Search Results
Found 4 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(344 days)
The Ghost Spacer System is intended for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). It is to be used in patients who have had at least six months of non-operative treatment. This device is intended to be used with autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone and a supplemental internal spinal fixation system (e.g., pedicle screw or anterolateral plating system) that is cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine.
The Ghost Spacer System consists of implants made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI per ASTM F3001). The spacers have a basic rectangular shape, a hollow center for placement of autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone to help promote fusion and a smooth bullet shaped distal surface. They are available in an assortment of height, length and anteroposterior angulations to accommodate many different anatomic requirements. The implants are delivered via a posterior, transforaminal, lateral or anterior approach. The devices are manufactured using the Electron Beam Melting (EBM) additive manufacturing method. All implants are intended for single use only and should not be reused under any circumstances. Do not use any of the GHOST Spacer System components with components from any other system or manufacturer. The GHOST Spacer System components should never be reused under any circumstances.
This document describes the FDA's 510(k) clearance for the Life Spine Ghost Spacer System, an intervertebral body fusion device. While it establishes the device's substantial equivalence to predicate devices, it does not include a study describing acceptance criteria and demonstrating the device meets those criteria from an AI/algorithm perspective.
The provided text focuses on the device's physical and functional characteristics, material, and mechanical testing (e.g., Static and Dynamic Axial Compression & Compressive Shear Testing per ASTM F2077, and Static subsidence testing per ASTM F2267) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices.
Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth establishment for an AI-powered device, as the information is not present in the provided document. The device in question is a physical implant, not an AI/algorithm-driven diagnostic or therapeutic tool.
Ask a specific question about this device
(174 days)
The RESOLUTE Threaded Cage System is intended to be used bilaterally for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). It is to be used in patients who have had at least six months of non-operative treatment.
The Resolute Threaded Cage System intended to be used with autograft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone and a supplemental internal spinal fixation system (e.g., pedicle screw or anterolateral plating system) that is cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine.
The Resolute Threaded Cage System implants are devices intended to serve as an intervertebral body fusion device. The implant is available in a range of diameters and lengths to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. It is fabricated and manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) described by ASTM F136. The implant is hollow to permit packing with autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone and a supplemental fixation system (e.g., pedicle screw or anterolateral plating system) that is cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine to help promote intervertebral body fusion. The cylindrical surface has threads to assist in the interface with the vertebral endplates to prevent migration.
All implants are intended for single use only and should not be reused under any circumstances. Do not use any of the Resolute Threaded Cage System components with components from any other system or manufacturer. The Resolute Threaded Cage System components should never be reused under any circumstances
The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the Life Spine Resolute™ Threaded Cage System. This type of submission is for medical devices and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than providing clinical performance data or acceptance criteria related to an AI/algorithm-based device.
Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning AI/algorithm performance. The "performance data" section refers to mechanical testing of the implant itself, not to the performance of any AI or algorithm.
To explicitly address the numbered points in the request:
-
A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not applicable. The document discusses mechanical testing of the physical implant (Static Axial Compression, Static Axial Compression Shear, Dynamic Compression Shear & Dynamic Axial Compression testing) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not performance against specific AI/algorithm acceptance criteria.
-
Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. No test set for an AI/algorithm is mentioned.
-
Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No ground truth for an AI/algorithm test set is mentioned.
-
Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. No test set for an AI/algorithm is mentioned.
-
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 document is about a physical medical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
-
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This document is about a physical medical implant.
-
The type of ground truth used: Not applicable. No ground truth for an AI/algorithm is mentioned.
-
The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. No training set for an AI/algorithm is mentioned.
-
How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. No training set for an AI/algorithm is mentioned.
In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary pertain to the physical characteristics and mechanical performance of an intervertebral body fusion device and do not involve an AI or algorithm. Therefore, the requested information about AI acceptance criteria and study details cannot be extracted from this document.
Ask a specific question about this device
(77 days)
The Plateau Spacer System is intended for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). It is to be used in patients who have had at least six months of non-operative treatment. This device is intended to be used with autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone and supplemental internal spine fixation system (e.g., pedicle screw or anterolateral plating system) that is cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine.
The Plateau-V Spacer System is intended to serve as an intervertebral body fusion device. The implant is available in a range of sizes and footprints to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. It is fabricated and manufactured from either PEEK-OPTIMA LT1 or Zeniva PEEK ZA-500 with tantalum markers. The implant is hollow to permit packing autograft bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone to help promote intervertebral body fusion. The superior and inferior surfaces have teeth to assist in the interface with the vertebral endplates to prevent rotation and/or migration.
The provided text describes a medical device, the Life Spine Plateau Spacer System, and its clearance process with the FDA. However, it does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or a study proving that an AI-powered device meets such criteria.
The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for an intervertebral body fusion device, which is a physical implant, not an AI device. The included "Performance Data" section solely refers to mechanical testing of the implant itself (e.g., static axial compression, expulsion, subsidence, and dynamic axial compression tests) to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on physical and material properties.
Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the following sections because the provided text does not contain this type of information:
- A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: No AI device is described, so no such criteria or performance data is available.
- Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: No AI device or test set for an AI device is mentioned.
- Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as there is no AI device or ground truth for an AI device.
- Adjudication method: Not applicable.
- 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.
- If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
- The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
- The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
The document discusses substantial equivalence for a physical medical device (intervertebral body fusion device) based on its design, materials, indications for use, and mechanical performance relative to existing predicate devices.
