Search Results

The Polaris Spinal System is a non-cervical spinal fixation device intended for immobilization and stabilization as an adjunct to fusion as a pedicle screw fixation system, a posterior hook and sacral/iliac screw fixation system, or as an anterior or anterolateral fixation system. Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and for use with autograft and/or allograft. The device is indicated for all the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies). spondylolisthesis, trauma, (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformity or curvature (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, stenosis, pseudoarthrosis, or failed previous fusion.

The Ballista/Ballista II instruments are intended to be used with Ballista II/Polaris 5.5mm implants. Cannulated screws and percutaneous rods may be used with the Ballista/Ballista II instruments to provide the surgeon with a percutaneous approach for posterior spinal surgery for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma, (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformity or curvature (i.e., scoliosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, stenosis, pseudoarthrosis, or failed previous fusion that warrant the use of a non-cervical spinal fixation device intended for use as a pedicle screw fixation system or sacral/iliac screw fixation system. Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and for use with autograft and/or allograft.

The Polaris Spinal System may be used with the instruments in the AccuVision Minimally Invasive Spinal Exposure System to provide the surgeon with a minimally invasive approach for posterior spinal surgery.

The dominos in the Polaris Spinal System can be used to connect the Polaris Spinal System to the Altius Spinal System, the Array Spinal System, the Biomet Omega21 Spinal System, or the Synergy Spinal System to achieve additional levels of fixation. Please refer to the individual system's Package Insert for a list of the indications for use for each system.

The Polaris Spinal System is a non-cervical spinal fixation device. The system includes screws, various types and sizes of rods, locking nuts, hooks, lateral connectors, plugs, fixation washers, rod connectors/dominos and various cross connectors. Various instruments are also available for use by the surgeon to facilitate implantation of the device. This submission is a line extension to Polaris Spinal System to add other styles of multiaxial screw, including a screw with translating feature, and to provide the Polaris Spinal System sterile packed.

The provided document describes a 510(k) summary for the Biomet Spine Polaris Spinal System - Translation Screw, which is a non-cervical spinal fixation device.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of clinical data for algorithmic performance. The testing performed was mechanical testing of the device hardware.

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of clinical data or algorithm performance.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The "data" comes from physical mechanical tests conducted on the device components.

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

Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of algorithm performance, typically refers to expert-validated clinical diagnoses or outcomes. This submission focuses on mechanical performance data of a physical medical device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for resolving discrepancies in expert opinions for clinical ground truth. Mechanical testing has well-defined pass/fail criteria per ASTM standards.

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 comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a physical spinal fixation system, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool.

6. 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 submission is for a physical medical device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for the mechanical testing was the established pass/fail criteria defined by ASTM 1717-11a standard test methods for static and fatigue testing of spinal implant constructs in a vertebrectomy model.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a physical implant, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Polaris Spinal System is a non-cervical spinal fixation device intended for immobilization and stabilization as an adjunct to fusion as a pedicle screw fixation system, a posterior hook and sacral/iliac screw fixation system, or as an anterior or anterolateral fixation system. Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and for use with autograft and/or allograft. The device is indicated for all the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma, (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformity or curvature (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, stenosis, pseudoarthrosis, or failed previous fusion.

The Ballista/Ballista II instruments are intended to be used with Ballista/Ballista II/Polaris 5.5mm implants. Cannulated screws and percutaneous rods may be used with the Ballista II instruments to provide the surgeon with a percutaneous approach for posterior spinal surgery for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma, (i.e., fracture or dislocation), deformity or curvature (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, stenosis, pseudoarthrosis, or failed previous fusion that warrant the use of a noncervical spinal fixation device intended for use as a pedicle screw fixation system or sacral/iliac screw fixation system. Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and for use with autograft and/or allograft.

The Polaris Spinal System may be used with the instruments in the AccuVision Minimally Invasive Spinal Exposure System to provide the surgeon with a minimally invasive approach for posterior spinal surgery.

The dominos in the Polaris Spinal System can be used to connect the Polaris Spinal System to the Altius Spinal System, The Array Spinal System, the Biomet Omega21 Spinal System, or the Synergy Spinal System to achieve additional levels of fixation. Please refer to the individual system's Package Insert for a list of the indications for use for each system.

The Polaris Spinal System is a non-cervical spinal fixation device. The system includes screws, various types and sizes of rods, locking nuts, hooks, lateral connectors, plugs, fixation washers, rod connectors/dominos and various cross connectors. Various instruments are also available for use by the surgeon to facilitate implantation of the device. This submission is a line extension to Polaris Spinal System to add another style of Ballista rods to the system.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Polaris Spinal System - Ballista II Rods," a non-cervical spinal fixation device. This submission is a line extension to add another style of Ballista rods to the existing system. The core assertion is that the new components are "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, meaning they have the same or similar technological characteristics and do not raise new issues of safety or effectiveness.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based only on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of this submission. The "study" here is primarily an engineering analysis and validation testing, not a clinical study on human subjects or a dataset in the typical sense for AI/machine learning.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The validation testing would have been performed in a laboratory setting by the manufacturer, Biomet Spine. The data is internal to the company.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. This submission focuses on engineering analysis and mechanical/compatibility testing, not on establishing ground truth from expert interpretations of medical data.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. There is no human interpretation of data requiring adjudication mentioned.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The submission focuses on device equivalence from a mechanical and functional perspective, not on comparing human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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

• No, a standalone study (in the context of an algorithm's performance) was not done. This is a hardware device submission, not an AI or software device submission.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Ground Truth: The "ground truth" in this context is defined by established engineering principles, mechanical testing standards for spinal implants, and the functional compatibility requirements with existing instrumentation. This is engineering/performance data and manufacturing specifications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve an AI system with a "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve an AI system with a "training set."

Summary of the Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The "study" in this context consists of an engineering analysis and validation testing.

• Engineering Analysis: This analysis was conducted to determine if new mechanical testing was required for the different style of rod. The conclusion was that because the new component combination did not create a "new worst-case construct" compared to the predicate devices, additional general mechanical testing of the rod itself was not deemed necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence for the main mechanical properties.
• Validation Testing: This testing specifically verified the compatibility and functionality of the modified rods with the existing Polaris Spinal System instrumentation. This ensures that surgeons can safely and effectively use the new rods with the established toolset.

The overall approach to proving the device meets acceptance criteria (which is primarily substantial equivalence) relies on demonstrating that the new components maintain the same intended use, indications, technological characteristics, and principles of operation as legally marketed predicate devices, and that the minor modifications do not introduce new safety or effectiveness concerns, supported by engineering analysis and specific compatibility testing.

Ask a specific question about this device