous fusions, .
• Symptomatic cervical spondylosis
• . Instability following surgery for the above indications.
  Levels of anterior cervical intervertebral body screw fixation for this indication are from C2-T1.
  Warning: This device is not approved or intended for screw attachment or fixation to the posterior elements (pedicles) of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine.

The Aesculap Implant Systems (AIS) Quintex Cervical Plating System consists of dynamic and semi-constrained plate, screws and associated instruments. Fixation is provided by bone screws inserted into the vertebral body of the cervical spine using an anterior approach. The AIS 3G Cervical Plating System is manufactured from Titanium/ Titanium Alloy and will be provided non-sterile.

The provided text describes the Quintex Cervical Plating System, its indications for use, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on biomechanical testing. However, it does not contain the specific information required to complete the table and answer the questions related to acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets those criteria, particularly in the context of AI/software performance or detailed clinical trials.

The document discusses performance data in a general sense, stating: "Biomechanical testing of the subject device was found to be similar in performance to previously cleared spinal systems with similar indications. All required testing per 'Draft Guidance for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications (510(k)s) Applications for Orthopedic Devices-The Basic Elements' were done where applicable. In addition, testing per the 'Spinal System 510(k)s' was completed where relevant. Testing results demonstrate the AIS Quintex Cervical Plating System is safe and effective comparable to other predicate systems currently on the market."

This indicates that mechanical and possibly other non-clinical performance benchmarks were met, but it lacks the detail to fulfill the prompt's request for specific acceptance criteria and study designs relevant to clinical performance, expert adjudication, or AI performance.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled based on the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not specified in the document. The testing mentioned appears to be mechanical/biomechanical, not a clinical test set with patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not specified, as the "ground truth" seems to relate to engineering and biomechanical properties rather than clinical diagnoses.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable and not specified.

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 mechanical implant, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used: For biomechanical testing, the "ground truth" would likely be established mechanical properties, failure limits, and performance under various loads, as defined by engineering standards and predicate device performance. Specifics are not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation at the vertebral bodies of the cervical spine (C2-C7). The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is indicated for use in temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of cervical spinal fusions in patients with degenerative disc disease (as defined by neck pain in discogenic origin of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, deformity (defined as kyphosis, and scoliosis), trauma (including fractures), tumors, pseudoarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusions.

This device is not approved for screw attachment to the posterior elements (pedicles) of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine. The device is intended for anterior cervical intervertebral body fusions only.

The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is comprised of an assortment of titanium alloy plates and screws that act to stabilize the spine during the intervertebral fusion process. The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is manufactured from wrought Ti-6A1-4V in accordance with ISO 5832-3.

The provided text describes a medical device, the "Valeo™ Cervical Plate System," and its 510(k) clearance by the FDA. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, a specific study proving the device meets acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert involvement, adjudication methods, or direct performance metrics for the device itself.

Instead, the document states:

• Performance Standards: "Testing performed on this device indicates that the Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices. ASTM F1717 performance standards were adhered to and all applicable requirements were met."

This indicates that the device's substantial equivalence was established by demonstrating adherence to a recognized ASTM standard (F1717) and by comparison to existing predicate devices, rather than through a clinical study that measures specific acceptance criteria against reported device performance, as would be expected for an AI/CADe device.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the specific details outlined (points 1-9) because the provided text does not contain that type of information for this device submission. The device is a physical spinal fixation system, not an AI/CADe system, and its clearance relies on substantial equivalence and adherence to engineering standards for medical implants.

Ask a specific question about this device