Search Results

The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is designed for spinal fixation procedures in skeletally mature patients performed through a posterior approach. The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated for the temporary realignment and stabilization of one or more intervertebral segments from the thoracic spine to the sacrum until bony fusion is obtained.

The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated to achieve bony fusion via osteosynthesis at thoracic, lumbar and/or lumbosacral levels of the spine in documented cases of degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, kyphotic or lordotic spinal deformities, scoliosis, tumor and pseudoarthrosis, or for revision of a failed previous fusion.

The Instinct Java System is a temporary implant system used to correct spinal deformity in skeletally mature patients and facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for non-cervical posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas of the spine. The system consists of implants and instruments. The implants consist of monoaxial and polyaxial pedicle screws of varying diameters and lengths, iliac screws, reduction screws, open and closed offset connectors, blockers, pre-contoured and straight Titanium alloy and straight cobalt chromium rods, and transverse connectors of varying lengths. All implants are made of titanium alloy except for the addition of CoCrMo Alloy rods and one commercially pure titanium component within the transverse connectors. Re-usable surgical instruments are provided to facilitate placement of the implants.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Zimmer Spine Instinct™ Java® System. It focuses on the substantial equivalence to predicate devices and does not describe a study involving patient data, clinical outcomes, or human readers for diagnostic purposes with AI assistance. Instead, it relies on engineering testing to demonstrate equivalence. Therefore, some of the requested information, such as expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance with patient data, and training set information, is not applicable or available in this document.

Here's the information that can be extracted or deduced from the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

This document does not describe a test set involving patient data. The evaluation was based on engineering bench testing of the device components. Therefore, the concept of data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable in this context. The "sample size" would refer to the number of device components tested, which is not specified but would be in line with the requirements of the ASTM standards.

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

Not applicable. The ground truth for device performance was established through compliance with recognized engineering standards (ASTM F1717-11a and ASTM F1798-97 (2008)) and demonstrated physical characteristics, not expert interpretation of patient data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable, as no human readers or diagnostic interpretations of patient data were involved in establishing the performance of the device.

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

No. This document does not describe a clinical study (MRMC or otherwise) involving human readers or AI assistance. The evaluation focuses on the mechanical and material equivalence of the device to predicate devices through engineering testing.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm-based device in the sense of image analysis or diagnostic decision-making. Its performance is based on mechanical properties and material composition.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was based on engineering standards and physical measurements of the device's mechanical properties, such as axial compression bending, static torsion, gripping capacity, flexion-extension moment, and AP(x) static pullout, as defined by ASTM F1717-11a and ASTM F1798-97 (2008).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning 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 evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is designed for spinal fixation procedures in skeletally mature patients performed through a posterior approach. The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated for the temporary realignment and stabilization of one or more intervertebral segments from the thoracic spine to the sacrum until bony fusion is obtained.

The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated to achieve bony fusion via osteosynthesis at thoracic, lumbar and/or lumbosacral levels of the spine in documented cases of degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, kyphotic or lordotic spinal deformities, scoliosis, tumor and pseudoarthrosis, or for revision of a failed previous fusion.

The Instinct Java System is a temporary implant system used to correct spinal deformity in skeletally mature patients and facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for non-cervical posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas of the spine. The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated to achieve bony fusion via osteosynthesis at thoracic, lumbar and/or lumbosacral levels of the spine in documented cases of degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, kyphotic or lordotic spinal deformities, scoliosis, tumor and pseudoarthrosis or for revision of a failed previous fusion.

The system consists of implants and instruments. The implants consist of monoaxial and polvaxial pedicle screws of varying diameters and lengths, blockers, pre-contoured and straight rods, and transverse connectors of varying lengths. All implants are made of titanium alloy, with the exception of one commercially pure titanium component within the transverse connectors.

Re-usable surgical instruments are provided to facilitate placement of the implants.

In addition, the Instinct Java System is compatible with the transverse connectors currently cleared for the market as part of the Sequoia Spinal System, identified in K082032. Furthermore, the Instinct Java may be connected to the NexLink Band & In-Line Rod Connector, identified in K062505, K060634, K052566, K052247, K031985.

The implants and instruments are provided non-sterile. Instructions for Use are provided that contain validated cleaning and sterilization instructions for the user.

This system is intended to provide stabilization until a solid spinal fusion develops. The system may then be removed, per the surgeon's discretion. This decision should be made based on the risk/benefit ratio for each patient.

The subject of this 510(k) is the addition of screw and rod lengths, an alternative thread design on the pedicle screw head, a new driver, and new instrument containers and implant caddies.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, specifically the Zimmer Spine Instinct™ Java® System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria and proving performance through a study in the context of an AI/ML device.

Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Table): The document does not define specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria for a new device's function, nor does it report the device's performance against such criteria. It focuses on the equivalence of mechanical properties to existing devices.
• Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No test set information is provided.
• Number of experts and qualifications for ground truth: No ground truth establishment is described.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable.
• Type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
• Sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

What the document does provide in relation to "acceptance criteria" and "study":

The document states that substantial equivalence was confirmed through mechanical testing, which served as the "study" to demonstrate that the new device meets the performance characteristics of its predicates.

Acceptance Criteria (Implicit) and Reported "Device Performance":

Explanation:

The "acceptance criteria" in this context are the standards and requirements set forth by the specified ASTM standards and the need for validated cleaning/sterilization. The "reported device performance" is simply that the device conforms to these standards and that the instructions were validated. This is not a quantitative reporting of performance metrics but rather a qualitative statement of compliance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is designed for spinal fixation procedures in skeletally mature patients performed through a posterior approach. The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated for the temporary realignment and stabilization of one or more intervertebral segments from the thoracic spine to the sacrum until bony fusion is obtained.

