Search Results

OZARK Cervical Plate System is indicated for use in anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine (C2-T1) for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylisthesis, trauma(including fractures), spinal stenosis and tumors (primary and metastatic), failed previous fusion (Pseudarthrosis) and deformity (defined as scoliosis, kyphosis or lordosis).
PYRENEES and BLUE RIDGE Cervical Plate System are indicated for use in anterior screw fixation to the cervical spine (C2-T1) for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radioaraphic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (including fractures), spinal stenosis and tumors (primary and metastatic), failed previous fusions (pseudarthrosis) and deformity (defined as scoliosis, kyphosis or lordosis).
The EVEREST Spinal System may be used in conjunction with the RANGE® (MESA® and DENALI®) Spinal Systems, all of which are cleared for the following indications: Posterior non-cervical fixation 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; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis); tumor, pseudoarthrosis; and/or failed previous fusion. Except for hooks, when used as an anterolateral thoracic/lumbar system the EVEREST Spinal System may also be used for the same indications as an adjunct to fusion. When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients the EVEREST Spinal System implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scolosis. These devices are to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.
RANGE (MESA and DENALI) and ARI are cleared for the following indications: Posterior non-cervical fixation 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; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis); tumor, pseudoarthrosis; and/or failed previous fusion. Except for hooks, when used as an anterolateral thoracic/lumbar system the Range Spinal System may also be used for the same indications as an adjunct to fusion. Except for the ARI staples, the Range Spinal System is indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when used for posterior noncervical fixation in pediatric patients. The Range Spinal System for pediatric use is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.
The Caspian OCT/MESA Mini Spinal System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the thoracic spine (T1-T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudoarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical 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 Caspian OCT/MESA Mini Spinal System is 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 Caspian OCT/MESA Mini/Spinal System may be connected to Range/MESA/DENALI Spinal System and Everest Spinal System components via the rod to rod connectors or transition rods.
The Caspian OCT/MESA Mini/DENALI Mini Spinal System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the thoracic spine (T1-T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudoarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical 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 Caspian OCT/MESA Mini/DENALI Mini Spinal System is 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 Caspian OCT/MESA Mini/DENALI Mini Spinal System may be connected to Range/MESA/DENALI Spinal System and Everest Spinal System components via the rod to rod connectors or transition rods.
RANGE (MESA and DENALI) and ARI are cleared for the following indications: Posterior non-cervical fixation 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; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis); tumor, pseudoarthrosis; and/or failed previous fusion. Except for hooks, when used as an anterolateral thoracic/lumbar system the Range Spinal System may also be used for the same indications as an adjunct to fusion. Except for the ARI staples, the Range Spinal System is indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when used for posterior noncervical fixation in pediatric patients. The Range Spinal System for pediatric use is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograff. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.
The Caspian OCT/MESA Mini/DENALI Mini Spinal System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the thoracic spine (T1-T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudoarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical 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 Caspian OCT/MESA Mini/DENALI Mini Spinal System is 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 Caspian OCT/MESA Mini/DENALI Mini Spinal System may be connected to Range/MESA/DENALI Spinal System and Everest Spinal System components via the rod to rod connectors or transition rods.
The YUKON OCT Spinal System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the thoracic spine (T1-T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/ or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudoarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical 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 YUKON OCT Spinal System is 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 YUKON OCT Spinal System may be connected to Everest Spinal System components via the rod to rod connectors or transition rods.
