Search Results

The Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems are intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (Cl to C7) and the thoracic spine (T-T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous (e.g. pseudoarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical/thoracic spine; and degenerative disease, including intractable radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, neck and/or arm pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by radiographic studies, and degenerative disease of the facets with instability. The Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems are also intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage tumors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion.

In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the Aesculap S4 Lumbar System may be connected to the Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems using connectors and rods.

The Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems are implant systems used to facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended to promote fusion of the cervical and thoracic spine (C1-T3) and occipito-cervico-thoracic junction (occiput-T3). The Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems consist of plates, bone screws, rods, hooks, and connectors. This consists of 3.5mm rod, thin and thick lamina hooks, 3.5 and 4.0mm polyaxial screws of various lengths and cross connectors. The occipital plate is fixed to the occiput with bone screws and the transition by a locking mechanism. The end of the construct is stabilized with polyaxial screws to the upper thoracic spine, as required. The components are available in a variety of lengths in order to accommodate patient anatomy. The Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems are manufactured from Titanium alloy and will be provided non-sterile.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems. It describes the device, its indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices. It also details the performance testing conducted. However, this document does not contain information typically found in a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/ML powered device, as the Aesculap S4 Cervical Spinal and Occiput Systems are physical medical implants, not an AI/ML software device.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details because this submission pertains to a physical orthopedic implant system, not a digital health or AI/ML device.

The "Performance Data" section solely refers to non-clinical mechanical testing of the implant system against established ASTM standards to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not clinical performance data or AI/ML specific metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AIS S4 Cervical Navigation Instruments are intended to assist the surgeon in precisely locating anatomical structures in either open, minimally invasive, or percutaneous procedures. They are indicated for use in surgical spinal procedures, in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure , such as the pelvis or a vertebrae can be identified relative to the acquired image (CT, MR, 2D fluoroscopic image or 3D fluoroscopic image reconstruction) and/or an image data based model of the anatomy. These procedures include but are not limited to spinal fusion during the navigation of pedicle screws (T1-T3).

The AIS S4 Cervical Navigation Instruments are manual surgical instruments which are designed to interface with BrainLAB's already cleared surgical navigation systems. Instruments in this system may be pre-calibrated or manually calibrated to already cleared systems using manufacturers' instructions. These instruments are intended to be used in spine applications to perform general or manual functions within the orthopedic surgical environment.

The provided text describes the Aesculap S4 Cervical Navigation Instrumentation, which is a set of manual surgical instruments designed to interface with BrainLAB's surgical navigation systems. The submission is a Traditional 510(k) Premarket Notification.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly list specific quantitative acceptance criteria for the device's performance (e.g., a certain level of accuracy in millimeters). Instead, it describes a more qualitative assessment.

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

• Sample Size: The document states that "BrainLAB conducted validation activities including usability testing with the AIS Navigation Instruments." However, it does not specify the sample size (e.g., number of users, number of cases tested) for this usability testing or any other performance testing.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The testing appears to be conducted by BrainLAB, a company with international operations, but the specific location of the testing is not mentioned. It is also not explicitly stated whether the data was retrospective or prospective, though usability testing typically involves prospective data collection.

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

• The document mentions "usability testing with the AIS Navigation Instruments." Usability testing typically involves end-users (surgeons) but does not specify the number or qualifications of these experts for establishing ground truth related to navigational accuracy or effectiveness. The study relies on the outcome of the usability testing and performance testing rather than expert-established ground truth in a clinical or imaging sense.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not mention any adjudication method for the test set. Given the nature of the testing described (usability and performance requirements), it's unlikely a formal adjudication process (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus) would be used as it would be in an imaging diagnostic study. The assessment would likely be based on whether the instruments appropriately facilitated the surgical steps and met performance specifications.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The document states, "Clinical data was not needed for the AIS Navigation Instruments." The submission focuses on substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and performance testing.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• This question is not applicable as the device (AIS S4 Cervical Navigation Instruments) is a set of manual surgical instruments designed to interface with surgical navigation systems. It is not an AI algorithm or a standalone software. The performance testing would inherently involve human interaction with the instruments and the navigation system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The document implies that the ground truth for "performance requirements" would be established by the functional specifications and design requirements of the instruments when used with the BrainLAB navigation systems. For usability testing, the "ground truth" would be whether the instruments are usable and meet the functional needs of the surgeons. There is no mention of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data being used as ground truth for this submission, as clinical data was not required.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• This question is not applicable. The device is a set of manual surgical instruments; it is not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• This question is not applicable as there is no AI algorithm or training set involved.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LEXUS Cervical Fixation System is indicated for the following:

• DDD (neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc as confirmed by patient history and . radiographic studies)
• . Spondylolisthesis
• . Spinal stenosis
• . Fracture/dislocation
• . Failed previous fusion
• . ' Tumors

The implants are intended to provide stabilization as an adjunct to fusion when used with autogenous bone graft or allograft following the reduction of fractures/dislocations or trauma in the spine.

Hooks and rods are also intended to provide stabilization to promote fusion following reduction of fracture/dislocation or trauma in the cervical/upper thoracic (C1 -T3) spine.

The pedicle screws are limited to placement in T1 -T3 in treating thoracic conditions only. The pedicle screws are not intended to be placed in or treat conditions involving the cervical spine.

The LEXUS Cervical Spinal Fixation System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (cervical-thoracic) spinal fixation system which consists of polyaxial screws, rods, set screws, and hooks.

Materials: All products are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI/ in conformance with ASTM F136) approved for medical use.

The LEXUS Cervical Fixation System's performance was evaluated through mechanical testing according to ASTM F1717 standards, which outlines methods for static and dynamic tests of spinal implant constructs in a vertebral body model.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Note: The provided document states that the device was "tested according to the ASTM F1717", and that it is "considered substantially equivalent to other legally marketed devices" and "expected to be equivalent in safety and effectiveness." This implies that the device met the performance requirements specified in the ASTM F1717 standard, which serve as the acceptance criteria for mechanical performance for such spinal fixation systems. Specific numerical acceptance criteria and actual reported performance values are not detailed in this summary.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Set:

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided document. As this is mechanical testing, the "sample size" would refer to the number of physical devices or constructs tested for each mechanical test.
• Data Provenance: The testing was conducted by or for L&K BIOMED Co., Ltd., based in the Republic of Korea. The document does not specify the location of the testing laboratory (e.g., in-house, third-party, country). This is a technical performance study, not a clinical study involving human patients.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth of Test Set:

• Not applicable. This study focuses on the mechanical performance of the device, not a diagnostic or prognostic assessment requiring expert medical opinion for ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set:

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical engineering test, not a clinical study requiring adjudication of expert opinions.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

• Not applicable. This is a submission for a physical medical device (spinal fixation system) and its mechanical performance, not an AI or imaging-based diagnostic device. Therefore, no MRMC study was performed.

6. Standalone Performance Study:

• Yes, a standalone study was performed in the sense that the device's mechanical performance was tested independently of its clinical implantation or interaction with human readers. The tests (Static/Dynamic Axial Compression, Static Tension, Static Torsion) evaluated the device itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The "ground truth" for this study is defined by the objective physical and mechanical properties and behaviors of the device as measured against the industry standard (ASTM F1717). This includes parameters like strength, stiffness, and fatigue life under specified loading conditions.

8. Sample Size for Training Set:

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

9. How Ground Truth for 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