Search Results

The FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System is indicated for spinal intervertebral body fusion with autogenous bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone in skeletally mature individuals with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1, following discectomy. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment. Additionally, these patients may have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). FlareHawk system spacers are intended to be used with supplemental fixation instrumentation, which has been cleared for use in the lumbar spine.

Integrity Implants' FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System is an expandable lumbar intervertebral body fusion device intended for use in the lumbosacral spine from L2 to S1. The FlareHawk interbody fusion device consists of a shell and a shim component that are offered in various lengths, heights, and lordotic angles to accommodate variations in patient anatomy. When the FlareHawk device is deployed within the intervertebral disc space, the shell and shim components lock together to create a complete implant construct to provide structural stability for interbody fusion. The final dimensions of the deployed device construct are determined by the dimensions of the selected shell and shim. Once implanted, the FlareHawk interbody fusion device is designed to restore intervertebral disc height, provide anterior column support, and maintain structural stability of the motion segment to facilitate intervertebral body fusion. The FlareHawk interbody fusion device is intended to be used with autogenous bone graft and/or allogeneic bone graft composed of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone, and with supplemental fixation instrumentation that has been cleared for use in the lumbar spine. The FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System includes manual surgical instruments for delivery of the implant device and for disc preparation.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the FlareHawk Interbody Fusion System, an implantable medical device. It describes the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and comparison to predicate devices, focusing on the mechanical and biocompatibility testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

This document does not contain information on the acceptance criteria or study details related to device performance as it would be relevant for a digital health/AI device. The provided text refers to an implantable medical device (Intervertebral body fusion device) which undergoes different types of testing to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. The questions in the prompt, such as "Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance," "Number of experts used to establish the ground truth," "Adjudication method," "Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study," and "Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study," are specifically designed to evaluate AI/ML-based medical devices or diagnostic tools.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided document as it pertains to a different type of medical device and regulatory submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AUDERE Lumbar Spacer System is indicated for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine (L2-S1) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved level may be treated with the AUDERE Lumbar Spacer System.
Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the AUDERE Lumbar Spacer System.
The AUDERE Lumbar Spacer System is designed for use with autogenous bone graft. The system is also intended to be used with supplemental fixation systems that are cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.

The AUDERE Lumbar Spacer System consists of implants and trials that are compatible with all previously cleared AUDERE instruments. The AUDERE Lumbar Spacer System may be implanted bilaterally using a posterior (PLIF) approach, or as a single device employing a transforaminal (TLIF) approach.

The provided text describes a medical device, the AUDERE Lumbar Spacer System, and its FDA 510(k) clearance (K193457). However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria for an AI/algorithm-based device, nor does it detail a study proving device performance in the context of AI.

This document is for a physical implantable medical device (intervertebral body fusion device), not a software or AI-driven diagnostic/treatment device. The performance data section refers to non-clinical mechanical testing (e.g., static axial compression, dynamic axial compression, expulsion, subsidence) demonstrating the physical strength and durability of the implant, not the diagnostic or analytical performance of an algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies for an AI/algorithm device from the provided text. The questions about sample size, data provenance, ground truth, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance are not applicable to this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Kuros TLIF Cage is intended for use in intervertebral body fusion of the Kuros TLIF cage is inserted via a posterior approach and can be used in one level or two contiguous levels of the lumbar spine (L1 to S1). The Kuros TLIF cage is designed for use with autograft and/or allograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft to facilitate fusion, and is to be used with supplemental posterior spinal fixation systems for use in the lumbar spine that are cleared by the FDA.

The Kuros TLIF cage is intended for the treatment of patients with Degenerative Disk Disease (DDD) with up to grade 1 spondylolisthesis. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients must be skeletally mature and have had at least six months of non-operative treatment.

The Kuros TLIF Cage is an implant interbody fusion surgery and is used to restore intervertebral height and facilitate intervertebral body fusion in the spine. The Kuros TLIF Cage is inserted via a posterior (transforaminal) approach and can be used in one level or two contiguous levels of the lumbar spine (L1 to S1). The Kuros TLIF cage is designed for use with autograft and/or allograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft to facilitate fusion and should be used in combination with supplemental posterior spinal fixation systems, intended for use in the lumbar spine and cleared by the FDA.

