Search Results

The Mecta-C intervertebral body fusion device is indicated for anterior cervical interbody fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients. The device systems are designed for use with autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. One device may be used per intervertebral space. The implants are intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation.

The Mecta-C device is intended for use at one level in the cervical spine, from C2-T1, for the treatment of cervical disc disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies). The cervical device is to be used in patients who have had six weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with the device.

The Mecta-C Intervertebral Body Fusion Devices are fusion devices intended for stabilization and to promote bone fusion during the normal healing process following surgical correction of disorders of the cervical spine. The Mecta-C body fusion device is indicated for the treatment of degenerative diseases of the cervical disc and can be used for cervical fusion from C2-T1. The Mecta-C intervertebral body fusion devices consist of a PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) body and tantalum markers. The markers are placed in the implant on each end of the PEEK cages to allow easier radiological assessment of the position and orientation of the radiolucent PEEK cages. The cages are offered in various widths, heights, footprint geometries and lordosis which can be inserted between two cervical vertebra bodies to give support and correction during cervical interbody fusion surgeries. The hollow geometry of the implants allows them to be packed with autogenous bone graft.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Mecta-C Intervertebral Body Fusion Device. This type of submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through mechanical performance testing, rather than clinical studies with human participants or AI performance metrics. Therefore, many of the requested criteria related to studies involving AI, human readers, ground truth establishment for clinical data, and specific sample sizes for training/test sets are not applicable to this document.

However, I can extract information related to the performance testing conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this device, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the performance of the predicate devices. The Mecta-C device aims to demonstrate "similar" or "substantially equivalent" mechanical performance according to specific ASTM standards.

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is a series of mechanical performance tests conducted according to established ASTM standards. These tests compare the Mecta-C Intervertebral Body Fusion Device to identified predicate devices (Vu cPOD and Bengal Cage).

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify the exact number of Mecta-C devices or predicate devices used in each mechanical test. Mechanical testing typically involves multiple samples (e.g., 5-10 per test condition) to ensure statistical significance, but these details are not provided in this 510(k) summary.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance is from mechanical laboratory testing, not human or clinical data. The tests were performed to ASTM standards, which are international standards. The country where the testing took place is not explicitly stated, but Medacta International SA is based in Switzerland and Medacta USA is in California.

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

• Not Applicable. For mechanical testing of medical devices, "ground truth" is established by the physical properties and performance characteristics of the predicate devices and the specifications of the ASTM standards. There are no human experts "establishing ground truth" in the way clinical studies would.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used in clinical studies when there's ambiguity in human interpretation of data. For mechanical tests, the results are quantitative measurements against predefined criteria in the ASTM standards.

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

• No. This is a mechanical device submission, not an AI or imaging diagnostic device. MRMC studies analyze human reader performance, often in conjunction with AI.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

• No. This refers to AI algorithm performance. This submission is for a physical implantable device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Objective Mechanical Performance Data: The "ground truth" in this context is the quantitative mechanical performance data obtained from testing both the Mecta-C device and the predicate devices according to established ASTM standards (ASTM F2077 for various compression/shear/torsion tests and ASTM F2267 for subsidence). The FDA's acceptance of "substantial equivalence" relies on the Mecta-C device's performance falling within acceptable limits relative to these predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of mechanical performance testing for substantial equivalence. This concept applies to machine learning algorithms.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device