The Xia® 3 Spinal System is intended for use in the non-cervical spine. When used as an anterior/ anterolateral and posterior, non-cervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation system, the Xia® 3 Spinal System is intended to provide additional support during fusion using auto graft or allograft in skeletally mature patients in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities: Degenerative Disc Disease (as defined by back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), Spondylolisthesis, Trauma (i.e. fracture of dislocation), Spinal stenosis, Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), Tumor, Pseudarthrosis, Failed previous fusion. The 5.5 mm rods from the Stryker Spine Radius™ Spinal System and 6.0 mm 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, non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the Xia® 3 Spinal System implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat progressive spinal deformities (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, or lordosis) including idiopathic scoliosis, neuromuscular scoliosis, and congenital scoliosis. Additionally, the Xia® 3 Spinal System is intended to treat pediatric patients diagnosed with: spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis, fracture caused by tumor and/or trauma, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion. This system is intended to be used with autograft and/ or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.
The EVEREST Spinal System may be used in conjunction with the RANGE® (MESA® and DENALI®) Spinal Systems, all of which are cleared for the following indications: Posterior non-cervical fixation 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; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis); tumor; pseudarthrosis; and/or failed previous fusion. Except for hooks, when used as an anterolateral thoracic/lumbar system the EVEREST Spinal System may also be used for the same indications as an adjunct to fusion. When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients the EVEREST Spinal System implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. These devices are to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.
The CASCADIA lumbar implants are intervertebral body fusion devices indicated for use with autograft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft when used as an adjunct to fusion in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level or two contiquous levels from L2 to S1. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). These patients should be skeletally mature and have six months of nonoperative therapy. Additionally, the CASCADIA lumbar implants can be used as an adjunct to fusion in patients diagnosed with degenerative scoliosis. CASCADIA lumbar implants are intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation systems that have been cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine. The CASCADIA hyperlordotic lateral lumbar implants (≥ 22°), are intended for levels L2-L5 and are to be used with CAYMAN United plates in addition to posterior supplemental fixation. The CASCADIA non-hyperlordotic lateral lumbar implants may optionally be used with CAYMAN United plates, in addition to supplemental spinal fixation systems. The CASCADIA cervical implants are intervertebral body fusion devices indicated for use with autograft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft when used as an adjunct to fusion in patients with cervical disc disease (DDD) at one level or two contiguous levels from C2 to T1. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six weeks of non-operative treatment. The CASCADIA cervical implants are also to be used with supplemental fixation; the hyperlordotic CASCADIA cervical implants (i.e., ≥ 10°) are required to be used with an anterior cervical plate as the form of supplemental fixation.
The CAYMAN Buttress Plates are intended for use in spinal fusion procedures as a means to maintain the relative position of weak bony tissue such as allografts or autografts. The device is not intended for load bearing indications. The CAYMAN Thoracolumbar Plates are indicated for use via the lateral or anterolateral surgical approach in the treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar (T1-L5) spine and for use as an anteriorly placed supplemental fixation device for the lumbosacral level below the bifurcation of the vascular structures (L5-S1). The Cayman Thoracolumbar Plate System is intended to provide temporary stabilization during fusion using autograph or allograft in skeletally mature patients in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities and deformities: a) degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), b) pseudoarthrosis, c) spondylolysis, d) spondylolisthesis, e) fracture, f) neoplastic disease, g) unsuccessful previous fusion surgery, h)lordotic deformities of the spine, i) thoracolumbar or lumbar scoliosis, j) deformity (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis) associated with deficient posterior elements such as that resulting from laminectomy.
The CAYMAN Buttress Plates are intended for use in spinal fusion procedures as a means to maintain the relative position of weak bony tissue such as allografts or autografts. The device is not intended for load bearing indications. The CAYMAN Thoracolumbar Plates are indicated for use via the lateral or anterolateral surgical approach in the treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar (T1-L5) spine and for use as an anteriorly placed supplemental fixation device for the lumbosacral level below the bifurcation of the vascular structures (L5-S1). The Cayman Thoracolumbar Plate System is intended to provide temporary stabilization during fusion using autograph or allograft in skeletally mature patients in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities and deformities: a) degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), b) pseudoarthrosis, c) spondylolysis, d) spondylolisthesis, e) fracture, f) neoplastic disease, g) unsuccessful previous fusion surgery, h )lordotic deformities of the spine, i) thoracolumbar or lumbar scoliosis, j) deformity (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis) associated with deficient posterior elements such as that resulting from laminectomy.
The CAYMAN LP Plate System is intended for use in spinal fusion procedures as a means to maintain the relative position of weak bony tissue such as allografts or autografts. The device is not intended for load bearing indications.

