Search Results

The Camber Spine Technologies SPIRA™ Open Matrix ALIF is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2-S1. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. Patients should have received 6 months of non-operative treatment with the devices. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). The Camber Spine Technologies SPIRA™ Open Matrix ALIF is intended to be used with additional FDA-cleared supplementary fixation systems.

The Camber Spine Technologies SPIRA™ Open Matrix ALIF system must be used with autogenous graft material.

The Camber Spine Technologies SPIRA Open Matrix ALIF is an Interbody Fusion Device that has spiral support arches to allow for a hollow chamber to permit packing with autogenous bone to facilitate fusion. The superior and inferior surfaces of the device have a rough surface to help prevent movement of the device while fusion takes place.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance of a medical device, the SPIRA™ Open Matrix ALIF intervertebral body fusion device, based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a clinical study evaluating its performance with human readers and AI assistance. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria for AI performance in a clinical setting (e.g., sample size for test sets, experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance) is not applicable to this document.

However, the document does contain information about the mechanical performance testing of the device for regulatory purposes. I can extract and present the relevant information that is available:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of acceptance criteria with numerical values and reported device performance. Instead, it states the following regarding mechanical testing against predicate devices:

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

The document does not specify the sample size for the "test set" in terms of mechanical testing, nor does it detail the provenance of the data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). Mechanical testing typically uses a certain number of identical physical devices for each test, but this information is not explicitly provided in the summary.

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

This question is not applicable as the "ground truth" here pertains to mechanical properties of the device, not a diagnosis or interpretation requiring human expert readers.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable, as this refers to human expert review for establishing ground truth, not mechanical testing.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done

No, an MRMC study was not done. This device is an implantable medical device, and the evaluation for its 510(k) clearance focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence in design, materials, function, manufacturing, and mechanical performance to existing predicate devices, not on a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI diagnostic or assistive device. "Standalone performance" would refer to the mechanical performance of the device itself, which was indeed tested.

7. The type of ground truth used

For the mechanical performance testing, the "ground truth" was established by standardized laboratory testing protocols (ASTM F2077-14 and F2267-04) and comparison to the performance of existing, legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this device's regulatory submission, as it is not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set mentioned in the context of this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CASCADIA implants are indicated for use with autogenous bone graft as intervertebral body fusion devices in skeletally mature patients. The implants are intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels, from L2 to S1, for the treatment of degenerative disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondvlolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The lumbar implants are intents who have had six months of non-operative treatment.

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

The subject submission describes the Cascadia Interbody System. The implants consist of hollow tube structures made of titanium alloy. The devices are available in a variety of different sizes and heights to match more closely the patient's anatomy. The purpose of the subject submission is for a line addition to the lumbar intervertebral body fusion devices previously cleared in the K2M Aleutian Intervertebral Body Fusion System, to include implants additively manufactured from titanium alloy.

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

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that a device meets those criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Cascadia Interbody System, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices rather than providing detailed performance data against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on this document.

Ask a specific question about this device