Search Results

The ShurFit 2C Interbody Fusion Devices (LLIF and TLIF) are indicated for intervertebral body fusion of the spine in skeletally mature patients. The device is designed to be used with autograft to facilitate fusion. One device is used per intervertebral space for the LLIF and TLIF.

The ShurFit 2C Interbody Fusion Devices (LLIF and TLIF) are intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine, for 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 to be used with supplemental fixation and autogenous autograft. Patients should have at least six months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with a lumbar intervertebral fusion device.

The ShurFit 2C Interbody Fusion System (LLIF and TLIF) consists of implants with various widths, heights, and lengths to accommodate individual patient anatomy and graft material size. It is to be packed with autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The device is intended to provide mechanical support to the implanted level until biologic fusion is achieved. All components are manufactured from medical grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK Optima, LT1), and coated with Commercially Pure Titanium in compliance with ASTM F1580, and Hydroxyapatite in compliance with ASTM F1185-03. The products are supplied clean and "STERILE". The cages are included without a coating (already cleared K092193) or with a Cp Ti-HA (Commercially Pure Titanium - Hydroxyapatite) coating (this submission).

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding a medical device, the ShurFit 2C Lumbar Interbody Fusion System. It does not contain information about an AI/ML-based device or a study proving its performance against acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML.

The acceptance criteria and study described in this document relate to the mechanical and physical performance of a spinal implant, not a diagnostic AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, I cannot extract the information required to populate the fields related to AI/ML device performance, such as sample size for test sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or training sets.

The information provided in the document focuses on:

• Device Description: Lumbar interbody fusion system made of PEEK Optima LT1, with or without a CpTi-HA coating.
• Purpose of Submission: To add CpTi-HA coated cages to an already cleared system.
• Indications for Use: Intervertebral body fusion for degenerative disc disease.
• Technological Characteristics: Comparison to predicate devices, emphasizing the new coating.
• Non-Clinical Testing: Mechanical performance tests (e.g., static/dynamic axial compression, shear, expulsion, subsidence) and coating property tests (e.g., tensile bond strength, shear fatigue, solubility).

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request as it pertains to an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion is 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 at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients may have had a previous nonfusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). The device system is designed for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion.

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System will be offered in various device configurations based on surgical approach and patient anatomy. The Integrity Spine lumbar interbody fusion device(s) may be implanted:

• bi-laterally in pairs via a posterior (PLIF) approach;
• as a single device via an oblique (OLIF) approach:
• as a single device via a transforaminal (TLIF) approach; or
• as as a single device via an anterior or anterolateral (ALIF) approach.
  The System is implanted using a combination of device specific and universal class I instruments manufactured from stainless steel materials that conform to ASTM F899.
  The implant components are made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK Zeniva ZA-500) that conforms to ASTM F2026. Additionally, the devices contain tantalum markers (ASTM F560) to assist the surgeon with proper placement of the device.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System. It is an FDA clearance letter and a 510(k) summary, not a study report proving a device meets acceptance criteria. As such, it does not contain the specific information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, ground truth, or expert involvement for evaluating device performance in the context of AI or diagnostic accuracy studies.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on intended use, technological characteristics, and non-clinical mechanical testing for safety and performance in a physical device context (interbody fusion).

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from this document. The document discusses:

• Device Name: Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System (Page 2)
• Intended Use: Intervertebral body fusion of the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, for degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis, for skeletally mature patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. (Page 2)
• Testing: Non-clinical mechanical testing including static and dynamic compression, static and dynamic torsion, subsidence, and expulsion testing. These tests were conducted according to ASTM standards (F2077-11, F2267-04, and a Draft Standard F-04.25.02.02). (Page 5)
• Conclusion: The device is substantially equivalent to predicate devices based on shared intended use, implant design, material, and non-clinical mechanical test results. (Page 5)

The prompt asks for acceptance criteria and study details that are typically found in studies evaluating diagnostic devices, AI algorithms, or clinical performance. This document pertains to a surgical implant and its mechanical properties.

