Search Results

The TELIX K Interbody System is intervertebral body fusion device in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies) at one or two contiguous levels of the lumbar spine (L2-S1).

Patients should have six months of non-operative treatment prior to surgery.

These implants are used to facilitate fusion in the lumbar spine and are placed via a TLIF approach using autogenous bone.

These implants are intended for use with Biedermann Motech supplemental internal fixation products.

The TELIX K Interbody System is intended for use as an intercorporal fusion cage in the lumbar region (L2-L5) and sacral region (S1). Therefore, the system includes the following implants:

The TELIX K Interbody System is comprised of slightly curved implants in lengths of 28, 32 and 36mm and heights ranging from 7 to 17mm.

Devices that are 7mm in thickness are only available with 0-degrees of lordosis and all other implants possess 5-degrees of lordosis.

The implants are introduced via a TLIF approach using autogenous bone. The TELIX K Interbody System must only be implanted in combination with supplemental fixation.

The implants of the TELIX K Interbody System are single-use only and the system is provided non sterile.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (TELIX K Interbody System), which primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than presenting a study of the device's performance against detailed acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm-based medical device.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" (especially points 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 which relate to data, ground truth establishment, and clinical studies) are not applicable or not present in this type of regulatory submission. This document describes a physical intervertebral body fusion device, not an AI or algorithm.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing only the applicable points:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Based on the document, the "acceptance criteria" are derived from relevant ASTM standards for intervertebral body fusion devices, and the "reported device performance" refers to the results of mechanical bench testing.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests, but implies a sufficient number of samples were tested to meet ASTM standard requirements for substantiation.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in terms of patient data. The data is from mechanical bench testing of the device components.

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

• Not applicable. This relates to mechanical testing against standards, not expert-derived ground truth on patient data.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. This relates to mechanical testing governed by standardized protocols, not human adjudication.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

• No. This document refers to a physical implant and mechanical testing, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the mechanical bench testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the acceptance limits and methodologies of the ASTM standards (ASTM F2077-14 and ASTM F2267-04).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a physical device subject to mechanical testing, not an AI/algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment process for this type of device.

Summary based on the document:

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a physical medical device, the TELIX K Interbody System. The intent of this submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to an already legally marketed device, primarily through non-clinical bench testing to ensure mechanical performance aligns with established standards for intervertebral body fusion devices.

The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the referenced ASTM standards (ASTM F2077-14 and ASTM F2267-04), which dictate the performance requirements for such implants regarding static compression, dynamic compression, torsion, compression-shear, and subsidence. The study conducted was non-clinical bench testing, specifically mechanical tests. No clinical trials or studies involving human patients were performed or deemed necessary for this 510(k) submission ("No clinical tests were performed."). Therefore, concepts like data provenance from patient studies, expert consensus, MRMC studies, or training sets for AI algorithms are not relevant to this specific regulatory submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CASCADIA implants are indicated for use with autgenous bone graft as intervertebral body fusion devices in skeletally mature patients. The implants are intended for use as either one level or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1 for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The lumbar implants are intended to be used in patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment.

For all the above indications the CASCADIA implants are intended to be used with supplemental internal fixation appropriate for the implanted level, including K2M Pedicle Screw and K2M Spinal Plate Systems.

The implants consist of hollow tube structures additively manufactured from titanium alloy. The devices are available in a variety of different sizes and heights to match more closely the patient's anatomy. The purpose of the subject submission is to incorporate additional implant sizes into the system.

Function: The system functions as an intervertebral body fusion device to provide support and stabilization of the lumbar segments of the spine.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Cascadia Interbody System, addressing your specific questions.

Important Note: The provided document is an FDA 510(k) summary for a spinal interbody fusion device. These types of devices are primarily mechanical implants. The document does not describe an AI/software device or a study involving human readers or expert consensus for image interpretation. Therefore, many of your questions related to AI studies, ground truth establishment, reader performance, and training/test set sample sizes for AI models are not applicable to this physical medical device submission.