The previously cleared devices consist of a variety of plate and screw systems designed to provide support across implanted levels in the cervical, thoracolumbar, and lumbosacral spine until fusion is achieved. The primary purpose of this submission is to update previously cleared MR safety information, establish an MR Conditional labeling claim, update cleaning, disinfection and sterilization instructions.

This appears to be a 510(k) summary for various spinal plate and screw systems. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through updating MRI safety information, cleaning/disinfection/sterilization instructions, and labeling.

Unfortunately, this document does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria and study results for an AI/software-based medical device. The listed devices are physical implants, and the "performance data" section refers to MR compatibility testing, not the performance of an AI algorithm in classification or detection tasks.

Therefore, I cannot extract the following information from the provided text:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for an AI/software device)
• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
• Adjudication method for the test set
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
• The type of ground truth used
• The sample size for the training set
• How the ground truth for the training set was established

The document primarily addresses the safety and efficacy of physical spinal implants based on their design, materials, and established predicate devices, and MRI compatibility. It is not about an AI-powered diagnostic or therapeutic device.

Ask a specific question about this device

RANGE /DENALI/MESA and SMALL STATURE and ARI are cleared for the following indications: Non-cervical fixation as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: degenerative 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 stcnosis: curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis and/or lordosis); tumor: pscudarthrosis: and/or failed previous fusion.

Except for hooks, when used as an anterolatcral thoracic/lumbar system the Range Spinal System may also be used for the same indications as an adjunct to fusion.

Except for the ARI staples, the Range Spinal System is indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis when used for posterior noncervical fixation in pediatric patients. The Range Spinal System for pediatric use is intended to be used with autograft. Pediatric pediatric pediale screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The Range Spinal System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (thoracic-lumbar) spinal fixation system which consist of pedicle screws, rods, locking set screws, hooks. rod connectors and transverse connectors.

Materials: The devices are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and Cobalt Chrome per ASTM and ISO standards.

Function: The system functions as an adjunct to fusion to provide immobilization and stabilization of the posterior thoracic and lumbar spine.

The purpose of this submission is to add 6.35mm implants to the system.

This FDA submission describes a spinal fixation system, not an AI/ML powered device. As such, the typical acceptance criteria and study designs for AI/ML devices (like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and MRMC studies) are not applicable.

The submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices based on design features and material properties. The primary way this device meets its "acceptance criteria" is by demonstrating it is as safe and effective as existing, legally marketed spinal systems.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document, addressing the original prompt's categories where applicable for a non-AI device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of clinical "test sets" for AI/ML performance. For mechanical testing, the "worst case components" were selected for testing, implying a representative sample of components or configurations were tested to cover the range of mechanical properties. The specific number of components or implants tested is not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data provenance. The mechanical test data would be generated in a laboratory setting (likely within the company or a certified testing facility).

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

• Not applicable as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic tool requiring expert interpretation of outputs to establish ground truth. Substantial equivalence for this device is based on technical comparisons and mechanical testing against recognized standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. There is no "adjudication" in the sense of reconciling clinical interpretations for this type of device. The determination of "worst case" for mechanical testing would be an engineering assessment.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is specifically for evaluating the impact of AI on human reader performance, which is not relevant for a spinal implant.

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

• No, a standalone algorithm performance evaluation was not done. This device is a physical medical implant, not a software algorithm.

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

• For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering standards (ASTM F1717) and successful performance within those standards, demonstrating adequate strength and durability.
• For substantial equivalence, the "ground truth" is the established safety and effectiveness profile of the predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device does not use an AI/ML "training set."

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

• Not applicable. As there is no AI/ML component, there is no "training set" or ground truth for it.

Summary regarding the device's "acceptance":

The Range Spinal System gained FDA clearance (K141147) by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices already on the market. This means the FDA concluded that the new device is as safe and effective as the existing devices. The key elements for this determination were:

• Design and Material Comparison: The new components (6.35mm implants) were found to be "substantially the same" in design features and materials (Titanium Alloy and Cobalt Chrome per ASTM/ISO standards) as predicate devices.
• Mechanical Performance: The "worst case components" of the system were previously tested against established standards (ASTM F1717) for static compression bending, static torsion, and dynamic compression. The proposed new implants were determined by engineering analysis not to represent a "new worst case," implying they perform comparably or better than previously tested components and meet the required mechanical integrity.
• Intended Use: The indications for use are consistent with those of the predicate devices.

