Search Results

The Cervical Spine Truss System (CSTS) Interbody Fusion Device is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) of the cervical spine at one level or two contiguous disc levels. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. CSTS Interbody Fusion Devices are used as an adjunct to fusion in the cervical spine and are placed via an anterior approach at the C2 to T 1 disc levels using autograft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft. Patients should have received 6 weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with the devices. If the device is being used without the CSTS Integrated Plate. supplemental fixation must be used.

The device is an open architecture truss design mathematically formulated to provide structural support with open space throughout the implant for bone through growth and fusion. The 4WEB additive manufacturing process provides a hierarchical surface roughness. The implant is made from Ti6Al4V alloy. The device is available in a variety of heights, footprints, and lordotic angles. The CSTS Integrated Plates come in multiple heights to accommodate the patient's anatomy. Screws are inserted through the anterior portion of the Integrated Plates into adjacent vertebral bodies for bony fixation. The Integrated Plates have a rotating locking tab to prevent back-out of the screws.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Cervical Spine Truss System - CSTS). This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, primarily through non-clinical performance testing (mechanical and material testing, and finite element analysis).

It's crucial to understand that 510(k) submissions for devices like the CSTS (intervertebral body fusion devices) typically do not involve clinical studies with human participants in the same way that software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) or drug trials do. Therefore, the concepts of "acceptance criteria for device performance studies," "sample sizes for test sets (in a clinical context)," "expert adjudication of ground truth," "MRMC studies," "standalone algorithms," and "training sets for AI models" as described in your prompt, are not applicable to this type of regulatory submission or the information contained within this document.

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refers to the non-clinical performance testing that verifies the mechanical integrity and safety of the implant.

Here's how to address your prompt based only on the provided text, while clarifying the differences:

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

The document does not explicitly state numerical "acceptance criteria" for the mechanical tests in a tabular format, nor does it provide specific numerical "reported device performance" values. Instead, it states that the tests were completed "per the following standards" (ASTM F2077, ASTM F2119, ASTM F2182, ASTM F2213, ASTM F2051, and "accepted industry standard" for Expulsion Testing) and that the results "show that the strength of the CSTS interbody and CSTS Interbody with an Integrated Plate is sufficient for its use and is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices."

Table: Non-Clinical Performance Testing and Outcomes

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in terms of number of surgical cases or patient data, as this is not a clinical study. For mechanical testing, "sample size" refers to the number of physical devices or components tested, which is not detailed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data. The "data" refers to results from laboratory mechanical and MR compatibility testing, and finite element analysis.

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

• This concept is not applicable as the "ground truth" for a mechanical device like this is established by adherence to engineering standards and validated models, not by expert consensus on clinical images or outcomes.

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

• This concept is not applicable in this context.

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

• An MRMC study is not applicable as this is not an AI/imaging device.

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

• This concept is not applicable as this is not an AI/software device.

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

• The "ground truth" (or verification of performance) for this device relies on:
  • Adherence to established ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for intervertebral body fusion device mechanical testing and MR compatibility.
  • Validated Finite Element Analysis (FEA), which is a computational method used to predict how a product reacts to real-world forces, heat, vibration, etc.
  • Demonstration of substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through direct comparison of technological characteristics (indications for use, materials, function, sizes) and performance testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This concept is not applicable as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

• This concept is not applicable as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

In summary: The provided document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical implant. Its "acceptance criteria" and "proof" relate to meeting established engineering and material standards, and demonstrating substantial equivalence to similar devices already on the market, rather than clinical efficacy studies involving human participants or AI performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CHENA-C Spacer System is an anterior cervical interbody fusion device indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with accompanying radicular symptoms at one level or two contiguous levels from C2-TI. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should have had six weeks of non-operative treatment. The CHENA-C Spacer interior should be packed with autogenous bone graft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft and implanted via an anterior approach. The CHENA-C Spacer is intended to be used with supplemental fixation.

The Kahtnu (previously Axis Orthopaedics) Chena-C Spacer System is consists of a variety of footprints and heights of cervical interbody spacer implants to assist in interbody fusion. The previously cleared Axis Chena Cervical PEEK Spacer System (K181140) implant components are fabricated from medical implant grade Polyetheretherketone and tantalum per ASTM F2026-17 and ASTM F560-17. The purpose of this Special 510(k) submission is to add titanium alloy (ASTM F136) cervical cages to the Chena-C Spacer System.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (CHENA-C Spacer System) but does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance against such criteria for AI/algorithm-based devices.

