Search Results

The Easyspine® Posterior Spinal System is a posterior, non-cervical pedicle and non-pedicle system 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 of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine:

• 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 .
• Deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis)
• . Tumor
• Pseudoarthrosis .
• Failed previous fusion ●

The Easyspine Spinal System is a side-loading posterior spinal pedicle fixation system consisting of various implant components. The 4.25 mm pedicle screws and curved rods represent a line extension to the previously cleared Easyspine Spinal System (K043094, K063794, and K082592). The subject devices are identical to their predicates with respect to general technological characteristics and intended use.

The provided document describes the LDR Spine Easyspine Posterior Spinal System, a medical device for spinal fixation. However, the document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria for device performance, nor does it detail a study proving the device meets such criteria in terms of clinical or algorithm performance.

Instead, the document focuses on:

• Device Description: The Easyspine Spinal System is a side-loading posterior spinal pedicle fixation system. The K123134 submission is for a line extension of 4.25 mm pedicle screws and curved rods to an existing system.
• Indications for Use: The system is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally-mature patients as an adjunct to fusion for various spinal instabilities.
• Non-Clinical Testing: This section states that non-clinical testing was performed on the proposed 4.25 mm pedicle screws in accordance with ASTM standards (F-1717 and F-1798) for static and dynamic axial compression, static torsion, axial gripping capacity, and flexion-extension cantilever.
• Conclusion: The non-clinical testing results demonstrate that the performance of the proposed LDR Spine Easyspine implants is "substantially equivalent" to their legally marketed predicates. This is the basis for the FDA's 510(k) clearance, which is a regulatory pathway to demonstrate that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device.

Therefore, based on the provided text, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria for device performance and a study proving those criteria are met for a clinical or software-based outcome. The document describes a non-clinical (benchtop) study designed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on mechanical performance standards, not a study evaluating human-in-the-loop performance, standalone algorithm performance, or using human expert ground truth.

If this were a submission for a software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) or AI-based device, the requested information would be pertinent. However, for this spinal implant submission, the "study" is the non-clinical mechanical testing, and the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly defined by the chosen ASTM standards and the demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a quantifiable clinical performance metric.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medyssey Co. Ltd. Zenius, Iliad and Kora Spinal Systems are intended for posterior, noncervical pedicle fixation as an adjunct to fusion in skeletally mature patients using autograff and/or allograft for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (DDD) (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 Medyssey Co. Ltd., Cannulated Pedicle Screws are intended to be used with their respective (e.g. Zenius) top-loading posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, set screws, and a transverse (cross) linking mechanism. The Medyssey Co. Ltd., Cannulated Pedicle Screw implant components are fabricated from titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI) that conforms to ASTM F 136. Various sizes of these implants are available. The Medyssey Co. Ltd., Cannulated Pedicle Screws can be used in the posterior plane providing unilateral and bilateral modes of fixation. The Medyssey Co. Ltd., Cannulated Pedicle Screw Spinal design allows adjustment in both the sagittal and coronal planes permitting screw placement according to the best possible anatomic (spinal) location and orientation. This is accomplished by means of a mobile and non-mobile housing component which houses the screw and the rod which accepts a setscrew which tightens against the rod which tightens head of the pedicle screw upon secure tightening interface of the set screw assembly with the rod. The Cobalt Chrome Rods are for use with the Zenius or Iliad System. Specialized instruments made from surgical instrument grade stainless steel are available for the application and removal of the Medyssey Co. Ltd. Cannulated Pedicle Screw implants.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Medyssey Cannulated Pedicle Screws and Cobalt Chrome Rods:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document describes non-clinical (bench) testing for the Medyssey Cannulated Pedicle Screws and Co-Cr-Mo rods. The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the chosen ASTM standard and the comparison to predicate devices, which means the new device must perform at least as well as the legally marketed predicates.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact number of devices (screws/rods) tested for each non-clinical test (static compression, torsion, tension, dynamic compression). Standard test methodologies for medical devices like ASTM F1717-04 typically require a minimum number of samples for statistically valid results, but these specific numbers are not detailed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The data is from non-clinical (bench) testing performed by Medyssey Co. Ltd. The country of origin of the testing data is not explicitly stated, but Medyssey is a Korean company with a US-based contact for regulatory purposes.

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 study described is non-clinical (bench testing) of physical device properties, not a clinical study involving human patients or expert interpretation of medical data. The "ground truth" here is the measured mechanical performance of the device against established engineering standards and predicate device performance.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the study described is non-clinical (bench testing). Adjudication methods are typically employed in clinical studies or studies involving expert review of medical images/data to resolve discrepancies in interpretation.

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 describes a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (spinal pedicle screws and rods), not an AI/software device. Therefore, there is no mention of human readers or AI assistance.

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 physical implant, not an algorithm or software.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" used for this non-clinical study is:

• Engineering Standards and Specifications: Adherence to ASTM F1717-04.
• Predicate Device Performance: The mechanical performance of the new device was compared to that of legally marketed predicate devices. The implicit ground truth is that the predicate devices are safe and effective, and therefore, a device demonstrating equivalent or superior mechanical properties would also be considered safe and effective for the stated indications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as the study described is non-clinical (bench testing) of a physical device. There is no concept of a "training set" for this type of evaluation.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set for this non-clinical study.

Ask a specific question about this device