Ask a specific question about this device

When used as an intervertebral body fusion device, the InterForm Lumbar Interbody Cage System is intended for spinal fusion procedures at one or two contiguous levels (L2-S1) in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). These patients should have had six months of non-operative treatment. The device is intended to be used with autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. Additionally, the InterForm Lumbar Interbody Cage System is intended for use with supplemental spinal fixation systems cleared for use in the lumbar spine. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at involved level may be treated with the device.

The InterForm PLIF Interbody Fusion Implants consists of cage footprint widths of 9, 11, 13mm , lengths of 20, 22, 24, 26, 30mm, ranging in height from 7mm to 14mm with lordosis of 5°, which can be inserted between two lumbar or lumbosacral vertebral bodies to give support and correction during lumbar interbody fusion surgeries. These implants are manufactured from implant grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK). The hollow geometry of the implants allows them to be packed with autogenous bone graft in lumbar interbody fusion procedures. The InterForm PLIF Interbody Fusion devices are intended to be implant via an open or minimally invasive, posterior approach and used with supplemental fixation and autogenous bone graft.

The InterForm TLIF Interbody Fusion Implants consists of cage footprints widths of 9, 11, 13mm , lengths of 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32mm, ranging in height from 7mm to 14mm with lordosis of 5°, which can be inserted between two lumbosacral vertebral bodies to give support and correction during lumbar interbody fusion surgeries. These implants are manufactured from implant grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK). The hollow geometry of the implants allows them to be packed with autogenous bone graft in lumbar interbody fusion procedures. The InterForm TLIF Interbody Fusion devices are intended to be implant via an open or minimally invasive, transforaminal approach and used with supplemental fixation and autogenous bone graft.

The InterForm OTLIF Interbody Fusion Implants consists of cage footprint widths of 9, 11, 13mm , lengths of 20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 34mm, ranging in height from 7mm to 14mm with lordosis of 0°, which can be inserted between two lumbar or lumbosacral vertebral bodies to give support and correction during lumbar interbody fusion surgeries. These implants are manufactured from implant grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK). The hollow geometry of the implants allows them to be packed with autogenous bone graft in lumbar interbody fusion procedures. The InterForm OTLIF Interbody Fusion devices are intended to be implant via an open or minimally invasive, posterior or transforaminal approach and used with supplemental fixation and autogenous bone graft.

The InterForm LLIF Interbody Fusion Implants consists of cage footprint widths of 18, 20, 22, 24mm, lengths of 40, 45, 50, 55, 60mm, ranging in height from 8mm to 18mm with lordosis of 0° or 7°, which can be inserted between two lumbosacral vertebral bodies to give support and correction during lumbar interbody fusion surgeries. These implants are manufactured from implant grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK). The hollow geometry of the implants allows them to be packed with autogenous bone graft in lumbar interbody fusion procedures. The InterForm LLIF Interbody Fusion devices are intended to be implant via a lateral approach and used with supplemental fixation and autogenous bone graft.

The InterForm ALIF Interbody Fusion Implants consists of cage footprints of 30x24mm, and 39x30mm (DxW), ranging in height from 10mm to 20mm with lordosis of 0°, 7° or 12° which can be inserted between two lumbosacral vertebral bodies to give support and correction during lumbar interbody fusion surgeries. These implants are manufactured from implant grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK). The hollow geometry of the implants allows them to be packed with autogenous bone graft in lumbar interbody fusion procedures. The InterForm ALIF Interbody Fusion devices are intended to be implant via an open or minimally invasive, anterior approach and used with supplemental fixation and autogenous bone graft.

All implants are packaged non-sterile to be sterilized at the hospital.

Materials:

PEEK Optima LT1 conforming to ASTM F2026. Unalloyed tantalum conforming to ASTM F560.

Function:

Maintain adequate disc space until fusion occurs.

