Search Results

The ANAX™ 5.5 SPINAL SYSTEM is a posterior, non cervical pedicle fixation system intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally-mature patients as an adjunct to fusion by autogenous bone graft in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine:

• · Spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4)
• · Degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment
• · Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation)
• · Spinal stenosis
• · Deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis)
• Tumor
• · Pseudoarthrosis
• · Failed previous fusion

The ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System is a top-loading multiple component, posterior spinal fixation system and minimally invasive surgery system which consist of pedicle screws, rods, set screws, connectors and a transverse (cross) linking mechanism. The ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System allows surgeons to build a spinal implant construct to stabilize and promote spinal fusion. The ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System components are supplied non-sterile, single use and are fabricated from medical grade titanium alloy (ASTM F136) and medical grade cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy (ASTM F1537). All pedicle screws have self-tapping function in ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System The double lead thread is applied to the all pedicle screws to shorten the operation time. ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System with CoCr rods may be used to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segment when the rigid system is need. (Recommendation: trauma or deformities) The product life time of ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System is 2 years based on mechanical test result. The purpose of this submission is to add uniplanar screws and connectors to the ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System.

The FDA 510(k) summary for the ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System (K231737) indicates that the device's performance was evaluated through mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to its predicate devices. Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that the mechanical performance of the ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System "met the acceptance criteria which have been established from the predicate device." However, the specific quantitative acceptance criteria values (e.g., specific load values, deflection limits, or number of cycles) are not explicitly provided in the excerpt. Similarly, the reported quantitative device performance data is also not presented in the document. The summary only states that the device "met all acceptance criteria."

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

The document does not specify the sample size (number of devices, components) used for each mechanical test. Mechanical tests typically involve multiple samples to ensure repeatability and statistical significance, but the exact numbers are not mentioned in this summary.

Data Provenance: The tests are described as "mechanical strength evaluation" and "performance testing" conducted to compare the proposed device with predicate devices. This is not clinical data, but rather laboratory-based engineering test data. The document does not specify the country of origin for the testing itself, but the manufacturer is based in Korea (Innosys Co., Ltd., Uijeongbu-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea). These are not retrospective or prospective studies in the clinical sense, but rather benchtop studies.

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

This question is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. The "ground truth" for mechanical performance is established by validated international standards (ASTM F1717, ASTM F1798) and comparison to previously cleared predicate devices, not by human expert consensus on clinical findings. Therefore, no experts were used to establish a "ground truth" in the way clinical diagnostic studies would.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used for resolving disagreements among human readers or evaluators in clinical studies. Mechanical testing involves objective measurements against predefined criteria, not subjective interpretation requiring adjudication among experts.

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

This question is not applicable. The ANAX™ 5.5 Spinal System is a physical medical device (spinal fixation system), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, no MRMC study or evaluation of human reader improvement with AI assistance was performed.

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 implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the mechanical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specifications and performance characteristics of the predicate devices and the requirements outlined in the relevant ASTM standards (ASTM F1717 and ASTM F1798). The goal was to demonstrate that the proposed device performs equivalently to the predicate devices and meets established engineering standards for spinal fixation systems.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of mechanical testing for a physical implant. Training sets are typically used for machine learning algorithms.

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

This question is not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Rexious Spinal Fixation System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization 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 the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative disease; spondylolisthesis; fracture; dislocation; scoliosis; kyphosis; spinal tumor; and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The Rexious Spinal Fixation System is intended for use as a posterior, non-pedicle system indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The Rexious Spinal Fixation System is a top-loading multiple component, posterior spinal fixation system which consists of fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, set screws, connectors, hooks, and transverse (cross) linking mechanisms.

The Rexious Spinal Fixation System will allow surgeons to build a spinal implant construct to stabilize and promote spinal fusion. The Rexious implant components are supplied non-sterile, single use and fabricated from titanium or titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) as specified in ASTM F67, F136, and F1295 and from Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum (CoCr) as specified in ASTM F1537. Various sizes of these implants are available.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Rexious Spinal Fixation System. It explicitly states that no performance testing was required for this submission. The basis for clearance is that the device is identical to previously cleared predicate devices.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and MRMC studies cannot be provided from the given text because such studies were not conducted for this specific submission.

The relevant section from the document is:

• Performance Data: "The subject and predicate devices are identical and therefore, no performance testing is required. Submission is only transferring name of a system that has already been cleared under K100765, K113324, K111362, and K173131. No testing is required."

This means the device's acceptance was based on its substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device, not on new performance data demonstrating it meets specific acceptance criteria through a new study.

Ask a specific question about this device