Search Results

The Frida™ Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation of the cervical spine in skeletally mature patients, serving as an adjunct to fusion of the cervical spine (C2 - T1). The system is intended for the temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of cervical spine fusions in patients with the following indications: 1) degenerative disc disease (as defined as neck pain of discogenic origin and confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), 2) spondylolisthesis, 3) spinal stenosis, 4) trauma, 5) failed previous fusions, 6) tumors, 7) curvature deformities (kyphosis, lordosis, or scoliosis), and/or 8) pseudoarthrosis.

The Frida™ Anterior Cervical Plate System is an anterior cervical plating system that consists of single-use plates and screws, along with manual instruments for implant insertion. The plates are manufactured from titanium (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ASTM F136 and come in a variety of lengths to accommodate individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. Plates incorporate a graft window for intraoperative visualization. Screws are manufactured from titanium (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ASTM F136 and are available in self-tapping and self-drilling options. Screws are available in a fixed or variable configuration, with a range of sizes to accommodate individual pathology. Plates and screws are available in single-use sterile packaging.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Frida™ Anterior Cervical Plate System does not contain the detailed information typically found in an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) submission regarding acceptance criteria and study results.

This document is for a traditional medical device (a mechanical implant), not a software-based device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria" are related to mechanical performance and biocompatibility, not algorithmic performance or clinical effectiveness in a human-computer interaction context.

Here's how to interpret the available information based on your request, and what information is missing due to the nature of this particular device:

Device Type: This is a physical, implantable medical device (Anterior Cervical Plate System), not an AI/SaMD. The "studies" described are primarily mechanical performance tests.

Acceptance Criteria & Device Performance (as much as can be inferred for a mechanical device):

Missing Information (Crucial for an AI/SaMD, but not applicable/provided for this physical device):

The following points are specifically geared towards AI/SaMD and are not found in the provided document because it pertains to a physical, mechanical medical device:

1. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: Not applicable. The "test set" here refers to physical samples of the device undergoing mechanical testing, not a dataset of patient information.
2. Number of experts used to establish ground truth: Not applicable. Ground truth for a spinal plate is its mechanical performance and material properties.
3. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
4. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable, as this is for evaluating AI-assisted human performance, not relevant for a physical implant.
5. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable.
6. Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable in the AI/SaMD sense. The ground truth here is the objective measurement of mechanical properties compared to established standards and predicate devices.
7. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not have a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Its design and manufacturing are based on engineering principles and material science.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary of the Study that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria (based on the provided text):

• Study Type: Non-clinical mechanical performance testing.
• Tests Performed:
  • Static compression testing
  • Dynamic compression testing
  • Static torsion testing
• Standards Used: ASTM F1717 (Standard Test Methods for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Vertebrectomy Model)
• Comparison Basis: The device's performance was compared to "legally marketed predicate devices."
• Conclusion: The tests demonstrated that the "worst-case constructs were substantially equivalent to legally marketed devices." This implies that the Frida™ Anterior Cervical Plate System's mechanical characteristics, such as strength and durability, are comparable to or better than existing devices on the market, thereby demonstrating its safety and effectiveness for its intended use.

In essence, while the prompt asks for information typically found in AI/SaMD submissions, the provided document details the regulatory clearance for a traditional orthopedic implant, focusing on mechanical and material equivalence rather than data-driven algorithmic performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Struxxure® System is intended for anterior screw fixation of the cervical spine. These implants have been designed to provide stabilization as an adjunct to cervical fusion. Indications for the use of this implant system include degenerative disc disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with the degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fractures or dislocations), spinal stenosis, deformity (i.e., kyphosis, lordosis or scoliosis), tumor, pseudarthrosis or failed previous fusion.

Struxxure consists of plates and screws in a variety of sizes. Plates from 1- to 5-levels are offered. Fixed and variable angle screws are available in two diameters in both self-tapping and self-drilling versions.

This 510(k) summary describes a spinal fixation device, not an AI/ML device, and therefore the requested information fields (2-9) about AI/ML studies are not applicable. The device's substantial equivalence is based on mechanical performance testing against predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device. The "test set" in this context refers to the physical samples of the Struxxure® components subjected to mechanical testing. The provenance is the manufacturer (Nexxt Spine).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering standards (ASTM F1717) and direct measurement of physical properties, not expert consensus.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. Mechanical testing involves direct measurement and comparison to established standards, not adjudication of interpretations.

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 not an AI/ML device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used: For the mechanical performance, the ground truth is the measured physical properties (e.g., strength, stiffness, fatigue life) according to the specified ASTM F1717 standard. For the technological characteristics and intended use, the ground truth is the direct comparison to the characteristics of the predicate devices.

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

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device