I will answer the questions based on the information available in the document, clarifying when a question is not applicable to this type of device.

Analysis of Cascadia Interbody System 510(k) Summary (K160547)

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

For mechanical implants, acceptance criteria are typically defined by engineering standards and performance benchmarks against predicate devices. The document states:

Note: Specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "must withstand X N of compression") are not provided in this summary, but are inherent in the referenced ASTM standards and predicate equivalence.

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

• Test Set (for performance evaluation): The document refers to "the worst case implants for the Cascadia Interbody System were previously tested." It does not specify the sample size (N) for these mechanical tests. It implies that only representative "worst-case" configurations were tested, and engineering rationales were used for other sizes.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance for mechanical testing is not explicitly mentioned (e.g., "conducted in a lab in USA"). It's internal company testing or testing done by a contracted lab. The data is inherent to the device's design and manufacturing process.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not applicable to mechanical testing of physical device performance.

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

Not applicable. This is a mechanical medical device, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device that requires expert ground truth for interpretation. Performance is assessed through engineering testing and comparison to established standards and predicate devices.

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

Not applicable. This is a mechanical medical device study, not a study involving human reader interpretation or clinical 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 is a mechanical medical device. No human reader studies or AI assistance are involved in this 510(k) submission.

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

Not applicable. This is a mechanical medical device. There is no algorithm for standalone performance.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering standards (e.g., ASTM F2077, ASTM F2267) and benchmarking against predicate devices. Its functional safety and effectiveness are supported by demonstrating that it performs "equally to or better than" devices already on the market and that its materials and design are substantially equivalent.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a mechanical medical device. There is no AI training set.

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

Not applicable. There is no AI training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CASCADIA implants are indicated for use with autogenous bone graft as intervertebral body fusion devices in skeletally mature patients. The implants are intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels, from L2 to S1, for the treatment of degenerative disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondvlolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The lumbar implants are intents who have had six months of non-operative treatment.

For all the above indications the CASCADIA implants are intended to be used with supplemental internal fixation appropriate for the implanted level, including K2M Pedicle Screw and K2M Spinal Plate Systems.

The subject submission describes the Cascadia Interbody System. The implants consist of hollow tube structures made of titanium alloy. The devices are available in a variety of different sizes and heights to match more closely the patient's anatomy. The purpose of the subject submission is for a line addition to the lumbar intervertebral body fusion devices previously cleared in the K2M Aleutian Intervertebral Body Fusion System, to include implants additively manufactured from titanium alloy.

Function: The system functions as an intervertebral body fusion device to provide support and stabilization of the lumbar segments of the spine.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that a device meets those criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Cascadia Interbody System, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices rather than providing detailed performance data against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The K7 Lumbar Spacers are indicated for intervertebral body fusion of the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, in skeletally mature patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. The device is intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The device is intended for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion.

The K7 Lumbar Spacers are a collection of radiolucent interbody devices having variously shaped cross-sections. The superior and inferior surfaces are open with parallel serrations to facilitate implant stability. The implants are available in an assortment of height, length, width and anteroposterior angulation combinations to accommodate a variety of anatomic requirements.

The provided text describes the K7 Lumbar Spacers, a medical device for intervertebral body fusion. The study presented focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through mechanical testing, rather than a clinical study evaluating the device's performance in a human population.