Essentially, the "study" for this device was a combination of engineering analysis and mechanical testing against industry standards, alongside a direct comparison of its technical characteristics and intended use to already cleared predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EVEREST Spinal System may be used in conjunction with the RANGE® (MESA® and DENALI®) Spinal Systems, all of which are cleared for the following indications:

Non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation devices for posterior stabilization as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: Trauma ( i.e. fracture or dislocation ); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion. It is also indicated for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis ( grades 3 and 4 ) of the L5-S1 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.

Non-cervical, non-pedicle spinal fixation devices intended for posterior or anterolateral thoracolumbar screw stabilization 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; curvatures ( i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The Everest Spinal System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (thoraciclumbar) spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, locking set screws, and hooks.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Everest Spinal System, which is a medical device. As such, the concept of "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" as it pertains to medical image analysis, AI algorithms, or diagnostic tools with quantifiable metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, is not directly applicable in this context.

Instead, for a spinal fixation system like the Everest Spinal System, "acceptance criteria" are typically met through demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design, materials, function, and mechanical performance. The "study" that proves the device meets these criteria is typically a mechanical testing study.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, reinterpreting the request for a device like this:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the traditional sense for this type of mechanical device. The "test set" would be the collection of components and configurations of the Everest Spinal System that underwent mechanical testing. The specific number of devices or test repetitions for each mechanical test (static compression bending, static torsion, dynamic compression) is not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical tests were performed by K2M, Inc. to compare against predicate device performance. This is typically internal testing conducted according to recognized industry standards (ASTM F1717). This is a prospective evaluation of the new device components. The "country of origin of the data" would be the United States, where K2M is located.

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

• Not applicable. For mechanical testing of a spinal fixation system, "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized international mechanical testing standards (e.g., ASTM F1717) and the physical measurements obtained during the tests. It does not involve human expert interpretation in the way radiological images would.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. This concept relates to reconciling discrepancies in human expert interpretations (e.g., in diagnostic studies). Mechanical testing results are determined objectively by instrumentation and adherence to test protocols, not through human adjudication.

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 study type is relevant for diagnostic devices (especially those involving AI or human interpretation of images/data). The Everest Spinal System is a physical implant, not a diagnostic tool or an AI-assisted system.

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

• Not applicable. This device does not involve an algorithm or AI. Its performance is purely mechanical.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Objective Mechanical Measurements and Standard Compliance: The "ground truth" is defined by the objective physical measurements (e.g., load, displacement, cycles to failure) obtained during mechanical testing on the device components, compared against the established performance characteristics of predicate devices and the requirements of the ASTM F1717 standard.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a mechanical medical device like this, as it does not involve machine learning or AI.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set, this question is irrelevant for the Everest Spinal System.

In summary: The "study" proving the device met acceptance criteria was a mechanical testing study comparing the new components of the Everest Spinal System against predicate devices according to ASTM F1717 standards. The success criterion was that the new components performed "equally to or better than" the predicate devices in static compression bending, static torsion, and dynamic compression, and that their design and materials were substantially equivalent.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EVEREST Spinal System may be used in conjunction with the RANGE® (MESA® and DENALI®) Spinal Systems, all of which are cleared for the following indications;

Non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation devices for posterior stabilization as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: Trauma ( i.e. fracture or dislocation ): spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion. It is also indicated for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis ( grades 3 and 4 ) of the L5-S1 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.

Non-cervical, non-pedicle spinal fixation devices intended for posterior or anterolateral thoracolumbar screw stabilization 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; curvatures ( i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The Everest Spinal System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (thoraciclumbar) spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, locking set screws, and hooks.

Materials: The devices are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and Cobalt Chrome per ASTM and ISO standards.

Function: The system functions as an adjunct to fusion to provide immobilization and stabilization of the posterior thoracic and lumbar spine.

The purpose of this 510(k) submission is to add minimally invasive implants.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Everest Spinal System, focusing on acceptance criteria and the study proving device performance:

Summary of Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for the Everest Spinal System

It's important to note that the provided document is a 510(k) summary for a spinal fixation system, and not a diagnostic AI device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" are geared towards mechanical and design equivalence to predicate devices, rather than diagnostic accuracy metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC which are typical for AI-powered diagnostic tools.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

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

Given this is a mechanical testing and design comparison, the concept of a "test set" and "data provenance" (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) as understood for AI/diagnostic studies is not directly applicable.