The filing is for an intervertebral body fusion device, which is a physical implant, not an AI or algorithm-based diagnostic or therapeutic device. The "Performance Testing" section explicitly states that mechanical testing was performed on a predicate device and that the current subject device was evaluated to show "no new worst case is presented compared to the predicate devices. Therefore, no testing is required." This refers to mechanical and material safety and performance for a physical implant, not an AI model's performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information regarding acceptance criteria and studies for an AI/algorithm-based device from this document. The requested information points (1-9) are specific to the evaluation of AI/ML software as a medical device (SaMD) or AI-enabled medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Captiva Spine TirboLOX-C™ Cervical IBFD is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine at one-disc level. DDD is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with the degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The Captiva Spine TirboLOX-C™ Cervical IBFD is used to facilitate fusion in the cervical spine and is placed via an anterior approach at the C3 to C7 disc levels with autograft bone and/or allogenic bone graft composed of cancellous bone graft. Patients should have at least six weeks of non-operative to treatment with an intervertebral body fusion device. The device must be used with supplemental fixation.

The Captiva Spine, Inc. TirboLOX-CTM Cervical IBFD is made from a titanium alloy and is created using 3D printing technologies. The implants are available in various footprints to accommodate a variety of patient anatomies and is provided sterile. The device has a window in the center of device to accept autogenous bone and/or allogenic bone graft. The implant is available in the following configurations: lordotic, anatomically correct and parallel

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, not a study evaluating an AI algorithm. Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria, study data, ground truth, and AI performance metrics is not applicable here.

The document describes the Captiva Spine TirboLOX-C™ Cervical IBFD, an intervertebral body fusion device. It focuses on demonstrating the device's substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through a series of non-clinical mechanical tests.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant information present in the document:

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

The document does not provide a table with specific quantitative acceptance criteria alongside performance data. Instead, it states that "The results of this non-clinical testing show that the strength of the TirboLOX-C™ Cervical IBFD is sufficient for its intended use and is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices." This implies that the device's performance in the listed tests met predetermined criteria acceptable for demonstrating equivalence to the predicate devices, but the exact numerical thresholds are not disclosed.

Device Performance (as reported):

• ASTM F2077-14: Static Axial Compression, Static Shear, Static Torsion, Dynamic Axial Compression, Dynamic Shear, Dynamic Torsion
• ASTM 2267-04: Static Subsidence
• ASTM F1978-12: Abrasion Resistance
• ASTM F1877-16: Wear Debris
• Additionally: Expulsion testing was performed.

The reported performance is qualitative: the device's strength is sufficient for its intended use and substantially equivalent to predicate devices. Specific quantitative results are not provided in this summary document.

2. Sample sized 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 because it's a mechanical device testing, not a clinical study on human data. The "sample" would refer to the number of devices tested, which is not specified. Data provenance like country of origin or retrospective/prospective is not relevant for this type of non-clinical, in-vitro testing.

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. Ground truth as typically defined for AI/medical imaging studies (e.g., expert consensus on diagnoses) is not relevant for mechanical device testing. The "ground truth" for these tests are the established standards and specifications of the ASTM methods.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical trials or expert reviews to resolve disagreements in interpretations, which is not part of mechanical testing.

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. This is a spinal implant, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. No human readers or AI assistance were involved in the testing described in this document.

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

Not applicable. This device is an implant, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the mechanical performance tests are the established ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards and test methodologies. These standards define the parameters, procedures, and conditions for evaluating the mechanical properties of medical implants to ensure their safety and effectiveness. The goal is to show the device performs within acceptable limits mandated by these standards and comparably to predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no AI algorithm being described, so there is no training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Lumbar System Indications
The Tyber Medical PT Interbody System is indicated for use as intervertebral body fusion devices in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies) at one or two contiguous levels of the lumbar spine (L2-S1). Patients should have six months of non-operative treatment prior to surgery. These implants are used to facilitate fusion in the lumbar spine and are placed via either a posterior, transforaminal, lateral or anterior approach using autogenous bone. When used as interbody fusion devices these implants are intended for use with supplemental fixation systems cleared for use in the thoracolumbar spine.
Cervical System Indications
The Tyber Medical PT Interbody System is indicated for use as an intervertebral body fusion device in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies) at one level of the cervical spine with accompanying radicular symptoms. Patients should have six weeks of non-operative treatment prior to surgery. Cervical implants are used to facilitate fusion in the cervical spine (C2-T1) and are placed via an anterior approach using autogenous bone. When used as an interbody fusion device, supplemental fixation must be used.