Therefore, many of the requested categories related to clinical performance metrics, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and reader studies are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document, as the FDA 510(k) submission for this device type typically relies on demonstrating engineering and material equivalence for clearance.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted, and where the requested information is not applicable:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Static Compression (according to ASTM F2077)
• Dynamic Compression (according to ASTM F2077) | Performance shown to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices. |
  | Subsidence Properties:
• Evaluated according to ASTM F2267 | Performance shown to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices. |
  | Technological Characteristics:
• Intended Use
• Basic Design (hollow column)
• Material (PEEK polymer and tantalum)
• Sizes (widths, lengths, heights within predicate range) | Same as predicate devices. |

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a "test set" in the context of clinical data. The mechanical testing was likely performed on a representative sample of K7 Lumbar Spacers of the "worst case" configuration. The specific number of units tested for static, dynamic compression, and subsidence is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The data is from mechanical testing of the device itself (K7 Lumbar Spacers) in a laboratory setting, not from human subjects. Therefore, country of origin or retrospective/prospective clinical data is not applicable.

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

• This is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's regulatory clearance is established by engineering standards (ASTM F2077, ASTM F2267) and comparison to predicate device characteristics, not by expert clinical consensus on a "test set" of patient data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This is not applicable, as there was no clinical "test set" involving human interpretation or adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a spinal implant, and its regulatory clearance here is based on mechanical performance and material equivalence, not on the interpretative performance of a diagnostic algorithm or image analysis by human readers.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

• No, a standalone study in the context of AI algorithm performance was not done. This device is a physical implant, not an AI algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the mechanical performance, the "ground truth" is defined by engineering standards (ASTM F2077 for compression, ASTM F2267 for subsidence) and the established performance/characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices. The goal was to demonstrate that the K7 Lumbar Spacers met or were equivalent to these benchmarks.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• This is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI as this is a physical medical device.

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

• This is not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The X-spine Calix Lumbar Spinal Implant System is intended for spinal fusion procedures at one or two contiguous levels (L2 - S1 inclusive) in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies) of the lumbosacral spine. DDD patients may also have up to a Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). These patients may have had a previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved level(s). These implants are to be packed with autogenous bone graft and implanted via an anterior, posterior, and/or transforaminal approach. Patients should receive at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with a lumbosacral intervertebral fusion device.

This device is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation systems that have been cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine (i.e., posterior pedicle screw and rod systems, anterior plate systems, and anterior screw and rod systems).

The X-spine Calix Lumbar Spinal Implant System is a generally box or oval shaped device manufactured from Invibio PEEK-Optima LT1 per ASTM F2026 with an array of holes located throughout its geometry as well as teeth on the superior and inferior surfaces. The device is supplied in several widths and heights to accommodate variations in patient anatomy. The devices contain radiographic markers made from tantalum per ASTM F560.

The hollow center of the implant allows the device to be packed with bone graft.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Calix™ Lumbar Spinal Implant System. This document focuses on the administrative and technical details of a medical device submission, specifically detailing its equivalence to previously marketed products and the performance testing conducted.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative, pass/fail manner. Instead, it describes a series of standardized tests performed to demonstrate the device's biomechanical equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is implied by the successful completion of these tests, signifying that the device performs "at least as safely and effectively as the cited predicate devices."

Note: The document states "biomechanical testing results indicate that the Calix Lumbar Spinal Implant System is substantially equivalent to predicate device performance and is as effective, and performs at least as safely and effectively as the cited predicate devices." This is the general statement of performance, rather than specific quantitative results against discrete acceptance values.

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

The document does not provide a "test set" in the context you would typically find for an AI/software device (e.g., a set of medical images for diagnostic accuracy assessment). Instead, the "performance data" refers to biomechanical testing of the device itself.

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in terms of number of devices or specific load cycles, but refers to "full device constructs" undergoing standardized tests. For biomechanical testing, sample size would typically refer to the number of physical devices tested under various conditions.
• Data Provenance: The tests are standard ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) and FDA guidance-driven tests, which implies an engineering/laboratory setting rather than clinical data from a specific country or retrospective/prospective study.

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

This question is not applicable to the provided document. The "ground truth" here is established by the specifications and pass/fail criteria of the ASTM and FDA-recommended biomechanical tests themselves, not by human expert assessment of device performance in a clinical or diagnostic setting.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This question is not applicable to the provided document as it does not involve expert review or consensus for establishing ground truth. The 'adjudication' in biomechanical testing is typically determined by whether the physical device meets the mechanical performance requirements defined by the test standard.