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify a numerical sample size for the mechanical tests. It would typically involve a certain number of devices or components tested according to ASTM F1717.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of mechanical testing. The testing would be conducted in a laboratory environment following standardized procedures.

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

This category is not applicable for the Everest Spinal System 510(k) summary. "Ground truth" in this context refers to an objective standard, which for mechanical performance is established by the ASTM F1717 standard itself and the measured physical properties of the tested devices, not expert human assessment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used to resolve disagreements among human experts in diagnostic studies. Here, the "truth" is determined by direct mechanical measurements against a standard.

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 surgical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies for human reader performance with or without AI assistance are irrelevant.

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

Not applicable. The Everest Spinal System is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by:

• Mechanical Measurement Results: Directly measured values from static compression, static torsion, and dynamic compression tests performed according to ASTM F1717.
• Predicate Device Performance: The accepted performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate devices (K2M Everest Spinal System, K2M Range Spinal System, NuVasive SpherX, Globus Resolve). The new device's performance is compared against these established benchmarks.
• Design and Sizing Equivalence: Direct comparison of the physical design and dimensions of the new components to those of the predicate devices.
• Material Standards: Compliance with ASTM and ISO standards for Titanium Alloy and Cobalt Chrome.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. As this is a physical medical device undergoing mechanical testing and design comparison, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Everest Spinal System if used in conjunction with the Range (Mesa and Denali) Spinal Systems are:

Non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation devices for posterior stabilization as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: Trauma ( i.e. fracture or dislocation ); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion. It is also indicated for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis ( grades 3 and 4 ) of the L5-S1 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.

Non-cervical, non-pedicle spinal fixation devices intended for posterior or anterolateral thoracolumbar screw stabilization 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; curvatures ( i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The Everest Spinal System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (thoracic-lumba) spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, locking set screws, and hooks. The purpose of this submission is to increase the range of screw sizes and to add connectors to enable use with Range Spinal System conponents.

Materials: The devices are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and Chrome per ASTM and ISO standards.

Function: The system functions as an adjunct to fusion to provide immobilization of the posterior thoracic and lumbar spine.

The provided 510(k) summary for the "Everest Spinal System" is for a physical medical device (spinal fixation system) and not for an AI/ML-driven device or software. Therefore, the questions regarding acceptance criteria, study design, ground truth, and reader studies that are typically applicable to AI/ML device performance evaluation do not directly apply in this context.

This summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on mechanical performance and material compatibility.

Here's an analysis of the provided information, framed as closely as possible to your request, but highlighting the differences for a physical device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (for a physical medical device)

Summary of Device Evaluation and Study for Substantial Equivalence:

The study presented is not an AI/ML algorithm validation study, but rather a comparative engineering and design study to demonstrate substantial equivalence of a physical medical device.

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

   • This is not applicable in the context of an AI/ML study. For a physical device, "test set" refers to physical prototypes or components of the Everest Spinal System. The document doesn't specify the exact number of components tested but implicitly suggests sufficient samples were used to conduct the required ASTM F1717 mechanical tests.
   • Data Provenance: The tests were conducted according to ASTM and ISO standards, implying a controlled laboratory environment. The "country of origin of the data" would be where these tests were performed, but this detail is not provided. It is a prospective generation of test data from manufactured components.

2. 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):

   • This is not applicable. The "ground truth" for a mechanical device is established by objective, verifiable physical measurements and engineering standards (ASTM F1717, ISO standards). There are no human "experts" establishing a subjective ground truth in this type of study.

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

   • Not applicable. Mechanical tests are typically evaluated against predefined quantitative limits set by standards like ASTM F1717, not through human adjudication.

4. 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 a physical device, and no human "readers" or AI assistance are involved in its performance evaluation.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • For this physical device, the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering performance standards (ASTM F1717) and material specifications (ASTM and ISO standards for Titanium Alloy and Chrome). The performance of the device is directly compared to these objective standards and to the performance of existing legally marketed predicate devices under the same test conditions.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no AI/ML model being trained.

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

   • Not applicable. No AI/ML model training occurred.

Conclusion for this Device:

The K2M Everest Spinal System demonstrated substantial equivalence by:

• Showing that its mechanical performance (static compression, static torsion, dynamic compression) was "equally to or better than" the predicate devices when tested according to ASTM F1717.
• Confirming its design features and sizing were "substantially the same" as predicate systems.
• Verifying its materials (Titanium Alloy and Chrome) met the relevant ASTM and ISO standards.
• Confirming its intended use aligns with the predicate devices.

