Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(196 days)
neon3™ is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the thoracic spine (T1 to T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudarthrosis); tumors involving the cervical/thoracic spine; and degenerative disease, including intractable radiculopathy and/or myelopathy, neck and/or arm pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by radiographic studies, and degenerative disease of the facets with instability.
neon?™ is also intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage tumors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion.
neon 3™ is a modular, posterior system used for the surgical stabilization and fixation of the cervical and thoracic regions of the spine. The system components include longitudinal members, anchors and interconnection devices.
The acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets the criteria are described below:
Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Mechanical Testing: Static and dynamic compression bending and torsion according to ASTM F1717. | Mechanical testing of worst-case neon3™ constructs included static and dynamic compression bending and torsion according to ASTM F1717. |
| Tulip/Shank Dissociation Testing: Performed on worst-case screws. | Tulip/shank dissociation testing was performed on the worst-case neon3™ screws. |
| Substantial Equivalence: Performance is substantially equivalent to predicate devices based on mechanical test results. | Published literature and the mechanical test results demonstrate that neon3™ performance is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices. |
Study Details
-
Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This study primarily involved mechanical testing of the device components, not human subject data.
-
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 mechanical testing is established by industry standards (ASTM F1717) and engineering principles rather than expert consensus.
-
Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. This was a mechanical testing study, not a clinical study requiring adjudication of expert opinions.
-
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. This device is a spinal fixation system, not an AI software or imaging device that would involve human readers.
-
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a hardware medical device, not an algorithm.
-
The type of ground truth used:
- Mechanical performance: Established by adherence to ASTM F1717 (standard specification for spinal implant constructs) and engineering design principles.
- Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrated by comparing the mechanical test results of neon3™ to those of the predicate devices.
-
The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This refers to a medical device's mechanical performance evaluation, not a machine learning model.
-
How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1