Search Results

The ENNOVATE Spinal System is intended for anterior/anterolateral and posterior, non-cervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation. Fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and is intended to be used as an adjunct to fusion using autograft or allograft. The ENNOVATE System can be used in both an Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). The device is indicated for treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities.

1. Degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies).
2. Spondylolisthesis,
3. Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation)
4. Spinal Stenosis.
5. Deformities or Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis),
6. Tumor.
7. Pseudoarthrosis, and
8. Failed previous fusion

The ENNOVATE Spinal System is an implant system used to correct spinal deformity and facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas of the spine. This system includes polyaxial screws of varying diameters and lengths, rod-to-rod and cross connectors of various styles and lengths. All implant components are top loading and top tightening. The implants in this system are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), conforming to ISO 5832-3.
The ENNOVATE Spinal System is a spinal rod and screw system. This system's polyaxial screws can be rigidly locked into a wide range of configurations, therefore allowing each construct to be formed to the needs of an individual patient. Rods of this system may be shaped intraoperatively to correct or maintain proper spinal curvature.

This document describes a spinal system, not a device that would typically have acceptance criteria and performance metrics in the way an AI/ML or diagnostic device would. This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "ENNOVATE Spinal System," which is a metallic implant system for spinal fusion.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than establishing novelty or specific performance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for a diagnostic tool.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to this type of device and regulatory submission. I will explain why each category is not applicable and what information is provided in the document.

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

• Not Applicable. For a spinal implant system like the ENNOVATE Spinal System, "acceptance criteria" are typically related to mechanical and material performance standards, not diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes in the same way as an AI/ML device. The "performance" reported is compliance with these standards through mechanical testing.

Note: The document states that "All required testing per 'Draft Guidance for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications (510(k)s) Applications for Orthopedic Devices-The Basic Elements' were done where applicable. In addition, testing per the guidance 'Spinal System 510(k)s May 3, 2004' was completed where applicable." This indicates that the device met the performance requirements outlined in these guidance documents, primarily through mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

The following sections are NOT APPLICABLE because this document describes a physical spinal implant system, not a diagnostic AI/ML device requiring clinical performance evaluation with ground truth.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic. No 'test set' of clinical data for diagnostic performance is described. The 'test set' here refers to physical devices tested in a lab.

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, in the context of expert review, is for diagnostic devices or AI, not for mechanical spinal implants.

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

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical endpoints or diagnostic interpretations, not for mechanical testing of an implant.

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 specific to AI/ML diagnostic tools, not an orthopedic implant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is specific to AI/ML diagnostic tools.

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

• Not Applicable. Ground truth refers to the definitive determination of a condition for diagnostic purposes. For a spinal implant, the "truth" is whether it meets engineering specifications and functions mechanically as intended.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This is for AI/ML models. No training set is involved for this mechanical device.

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

• Not Applicable. As above, no training set or ground truth in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EXPEDIUM Spine System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The EXPEDIUM™ Spine System is intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle fixation 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, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The subject EXPEDIUM Spine System components consist of 4.5mm and 6.35mm rods and are available in various geometries and sizes.

The provided text describes the EXPEDIUM Spine System, a medical device intended for spinal immobilization and stabilization. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study designs, or performance metrics in a way that would allow for a complete answer to your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them.

The document is a 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter, which primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a detailed performance study against pre-defined acceptance criteria.

Here's a breakdown of what can be gleaned and what is missing, structured as requested:

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

Explanation: The document states that "Performance data per ASTM F 1717 were submitted." ASTM F 1717 is a standard specification for spinal implant constructs in vitro, likely involving mechanical testing (e.g., fatigue, static strength). However, the specific acceptance criteria (e.g., "must withstand X cycles at Y load," or "static strength must exceed Z N-m") and the device's measured performance against those criteria are not provided in this summary. The summary confirms that data was submitted to characterize the device, implying that a study was conducted, but it does not present the results or the pass/fail thresholds.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for any test set. The ASTM F 1717 standard would typically define the number of constructs to be tested, but this detail is not present in the summary.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It's an in-vitro mechanical test, so "country of origin of data" is less relevant than for clinical data, but the location of the testing facility is not provided. Retrospective or prospective classification is not applicable to an in-vitro mechanical test.

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 question is not applicable to the device and performance data described. The device is a spinal implant system, and the performance data cited (ASTM F 1717) refers to mechanical properties, not diagnostic performance or clinical outcomes requiring expert interpretation to establish ground truth.

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

• Not applicable. As the performance data pertains to mechanical testing (ASTM F 1717), there is no need for expert adjudication. Mechanical tests follow standardized protocols.

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 spinal implant system, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted device. Therefore, MRMC studies involving human readers and AI assistance are not relevant.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical spinal implant system, not a software algorithm.

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

• Not applicable in the typical sense of ground truth for diagnostic devices. For mechanical testing (ASTM F 1717), the "ground truth" is established by the physical properties and behavior of the device components under controlled test conditions, measured against the specifications of the standard. There is no expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data used to establish "ground truth" for this type of performance assessment.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" for a physical medical device undergoing mechanical performance testing. This concept applies to machine learning algorithms.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Summary of available information:

The 510(k) summary indicates that the EXPEDIUM Spine System is a Class III medical device intended for spinal immobilization and stabilization. It states that "Performance data per ASTM F 1717 were submitted to characterize the subject EXPEDIUM™ Spine System components." This implies that a study was conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of the device according to the ASTM F 1717 standard. However, the specific details of this study, including the acceptance criteria, the actual performance results, sample sizes, or any form of "ground truth" that would be applicable to diagnostic or AI devices, are not present in the provided document. The document primarily serves to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, allowing it to proceed to market without a full PMA.

Ask a specific question about this device