This allows the FDA to conclude there are no significant differences that would adversely affect the product's use, thus granting 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Range Spinal System is comprised of the DENALI, DENALI DEFORMITY, and MESA Spinal Systems and the ARI Anterior Vertebral Body Staples, all of which are cleared for the following indications:

Non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation devices for posterior stabilization as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: trauma ( i.e. fracture or dislocation ); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis; and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion. It is also indicated for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis ( grades 3 and 4 ) of the LS-S 1 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.

Non-cervical, non-pedicle spinal fixation devices intended for posterior or anterolateral thoracolumbar screw stabilization as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (DDD ) (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degencration 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 fision.

The Range Spinal System is a top-loading, multiple component, posterior (thoracic-lumbar) spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, locking set screws, and hooks.

Materials: The devices are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and Cobalt Chrome per ASTM and ISO standards.

Function: The system functions as an adjunct to fusion to provide immobilization and stabilization of the posterior thoracic and lumbar spine.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Range Spinal System: Mesa Modifications. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through clinical trials. Therefore, the information typically requested regarding acceptance criteria, study data, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment for AI/diagnostic devices will not be present in this document.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. The submission relies on mechanical testing of components, not human test subjects or clinical data in the context of diagnostic performance. The sample size for the mechanical tests (e.g., number of screws or rods tested) is not specified in this summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data. The data provenance is from laboratory mechanical testing.

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. Ground truth as typically understood for diagnostic or AI devices (e.g., expert consensus on medical images) is not relevant for this type of mechanical device submission and testing. The "ground truth" here is compliance with ASTM standards and comparison to a predicate device's mechanical properties.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a clinical study involving human readers or interpretation of results that would require an adjudication method.

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 a spinal fixation system, not an AI or diagnostic device designed to assist human readers.

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

• Not applicable. This refers to an AI/algorithm's performance, which is not relevant to this device.

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

• The "ground truth" in this context is the established performance characteristics and mechanical properties of the legally marketed predicate devices, and the compliance with established ASTM standards (like F1717) for mechanical testing.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve machine learning or AI models with training sets.

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

• Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned in this submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The APEX Spine System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra, degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

The APEX Spine System is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 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.

The APEX Spine System is also a hook and sacraliliac screw fixation system of the non-cervical spine indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (fracture and/or dislocation), spinal stenosis, deformities (scoliosis, lordosis and/or kyphosis), tumor, and previous failed fusion (pseudo-arthrosis).

The added Ø5.50mm and Ø6.0mm CoCr Spinal Rods are identical to the existing devices of the previously cleared APEX Spine System with recards to indications for use and function. The Ø5.50mm and Ø6.0mm CoCr Rods are available in various lengths and are designed for use with the previously cleared titanium alloy components of the APEX Spine System which can accept a Ø5.50mm and/or Ø6.0mm spinal rod, including monoaxial, polyaxial screws, hooks, and connectors. The Ø5.50mm and Ø6.0mm CoCr Rods will be labelled as components of the APEX Spine System.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the APEX Spine System with CoCr Rods. This is a premarket notification for a medical device seeking substantial equivalence to existing devices, not a study evaluating the performance of an AI model or diagnostic device against acceptance criteria.

Therefore, the input does not contain the information necessary to complete the requested table and details regarding acceptance criteria and studies proving device performance in the context of AI or diagnostic accuracy studies. The document explicitly states:

• "No clinical studies were performed."
• The non-clinical tests were ASTM standards for mechanical properties of spinal implants.

Given this, I cannot fill out the requested table or provide information about:

1. Acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in terms of diagnostic accuracy/AI performance): Not applicable, as this is a mechanical spinal implant, not an AI or diagnostic device. Performance is typically assessed through mechanical testing and substantial equivalence, not diagnostic metrics.
2. Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No clinical/diagnostic test set was used. Mechanical testing involved specific constructs.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable in the context of diagnostic performance.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document is purely about the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device (spinal rods) based on material specifications, intended use, and mechanical testing, demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicates.

Ask a specific question about this device