This submission is to add additional shape configurations, with an optional optimized coating process, to the previously cleared interbody system.
This submission does not include any new instruments. However, part of the changes to implants, were made to interface with instruments that were cleared with previous submissions.
The Tyber Medical PT Interbody System, manufactured from PEEK-Optima®, consist of implants available in various foot prints, heights, and lordotic configurations with an open architecture to accept packing of bone graft materials. The exterior of the device has "teeth" or other generally sharp engagement members on the superior and inferior surfaces to help prevent the device from migrating once it is surgically positioned. The device comes in PEEK with a plasma-sprayed commercially pure titanium coating.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Tyber Medical PT Interbody Spacer System, which is a medical device for spinal fusion. This specific document outlines the product's regulatory submission to the FDA, demonstrating its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices.

Critical Analysis of the Document:

It is crucial to understand that a 510(k) submission, like the one presented, does not involve a clinical study in the way one might typically think of an "AI clinical trial" or a "diagnostic device performance study." Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an already legally marketed device. This means the manufacturer is showing that the new device is as safe and effective as a device that is already on the market, usually by comparing mechanical properties, materials, design, and intended use.

Therefore, the specific questions regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance of an AI algorithm, and training sets are not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. This document pertains to a physical implantable device, not an AI software/algorithm.

Addressing the Prompts Based on the Provided Document:

Given the nature of the document (a 510(k) for a physical medical implant), the requested information as it relates to AI/software performance is not present. However, I can extract the relevant information about the device's performance testing as detailed in the document, which primarily focuses on non-clinical (mechanical) testing.

Response to the Request:

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a physical medical device, the "Tyber Medical PT Interbody Spacer System," which is an implant used for intervertebral body fusion. This type of regulatory submission aims to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving performance through a clinical study involving human patients in the way an AI or diagnostic device would. Therefore, many of the questions asked, particularly those related to AI algorithm performance, human-in-the-loop studies, and the specifics of clinical ground truth establishment, are not applicable to this document.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refer to the mechanical and biological testing performed to demonstrate that the new device is as safe and effective as its predicate.

Here's an breakdown based on the information available in the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document implicitly defines "acceptance criteria" for substantial equivalence based on mechanical testing compared to the predicate device. The performance results are framed as successfully meeting these comparative standards.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each mechanical test. Mechanical testing typically involves a small, statistically justified number of physical samples (e.g., 5-10 per test condition) rather than a large "dataset" of patient cases.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical performance testing of the device itself (physical samples), not from patients or clinical studies. No geographical or temporal provenance for "data" in the sense of patient records is applicable. The tests were conducted according to specified ASTM and ST standards.

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

• Not applicable. This relates to physical device testing, not the establishment of ground truth by clinical experts for a diagnostic or AI algorithm.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable. Adjudication is relevant for interpreting patient data, such as images or clinical outcomes, often in the context of diagnostic performance or clinical trials. This document describes mechanical device testing.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

• No, not performed. This type of study is relevant for evaluating the impact of AI or diagnostic tools on human reader performance, which is not the subject of this 510(k) submission for a physical implant.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study:

• Not applicable. This refers to the evaluation of AI algorithms. The Tyber Medical PT Interbody Spacer System is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Engineering/Mechanical Test Standards: The "ground truth" for the device's performance is established by the well-defined, standardized test methods (e.g., ASTM F2077, ASTM F1877, ST72:2011) and the comparison of results against predetermined acceptance criteria derived from the predicate device's performance.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This concept pertains to machine learning algorithms. The device undergoes manufacturing and quality control processes, but there isn't a "training set" in the AI sense.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Summary of Device and its Proof of Meeting Criteria (from document's perspective):

The Tyber Medical PT Interbody Spacer System is an intervertebral body fusion device made from PEEK-Optima® with an optional titanium coating. It is intended to facilitate spinal fusion in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease. The device comes in various shapes and sizes to accommodate lumbar (L2-S1) and cervical (C2-T1) spine applications.

