Search Results

The DPZ Pedicular Fixation System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, and/or lordosis), spinal tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

The DPZ Pedicular Fixation System is also intended for non-cervical pedicle screw fixation for the following indications: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion. It is also intended for the following indications: trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis, deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

The DPZ Pedicular Fixation System is a top loading, multiple component, posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods and cross links. All of the components are available in a variety of sizes to more closely match the patient's anatomy.

The provided text describes the DPZ Pedicular Fixation System, its intended use, and the non-clinical tests conducted to demonstrate its equivalence to predicate devices. However, it explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed."

Therefore, I cannot provide information on acceptance criteria based on human performance or studies involving human readers/experts, as no such clinical data is presented in this document.

Here's the information that can be extracted from the provided text regarding the device's acceptance criteria and the study that proves it meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for the non-clinical tests. The document only mentions "The following analyses were conducted."
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but it refers to "non-clinical tests" which typically involve laboratory or bench testing of the device hardware.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for non-clinical mechanical testing is based on the specifications within the ASTM F1717 standard and the measured performance of the device compared to predicate devices. Human experts are not involved in establishing this ground truth for a mechanical test.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable, as this refers to human reader review and consensus, which was not performed.

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 MRMC study was done, as "No clinical studies were performed."

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical device (pedicle fixation system), not an algorithm or AI. The standalone performance refers to the device's mechanical integrity under specified ASTM standards.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The ground truth for the non-clinical tests was based on the performance requirements and methodologies outlined in the ASTM F1717 standard for spinal implant constructs. The device's performance was then compared to that of predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is a non-AI/algorithm medical device. "Training set" refers to data used to train an AI model.

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

• Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CosmoLock Pedicle Screw System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, and/or lordosis), spinal tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

The CosmoLock Pedicle Screw System is also intended for non-cervical pedicle screw fixation for the following indications: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion. It is also intended for the following indications: trauma (i.e. fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, and/or lordosis), tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The CosmoLock Pedicle Screw System is a top loading, multiple component, posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods and cross links. All of the components are available in a variety of sizes to match more closely the patient's anatomy.

Materials:

Ti-6Al-4V per ASTM F136 CoCr per ASTM F1537

This document is a 510(k) Summary for the CosmoLock Pedicle Screw System. It describes the device and its intended use and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the detailed information needed to answer many of your questions, as it explicitly states that no clinical studies were performed.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

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

2. Sample sized 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 in the document. The studies mentioned are non-clinical (mechanical tests), and details about sample sizes for these tests are not specified.

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 information is not applicable/provided. No clinical studies were performed, and therefore no ground truth established by experts is relevant to the data presented.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. No clinical studies were performed.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document states, "No clinical studies were performed."

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a mechanical pedicle screw system, not an AI or algorithm-based device. No standalone performance study in this context was performed.

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

The ground truth for the non-clinical tests would be the established mechanical testing standards (ASTM F1717) and the performance of the predicate devices. There is no biological or expert-defined "ground truth" in the typical medical imaging/diagnosis sense, as this is a mechanical implant.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/provided. No clinical studies were performed, and there is no mention of an algorithm or AI requiring a training set.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. No training set or associated ground truth was established, as no clinical studies or AI development are described. The focus is on demonstrating mechanical equivalence to predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device