Search Results

TRYPTIK®Ti cages are indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the cervical spine with accompanying radicular symptoms at one level or two contiguous disc levels from C2 to T1 disc. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radios. TRYPTIK®Ti cages is used to facilitate intervertebral body fusion in the cervical spine using autogenous and/or allogeneic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft. TRYPTIK®Ti cages is to be used with supplemental fixation that has been cleared for use in the cervical spine. Patients should have at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

The Tryptik® Ti is an anterior cervical interbody fusion device intended to provide mechanical support to the cervical spine and maintain adequate disc space until fusion occurs. The interbody device is a box-shaped spacer with a large central cavity that can receive bone graft intended to promote intervertebral fusion. The Tryptik® Ti spacers are all made from medical grade titanium alloy and are produced by additive manufacturing (SLM) according to ASTM F3001. Subsequently the spacer is machined (thread tapping) and polished. The Tryptik® Ti interbody spacer has a monolithic design that incorporates solid and porous structures along with superior and inferior rough surfaces intended to increase implant stability into the intervertebral space and bony integration throughout the implant. The Tryptik® Ti spacers are delivered sterile (gamma sterilization) and supplied with dedicated surgical instruments (reusable – provided non-sterile). Bacterial endotoxin testing on final, finished devices as specified in USP standard is used for pyrogenicity testing to achieve the Endotoxin limit of 20 EU / device.

This information is not contained in the provided document. The document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (TRYPTIK®Ti Anterior Cervical Intervertebral Fusion Devices) and primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical testing of mechanical properties. It does not describe a study involving patient data, expert review, or AI performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide details on:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in terms of clinical outcomes or AI metrics).
2. Sample size used for a test set or data provenance.
3. Number of experts or their qualifications for ground truth establishment.
4. Adjudication method for a test set.
5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or AI improvement effect size.
6. Standalone algorithm performance.
7. Type of ground truth used (pathology, outcomes data, etc.) for a clinical study.
8. Sample size for a training set.
9. How ground truth for a training set was established.

The document only states that "Results demonstrate comparable mechanical properties to the identified predicate devices" based on non-clinical tests (Static and Dynamic Axial Compression, Static and Dynamic Shear-compression, Static and Dynamic Torsion according to ASTM F2077-18 and Subsidence according to ASTM F2267-04). It also mentions "Additionally, cadaver lab implantation trials were conducted." However, no specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria for these tests are provided in the summary.

Ask a specific question about this device