The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated to achieve bony fusion via osteosynthesis at thoracic, lumbar and/or lumbosacral levels of the spine in documented cases of degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, kyphotic or lordotic spinal deformities, scoliosis, tumor and pseudoarthrosis, or for revision of a failed previous fusion.

The Instinct Java System is a temporary implant system used to correct spinal deformity in skeletally mature patients and facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for non-cervical posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas of the spine. The Instinct Java spinal fixation system is indicated to achieve bony fusion via osteosynthesis at thoracic, lumbar and/or lumbosacral levels of the spine in documented cases of degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, fracture, spinal stenosis, kyphotic or lordotic spinal deformities, scoliosis, tumor and pseudoarthrosis or for revision of a failed previous fusion.

The system consists of implants and instruments. The implants consist of monoaxial and polyaxial screws of varying diameters and lengths, blockers, pre-contoured and straight rods, and transverse connectors of varying lengths. All implants are made of titanium alloy, with the exception of one commercially pure titanium component within the transverse connectors.

Re-usable surgical instruments are provided to facilitate placement of the implants.

In addition, the Instinct Java System is compatible with the transverse connectors currently in the market as part of the Sequoia Spinal System, identified in K082032. Furthermore, the Instinct Java may be connected to the NexLink Band & In-Line Rod Connector, identified in K062505, K060634, K052566, K052247, K031985.

The implants and instruments are provided non-sterile. Instructions for Use are provided that contain validated cleaning and sterilization instructions for the user.

This system is intended to provide stabilization until a solid spinal fusion develops. The system may then be removed, per the surgeon's discretion.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document describes bench testing for the Instinct Java System, not a clinical study involving a "test set" in the context of diagnostic AI or clinical trials. Therefore, information about a test set sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective data is not applicable. The testing was performed on the device components themselves.

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

This information is not applicable as the study involves bench testing of a physical medical device (spinal fixation system), not an AI algorithm requiring expert-established ground truth from clinical data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable for a bench testing study of a physical medical device.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document describes bench testing of a physical medical device, not an AI system.

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. The device is a physical spinal fixation system, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the device's performance was established through adherence to specified ASTM standards (ASTM F-1717:2004) for mechanical performance (static, dynamic compression bending, static torsion) and validated cleaning and sterilization protocols for the non-sterile components.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The document describes bench testing of a physical medical device, not an AI system requiring a training set.

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

This information is not applicable for a physical medical device. The "ground truth" for the device's design and manufacturing is adherence to engineering specifications and regulatory standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: fracture, dislocation, failed previous fusion {pseudoarthrosis}, spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, spinal deformations such as scoliosis or kyphosis and loss of stability due to tumors.

When used as a pedicle screw system, the Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System is intended for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebrae 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.

As a posterior pedicle screw system designed for temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of spinal fusion, the Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System is comprised of polyaxial pedicle screws, rods, and crosslinks. The S 100 System can be used for single or multiple level fixations

The screws are a top loading tulip design and are available in multiple diameters and lengths. Reduction screws are available for cases of spondylolisthesis where the short arms of the standard screw are not long enough to engage the rod. The rods are available in straight and pre-lordosed (curved) configurations. The system also has variable and fixed crosslinks.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System, a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving efficacy through clinical studies that would establish acceptance criteria and device performance in the same way as an AI/ML medical device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to this document. The "acceptance criteria" here refers to demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through mechanical testing and comparison of design and materials.

Here's a breakdown of the information as it relates to the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (as applicable for a 510(k) of this nature)

• Testing per ASTM F1717
• Testing per ASTM F1798
• Component dissociation testing
  The results “were equal or higher than the predicate system” (ZODIAC™ Polyaxial Spinal Fixation, and other predicates for specific components). This indicates the device meets or exceeds the mechanical performance of established similar devices. |

Study Information (Based on the provided K101682 document):

Because this is a 510(k) for a pedicle screw system, the "study" is primarily a non-clinical, mechanical testing comparison to predicate devices, rather than a clinical trial or AI/ML model validation.

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

   • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of screws, rods, or crosslinks) used for the mechanical tests (ASTM F1717, ASTM F1798, component dissociation testing).
   • Data Provenance: The tests conducted are standard ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards, implying laboratory-based mechanical testing. No geographical origin of the data is specified beyond the company's location (Redlands, CA, USA). The testing is prospective for this device, comparing its new components against existing standards and predicates.

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):

   • Not Applicable. For mechanical performance testing of a physical medical device, "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized national/international standards (like ASTM) and comparison to the published properties/performance of legally marketed predicate devices. Expert consensus in the clinical sense is not directly relevant here. The manufacturing and testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

   • Not Applicable. Mechanical testing under ASTM standards typically involves precise measurements and quantitative outcomes. There isn't an "adjudication" process in the sense of resolving disagreements among human observers for image interpretation or diagnosis. The "acceptance" is based on meeting the quantitative performance metrics relative to the predicate devices and applicable standards.

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 device is a pedicle screw system, a physical orthopedic implant. It is not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or assistive technology, so MRMC studies involving human "readers" or AI assistance are irrelevant.

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

   • Not Applicable. As above, this is a physical implant, not an algorithm or software device.

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

   • The "ground truth" for this 510(k) submission is based on established mechanical engineering principles, recognized industry standards (ASTM F1717, F1798), and the performance characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices. The claim of "substantial equivalence" is the central "truth" being established through these comparisons.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a physical medical device like a pedicle screw system. This term is relevant for AI/ML models.

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

   • Not Applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device