Proof of Meeting Criteria (Substantial Equivalence):

The manufacturer demonstrated that the new device meets the criteria for "substantial equivalence" to its previously cleared predicate device (Tyber Medical Interbody Spacer System K130573) and other additional predicates (Synthes ACIS, DePuy Spine Concorde Curve, DePuy Spine Lateral System, Aesculap ASpace, CESpace, Prospace, T-Space). This was established through non-clinical performance data (mechanical and biocompatibility testing).

The key argument for substantial equivalence is that:

• The indications for use are the same.
• The design, materials, application, and anatomic mechanical properties are considered identical or have been shown to be equivalent through testing.
• The mechanical tests (Static and Dynamic Compression, Compression Shear, Wear Debris, Static Torsion per ASTM F2077, F1877) and pyrogenicity testing (per ST72:2011) demonstrate that the new device's performance is comparable to the predicate and that the new configurations do not introduce a "new worst-case" scenario for mechanical performance.
• The material, tooth profile, worst-case construct, smallest cross-sectional area, and manufacturing process are unchanged from the predicate, further supporting equivalence.

The FDA's determination of substantial equivalence indicates that, based on the provided non-clinical data, the device is considered as safe and effective as a legally marketed device and can be marketed without requiring a premarket approval application (PMA) which typically involves more extensive clinical trial data.

Ask a specific question about this device

4CIS® Marlin ACIF Cage System is indicated for use in cervical intervertebral body fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at the levels from C2-C3 disc to the C7-T1 disc. DDD is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These patients should have six weeks of non-operative therapy. The 4CIS® Marlin ACIF Cage System is to be used with autogenous bone graft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous bone graft, and is to be implanted via an open, anterior approach. It is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation systems that have been cleared for use in the cervical spine, such as Anterior Cervical Plate system.

4CIS® Marlin ACIF cages are hollow, generally rectangular box shape made either from poly-ether-ether-ketone [PEEK-OPTIMA® LT1 (Invibio, Inc., West Conshohocken, PA USA) / VESTAKEEP® i4R (Evonik Industries, Essen Germany)] or Titanium alloy according to ASTM F2026(PEEK), F136(64ELI), F560(Tantalum). The cages are available in a variety of sizes and geometric options to fit the anatomical needs of a wide variety of patients. The device is filled with a bone graft material and inserted into the intervertebral body space of the cervical spine through an anterior cervical approach. As the design requirements, this cage design maintains the spacing between two vertebral bones following discectomy until fusion occurs. Each PEEK cage has three(3) x-ray markers made of tantalum for ease of visualization on the radiographs. Angled shape for lordotic curve and anatomic shape is available to allow maximum preservation of bony endplate with this system and teeth on the surfaces ensure enough contact with bony endplate, which prevents subsidence of the cage into the vertebral body when the teeth increase the anchoring and prevent slipping or expulsion.

This is a medical device 510(k) summary for the "4CIS® Marlin ACIF Cage System," an intervertebral body fusion device. The document describes the device, its intended use, and its comparison to predicate devices for substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the provided text for acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" for clinical performance usually seen in AI/software studies (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it focuses on mechanical performance for this implantable device. The "Performance Specification" section states:

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

This document describes a mechanical device, not an AI/software product requiring a "test set" of patient data. Therefore, the concepts of "sample size for the test set" and "data provenance" (country, retrospective/prospective) are not applicable in the context of this medical device submission. The performance data comes from laboratory mechanical testing.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

As this is a mechanical device submission, there is no mention of experts establishing ground truth for a test set in the way it would be for an AI diagnostic algorithm. Ground truth here refers to the physical properties and performance of the device under mechanical stress, evaluated against established ASTM standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Again, this is not applicable as there is no "test set" in the context of clinical interpretation by experts. Mechanical testing results are objective measurements.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic devices that involve human interpretation (e.g., radiologists reading images) and AI assistance. This submission pertains to an implantable surgical device.

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

Not Applicable. This is a physical intervertebral cage, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by Mechanical Testing Standards (ASTM F2077 and ASTM F2267). This involves objective measurements of physical properties like static and dynamic compression, torsion, subsidence, and expulsion, compared against the performance of legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This isn't an AI model requiring a training set. The device's design and manufacturing processes are developed through engineering and material science, not machine learning training.

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

Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device