Search Results

The INNESIS PEEK TL Cage 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 one level or two continuous levels for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The device system is designed for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion.

The INNESIS PEEK TL Cage was developed as an implant for the posterior stabilization of the lumbar spinal column using a Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (T-LIF) technique. The INNESIS PEEK TL Cages are offered in a variety of heights, footprints and curved shapes. The device has ridges on both its inferior and superior surfaces, and two large graft windows which help facilitate bony integration. The device includes marker (pin) for radiological evaluation of the position and orientation of the radiolucent PEEK Cage. The INNESIS PEEK TL Cage components are manufactured from Polyetheretherketone (VESTAKEEP® 14 R, ASTM F2026). They contain marker made of medical grade titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V-ELI, ASTM F136). The INNESIS PEEK TL Cage and instrumentation set is sold non-sterile.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the INNESIS PEEK TL CAGE. It does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and study proving device performance in the context of an AI/human-in-the-loop study. Instead, it details the substantial equivalence of this intervertebral body fusion device to predicate devices based on materials, design, indications for use, operational principles, and mechanical testing.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies for device performance related to AI or multi-reader multi-case studies, as that information is not present in the provided text.

The closest relevant information, regarding device performance in a general sense, is about mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence:

Summary of Mechanical Testing:

• Test Standards:
  • Static and dynamic axial compression test: ASTM F2077-11
  • Static compression shear test: ASTM F2077-11
  • Static and dynamic torsion test: ASTM F2077-11
  • Static subsidence test: ASTM F2267-04
  • Expulsion test: ASTM Draft Standard F04.25.02.02.
• Conclusion: The tests performed demonstrated that the INNESIS PEEK TL Cage met required mechanical strengths and that any minor geometric differences from predicate devices did not impact performance. The device was found substantially equivalent to the predicate devices.

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

When used as a cervical intervertebral body fusion device, the Aleutian implants are indicated for spinal fusion procedures to be used with autogenous bone graft in skeletally mature patients. Cervical JBF implants are intended for use at one level in the cervical spine, from C2 to T1, for the treatment of cervical disc disease (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies). The cervical device is intended to be used in patients who have had six weeks of non-operative treatment.

When used as a lumbar intervertebral body fusion device, the Aleutian implants are indicated for spinal fusion procedures to be used with autogenous bone graft in skeletally mature patients. The lumbar IBF implants are intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine, from 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 intended to be used in patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment.

When used as vertebral body replacement devices the Aleutian implants are indicated for use in the thoracolumbar spine (T1 to L5) for partial replacement (i.e., partial vertebrectomy) of a diseased vertebral body, resected or excised for the treatment of tumors or trauma/fracture in order to achieve anterior decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues, and to restore the height of a collapsed vertebral body. The Aleutian implants are designed to restore the biomechanical integrity of the anterior, middle, and posterior spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a prolonged period.

For all the above indications the Aleutian implants are intended to be used with supplemental internal fixation appropriate for the implanted level, including K2M Pedicle Screw and Hook Systems, and K2M Spinal Plate Systems.

The Aleutian Spinal System consists of a hollow tube or horseshoe-shaped structures manufactured from Medical Grade PEEK (Polyetheretherketone). The devices are available in a variety of different sizes and heights to match more closely the patient's anatomy. The ends of the implants have machined teeth which are designed to engage with the vertebral body end plates.

Materials: The implants are manufactured from Invibio™ PEEK OPTIMA® LT1 per ASTM F2026. Tantalum beads/ rods are to be made of Grade UNS R05200, UNS R05400 according to ASTM F560.

Function: The system functions as an intervertebral body fusion device to provide support and stabilization of the cervical and lumbar segments of the spine.

The provided text describes a medical device submission (510(k)) for the Aleutian IBF System. It outlines the device's description, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria in the way an AI/ML device submission would.

This document pertains to a traditional medical device (an intervertebral body fusion device made of PEEK, Tantalum) and its substantial equivalence to other physically similar medical devices already on the market. The evaluation criteria for such a device are primarily based on material properties, mechanical testing, and comparison with predicate devices, not on performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity against a ground truth dataset, which would be typical for AI/ML devices.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set size, ground truth for training set) are not applicable to the information contained in this 510(k) summary for a physical implant.

Here's a breakdown based on the information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Cervical Intervertebral Body Fusion (C2-T1 for cervical disc disease)
• Lumbar Intervertebral Body Fusion (L2-S1 for DDD with Grade I spondylolisthesis)
• Vertebral Body Replacement (T1-L5 for tumors/trauma/fracture)
  (Substantially equivalent to predicates K082698, K071795, K100042). |
  | Design/Function Equivalence:
  Design and function must be substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Description: Hollow tube or horseshoe-shaped structures from PEEK with machined teeth.
  Function: Provides support and stabilization for spinal fusion.
  (Substantially equivalent to predicates K082698, K071795, K100042). |

2. Sample size 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. The study conducted was primarily mechanical testing and finite element analysis, not a clinical study with a "test set" of patients or data in the typical sense.

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 for this type of device and study. The ground truth for mechanical performance typically relies on established engineering principles, material standards (ASTM), and validated testing methods.

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

• Not applicable.

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, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• The "ground truth" in this context is based on established engineering standards (ASTM F2077 for static compression and torsion testing) and the mechanical performance and material properties of the predicate devices. The finite element analysis (FEA) was validated against these physical tests.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this device and the provided study, which involves mechanical testing and FEA.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device