Search Results

The Leva™ Spacer System is indicated for intervertebral body fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine at one or two contiguous levels from L2-S1. Degenerative disc disease is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radios. These DDD patients may have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). The Leva™ Spacer System is to be used with autogenous bone graft and with supplemental fixation. Patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral body fusion device.

The Leva™ Spacer System is a lumbar intervertebral body fusion device fabricated from unalloyed commercially pure (Class II) titanium per ASTM F67. The device is available in both expandable and fixed configurations. The expandable device is provided in a collapsed form and is expanded to a predefined height in-situ using the Leva™ Inserter Instrument. Both the fixed and expandable implants are provided in different heights to accommodate the anatomical needs for a range of patients. The implants are designed to accommodate autogenous bone graft material. The implants have curved endplates to conform to the bony endplates of the patient and ridges on the endplates to resist expulsion.

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, I cannot extract any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that a device meets those criteria. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the Leva™ Spacer System. It describes the device, its intended use, and states that performance testing was conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not specify any acceptance criteria or detail the results of those tests in a way that would allow me to fill out the requested table or provide the other information.

Specifically:

• There is no table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance.
• There is no mention of sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, number or qualifications of experts, or adjudication methods for establishing ground truth.
• There is no information about multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or standalone algorithm performance.
• The type of ground truth for any testing isn't specified (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
• There is no information about the sample size for a training set or how ground truth for a training set was established, as this document pertains to a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

The performance data section only lists the types of tests performed (e.g., Static and dynamic axial compression per ASTM F2077) but does not provide any results, acceptance criteria, or details regarding the studies themselves.

Ask a specific question about this device