Ask a specific question about this device
(205 days)
The Plateau-LO Spacer System is intended for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels (L2-S1). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). It is to be used in patients who have had at least six months of non-operative treatment. This device is intended to be used with autogenous bone graft and a supplemental internal spinal fixation system (e.g., pedicle screw or anterolateral plating system) that is cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine.
The Plateau-LO Spacer System is intended to serve as an intervertebral body fusion device. The implant is available in a range of sizes and footprints to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. It is fabricated and manufactured from PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) with tantalum markers. The implant is hollow to permit packing with autogenous bone graft to help promote intervertebral body fusion. The superior and inferior surfaces have teeth to assist in the interface with the vertebral endplates to prevent rotation and/or migration.
All implants are intended for single use only and should not be reused under any circumstances. Do not use any of the Plateau-LO Spacer System components with components from any other system or manufacturer. The Plateau-LO Spacer System components should never be reused under any circumstances.
This document describes the regulatory approval of "The Plateau-LO Spacer System," an intervertebral body fusion device. The information provided is for a 510(k) premarket notification and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices rather than a detailed clinical study demonstrating device performance against specific acceptance criteria in the way one might expect for a diagnostic AI device.
Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details are not directly applicable to this type of regulatory submission and the information available. The document is primarily concerned with proving the new device is as safe and effective as existing, legally marketed devices.
Here's an attempt to address your request based on the provided text, highlighting what is (and isn't) present:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not present specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance in the way a diagnostic AI device study would. Instead, it relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices based on design, materials, indications for use, and mechanical performance.
| Criterion Type | Acceptance Criteria (Not explicitly stated as numerical targets) | Reported Device Performance (Summary of evidence presented) |
|---|---|---|
| Design Equivalence | The Plateau-LO Spacer System's design should be comparable to the predicate devices. | The document states: "The Plateau-LO Spacer System is substantially equivalent to the predicate systems in terms of design..." It is fabricated from PEEK with tantalum markers and is hollow for bone graft. Similar to common intervertebral fusion devices. |
| Material Equivalence | Materials used should be comparable and possess similar biocompatibility and mechanical properties to the predicate devices. | The document states: "...materials used..." are substantially equivalent to the predicate systems. Specifically, it's made from PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) with tantalum markers, which are standard materials for such implants. |
| Indications for Use | The intended use should be the same as or very similar to the predicate devices. | The document states: "...indications for use..." are substantially equivalent to the predicate systems. The intended use is for spinal fusion in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at L2-S1, possibly with Grade 1 spondylolisthesis, after 6 months of non-operative treatment, used with autogenous bone graft and a supplemental internal spinal fixation system. This matches typical indications for such devices. |
| Mechanical Performance | The mechanical strength and stability (e.g., resistance to expulsion) should be equivalent to or better than the predicate devices, ensuring safety and efficacy in vivo. | Data presented included "Engineering rationale, finite element analysis and expulsion testing." These studies aimed to "demonstrate the substantial equivalency of The Plateau-LO Spacer System" in terms of mechanical performance compared to the predicate devices. Specific numerical results are not provided in this summary. |
| Functional Equivalence | The device should perform its intended function (facilitating intervertebral fusion) similarly to the predicate devices. | The document states: "...function..." is substantially equivalent to the predicate systems. Its design (hollow for bone graft, teeth on surfaces) supports its function to promote fusion and prevent migration, consistent with predicate devices. |
| Sizing Equivalence | The range of available sizes should be comparable to the predicate devices to accommodate various patient anatomies. | The document states: "...sizing" is substantially equivalent to the predicate systems. It's noted that the implant is "available in a range of sizes and footprints to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient." |
| Biocompatibility (Implicit) | Materials should be biocompatible for implantation in the human body. | Though not explicitly stated as a criterion, using PEEK, a common and well-established biocompatible material for implants, implies that biocompatibility was confirmed or established through a history of safe use of similar materials in predicate devices. |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
This document is a 510(k) summary, which typically relies on non-clinical performance data (bench testing, engineering analysis) and comparison to predicate devices, rather than a clinical "test set" from patient data.
- Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of clinical patient data. The "test set" (if we consider it as the subject of the performance data) would be the physical devices used in the engineering rationale, finite element analysis, and expulsion testing. The specific number of devices tested is not mentioned.
- Data Provenance: The studies mentioned (engineering rationale, finite element analysis, expulsion testing) are typically conducted in a laboratory setting by the manufacturer (Life Spine Inc.). No "country of origin of data" for clinical patient data is relevant here. The studies would be considered prospective in terms of how the tests were designed and executed on the device prototypes/samples.
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)
This is not applicable. "Ground truth" in the sense of expert consensus on clinical findings is not established for this type of submission. The ground truth here is derived from engineering principles, material science, and established acceptable performance limits for intervertebral fusion devices, as demonstrated through bench testing.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. There's no clinical "test set" requiring adjudication by clinical experts as this is not a diagnostic device and no clinical data review is described.
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-powered diagnostic tool, and therefore MRMC studies are not relevant.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
The "ground truth" for this submission is established by:
- Engineering principles and material science: For the design, materials, and mechanical properties.
- Regulatory standards and guidance: For what constitutes "substantial equivalence" for intervertebral body fusion devices.
- Performance of predicate devices: The established safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate devices serve as the benchmark.
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 there is no training set for this type of device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1