The InterForm Interbody Cage System is intended for spinal fusion procedures.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study done:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation: The documentation explicitly states that the device is considered "substantially equivalent to the predicate devices in terms of intended use, design, materials used, mechanical safety and performances." The acceptance criteria, while not explicitly numerical, are therefore met by demonstrating performance comparable to the already legally marketed predicate devices. The study concludes that the results indicate the InterForm Interbody Cage System is equivalent.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The studies listed are non-clinical tests (mechanical testing), not studies involving human or animal subjects that would generate a "test set" of data in the typical sense of evaluating AI or clinical outcomes. The provenance of the samples (e.g., specific batches of PEEK and tantalum used in testing) is not detailed, nor is it relevant given the mechanical nature of the tests.

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

This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical mechanical tests, not clinical evaluations requiring expert interpretation or ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical mechanical tests.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed." This device is a physical medical implant, not an AI or imaging device that would typically involve human reader studies.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant and not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the established mechanical properties and performance standards outlined in the ASTM F2077 and ASTM F2267 standards, and the performance characteristics of the predicate devices. For mechanical tests, the ground truth is objectively measured physical properties and behaviors of the material and device under specific conditions.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant and would not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. For mechanical testing, the "samples" would be the manufactured devices or materials subjected to the tests. The exact number of units tested for each non-clinical test (static compression, dynamic compression, subsidence, expulsion) is not specified, but it would typically be a statistically significant number of physical samples to ensure reliability and reproducibility of the results according to the ASTM standards.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as #8. The "ground truth" for material and device properties in mechanical testing is established through standardized testing procedures and validated measurement techniques, as defined by organizations like ASTM.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System is 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 at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients may have had a previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). The device system is designed for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion.

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System will be offered in various device configurations based on surgical approach and patient anatomy. The Integrity Spine lumbar interbody fusion device(s) mav be implanted:

• bi-laterally in pairs via a posterior (PLIF) approach;
• as a single device via an oblique (OLIF) approach: a
• as a single device via a transforaminal (TLIF) approach: or -
• as as a single device via an anterior or anterolateral (ALIF) approach.
  The System is implanted using a combination of device specific and universal class I instruments manufactured from stainless steel materials that conform to ASTM F899.
  The implant components are made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK Zeniva ZA-500) that conforms to ASTM F2026. Additionally, the devices contain tantalum markers (ASTM F560) to assist the surgeon with proper placement of the device.

Since the extracted text refers to a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System), the "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" would typically relate to comparisons to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing, rather than explicit numerical performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity often seen in AI/diagnostic device contexts. Also, there's no mention of a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of clinical trials or AI performance evaluations with ground truth. The summary focuses on substantiating substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that many of your points are not directly addressed due to the nature of this particular 510(k) summary:

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

Based on the provided text, the "acceptance criteria" for this device are primarily met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical testing. The "reported device performance" is the successful completion of these tests with results deemed equivalent. There are no explicit numerical acceptance criteria for performance provided in the document in the way one might see for diagnostic AI (e.g., sensitivity > X%, specificity > Y%).

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

The document describes non-clinical mechanical testing rather than testing on patient data. Therefore, the concept of "test set" in terms of patient data, data provenance, or retrospective/prospective studies does not apply here. The "samples" used were physical devices subjected to the specified ASTM tests. The sample sizes for these specific mechanical tests are not detailed in this summary.

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 provided document. The ground truth for this device's evaluation (substantial equivalence) is established through adherence to recognized international standards for mechanical testing (ASTM standards) and comparison to legally marketed predicate devices, not through human expert interpretation of clinical data in a diagnostic context.

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

This question is not applicable to the provided document, as it pertains to clinical data interpretation and not mechanical device testing.

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

There is no mention of a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study. This document describes a medical device (spinal implant) and its substantial equivalence determination, not an AI or diagnostic tool that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical spinal implant, not an algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" is established by the specified ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for mechanical performance (e.g., F2077-11 for static and dynamic testing, F2267-04 for subsidence, and ASTM Draft Standard F-04.25.02.02 for expulsion). The performance of the predicate devices under these same standards also serves as a comparative benchmark.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable to the provided document. There is no concept of a "training set" for a physical medical device like a spinal implant in the context of this 510(k) summary.

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

This question is not applicable to the provided document for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device