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

No. The document describes biomechanical testing of a spinal implant, not a diagnostic or AI-powered medical imaging device that would involve human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant to this content.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

No. This question is relevant for AI/software devices. The provided document concerns a physical spinal implant and its mechanical performance testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the performance data in this context is the established physical and mechanical properties of the predicate devices and the requirements set forth in the ASTM standards (F2077, F2267) and FDA guidance for intervertebral body fusion devices. The device's performance is compared against these engineering standards and the known performance characteristics of already cleared devices to establish "substantial equivalence."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

This question is not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical implant.

In summary: The provided 510(k) summary for the Calix Lumbar Spinal Implant System focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through biomechanical performance testing. It does not contain information related to AI/software device performance, clinical studies with human readers, or image-based diagnostic accuracy. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the successful completion of standardized engineering tests, and the "ground truth" is based on these objective engineering standards and predicate device performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Idys™ LIF Cages are indicated for use with autologous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two levels from L2 to S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment. These devices are intended for intervertebral body fusion, and are intended to be used with supplemental fixation instrumentation which has been cleared by FDA for use in the lumbar spine.

The Idys™ LIF Cages consist of PEEK lumbar cages of various widths and heights, which can be inserted between two lumbar or lumbosacral vertebral bodies to give support and correction during lumbar interbody fusion surgeries. The hollow geometry of the implants allows them to be packed with autogenous bone graft. The Idys™ LIF Cages also feature markers made of Tantalum according to ASTM F560.

The Idys™ LIF Cages have different anatomic shapes and dimensions based on the surgical approach: PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion); TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion); and PTLIF (posterior approach and oblique-TLIF approach).

The Idys™ PLIF Cage is a hollow spacer with openings for autograft on the top, bottom, and sides of the device.

the Idys™ TLIF Cage has a bullet tip to facilitate introduction. The TLIF Cage Holder instrument has a clamp that affixes to the axle to enable rotation of the device during its introduction in situ.

The Idys™ PTLIF Cage is inserted in an oblique position. It can be introduced with a PLIF approach or a TLIF approach to the convenience of the surgeon and with taking into account the profile of the patient.

The Idys™ LIF Cage procedures are performed using a set of surgical instruments common for PLIF and TLIF approaches. Most of the instruments provided are common surgical tools used in these types of interbody fusion procedures. Those instruments are considered Class I, general purpose, manual orthopedic instruments encompassed within the regulation in 21 CFR 888.4540.

This document describes the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria for CLARIANCE's Idys™ LIF Cages.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each of the performance tests (static/dynamic axial compression, static/dynamic compression shear, subsidence, expulsion, and wear testing). It only mentions that performance testing was conducted per ASTM F2077 and ASTM F2267.

The data provenance is not specified beyond indicating that the studies were performed by CLARIANCE, a French company. It does not state whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

For this type of device (intervertebral body fusion cages), the "ground truth" is typically established through recognized industry standards for mechanical performance rather than expert consensus on medical images or patient outcomes. The document indicates that performance testing was conducted per ASTM F2077 and ASTM F2267. These ASTM standards define the methodologies and acceptance criteria for mechanical testing of spinal intervertebral body fusion devices. Therefore, the "experts" in this context would be those who interpreted and conducted the tests according to these established standards. The document does not specify the number or qualifications of the individuals who performed or interpreted these tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable for a device performance study based on engineering standards. The performance is objectively measured against the criteria defined by ASTM F2077 and ASTM F2267, rather than requiring expert adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic or AI-assisted interpretation devices to assess human performance with and without AI, not for mechanical devices like intervertebral body fusion cages.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

No standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study was done. This concept is not applicable to an intervertebral body fusion device, which is a physical implant, not a software algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for evaluating the device's performance was the mechanical performance standards specified in ASTM F2077 and ASTM F2267. This includes metrics like static and dynamic axial compression, static and dynamic compression shear, subsidence, expulsion, and wear.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical implant, not an AI model that requires a training set. The term "training set" is typically used in the context of machine learning and artificial intelligence.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

When used as a cervical intervertebral body fusion device, the Aleutian implants are indicated for spinal fusion procedures to be used with autogenous bone graft in skeletally mature patients. Cervical JBF implants are intended for use at one level in the cervical spine, from C2 to T1, for the treatment of cervical disc disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies). The cervical device is intended to be used in patients who have had six weeks of non-operative treatment.

When used as a lumbar intervertebral body fusion device, the Aleutian implants are indicated for spinal fusion procedures to be used with autogenous bone graft in skeletally mature patients. The lumbar IBF implants are intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The lumbar device is intended to be used in patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment.

When used as vertebral body replacement devices the Aleutian implants are indicated for use in the thoracolumbar spine (T1 to L5) for partial replacement (i.e., partial vertebrectomy) of a diseased vertebral body, resected or excised for the treatment of tumors or trauma/fracture in order to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body. The Aleutian implants are designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle, and posterior spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period.

For all the above indications the Aleutian implants are intended to be used with supplemental internal fixation appropriate for the implanted level, including K2M Pedicle Screw and Hook Systems, and K2M Spinal Plate Systems.

The Aleutian Spinal System consists of a hollow tube or horseshoe-shaped structures manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetheretherketone). The devices are available in a variety of different sizes and heights to match more closely the patient's anatomy. The ends of the implants have machined teeth which are designed to engage with the vertebral body end plates.

Materials: The implants are manufactured from Invibio™ PEEK OPTIMA® LT1 per ASTM F2026. Tantalum beads/ rods are to be made of Grade UNS R05200, UNS R05400 according to ASTM F560.

Function: The system functions as an intervertebral body fusion device to provide support and stabilization of the cervical and lumbar segments of the spine.

The provided text describes a medical device submission (510(k)) for the Aleutian IBF System. It outlines the device's description, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria in the way an AI/ML device submission would.

This document pertains to a traditional medical device (an intervertebral body fusion device made of PEEK, Tantalum) and its substantial equivalence to other physically similar medical devices already on the market. The evaluation criteria for such a device are primarily based on material properties, mechanical testing, and comparison with predicate devices, not on performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity against a ground truth dataset, which would be typical for AI/ML devices.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set size, ground truth for training set) are not applicable to the information contained in this 510(k) summary for a physical implant.

Here's a breakdown based on the information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Cervical Intervertebral Body Fusion (C2-T1 for cervical disc disease)
• Lumbar Intervertebral Body Fusion (L2-S1 for DDD with Grade I spondylolisthesis)
• Vertebral Body Replacement (T1-L5 for tumors/trauma/fracture)
  (Substantially equivalent to predicates K082698, K071795, K100042). |
  | Design/Function Equivalence:
  Design and function must be substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Description: Hollow tube or horseshoe-shaped structures from PEEK with machined teeth.
  Function: Provides support and stabilization for spinal fusion.
  (Substantially equivalent to predicates K082698, K071795, K100042). |

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

• This information is not provided. The study conducted was primarily mechanical testing and finite element analysis, not a clinical study with a "test set" of patients or data in the typical sense.

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 for this type of device and study. The ground truth for mechanical performance typically relies on established engineering principles, material standards (ASTM), and validated testing methods.

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

• Not applicable.

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, as 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, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• The "ground truth" in this context is based on established engineering standards (ASTM F2077 for static compression and torsion testing) and the mechanical performance and material properties of the predicate devices. The finite element analysis (FEA) was validated against these physical tests.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this device and the provided study, which involves mechanical testing and FEA.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device