The Kuros TLIF cage is a rigid spacer, manufactured from PEEK Optima LT1 per ASTM F2026 to maximize biocompatibility, durability, and robustness. The design includes tantalum markers for imaging and has a hollow geometry, allowing the cage to be packed with grafting material per the indications for use. The Kuros TLIF Cages are available in various lengths, and angle variants to accommodate patient anatomy, and are supplied with their specific instrumentation. The device is intended to be used by orthopedic surgeons or neurosurgeons working in a hospital who are trained to use these devices in the patient population specified in the indications for use. The implants are provided sterile to the hospital.

The provided text describes the Kuros TLIF Cage, an intervertebral body fusion device. It details the device's indications for use, description, and comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or a study reporting on these metrics.

The document is a 510(k) summary from the FDA, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices.

Here's what can be extracted from the document regarding the device and its evaluation, but it explicitly states "No clinical data has been presented." and therefore cannot fulfill most of the request:

Device Name: Kuros TLIF Cage
Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3080
Regulation Name: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device
Regulatory Class: Class II
Product Code: MAX

Indications for Use:
The Kuros TLIF Cage is intended for use in intervertebral body fusion of one or two contiguous levels of the lumbar spine (L1 to S1). It is inserted via a posterior approach and designed for use with autograft and/or allograft (cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft) to facilitate fusion. It must be used with supplemental posterior spinal fixation systems cleared by the FDA.

It is intended for the treatment of patients with Degenerative Disk Disease (DDD) with up to grade 1 spondylolisthesis. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients must be skeletally mature and have had at least six months of non-operative treatment.

Description of the Device:
The Kuros TLIF Cage is a rigid spacer made from PEEK Optima LT1 (ASTM F2026). It includes tantalum markers for imaging and has a hollow geometry to be packed with grafting material. It is available in various lengths and angle variants and is supplied with specific instrumentation. The implants are provided sterile.

Summary of Performance Data (as presented in the document):
The Kuros TLIF Cage conforms to the "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device - Document issued on: June 12, 2007."
Worst-case devices were subjected to mechanical testing, including:

• Static axial compression
• Dynamic axial compression
• Static compression shear
• Dynamic compression shear
• Subsidence testing (according to ASTM F2267)
• Expulsion testing (according to Endolab protocol)

Results: "Results demonstrate comparable (or better) mechanical properties to the predicate devices."

Crucially, the document explicitly states: "No clinical data has been presented."

Given this information, it is impossible to complete a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance from this document for the requested metrics as clinical performance data is absent. The acceptance criteria here are related to mechanical properties in comparison to predicate devices, not clinical outcomes.

Therefore, for your specific request:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria (Mechanical): Conformity to "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device - Document issued on: June 12, 2007." and mechanical properties comparable to or better than predicate devices across tested parameters (static/dynamic axial compression, static/dynamic compression shear, subsidence, expulsion).
   • Reported Device Performance (Mechanical): The Kuros TLIF Cage demonstrated "comparable (or better) mechanical properties to the predicate devices" for the tested parameters.
   • Clinical Performance: Not reported in this document.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable for clinical data, as "No clinical data has been presented." For mechanical testing, specific sample sizes are not provided, only that "Worst case devices were subjected to mechanical testing."

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as "No clinical data has been presented."

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable, as "No clinical data has been presented."

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, as "No clinical data has been presented" and this device is a physical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For mechanical testing, the ground truth would be established by the ASTM standards (ASTM F2077, ASTM F2267) and the Endolab protocol. For clinical performance, no ground truth is discussed as no clinical data was presented.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device and no clinical "training set" of data is mentioned.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable for the same reasons as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

Cervical System Indications:

The Tyber Medical PT Cervical Interbody Spacers are interbody fusion devices indicated at one or more levels of the cervical spine C2-T1 in patients with cervical disc disease, instability, trauma including fractures, deformity defined as kyphosis, lordosis, or scoliosis, cervical spondylotic myelopathy, spinal stenosis, and failed previous fusion. Cervical disc disease is defined as intractable radiculopathy and/or myelopathy with herniated disc and/or osteophyte formation on posterior vertebral endplates producing symptomatic nerve root and/or spinal cord compression confirmed by radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment.

Tyber Medical PT Cervical Interbody spacers are to be filled with autograft bone and/or allogenic bone graft composed of cancellous, cortical, and/or corticocancellous bone. These devices are intended to be used with supplemental fixation.

This submission is to add additional ACIF configurations to the Tyber Medical PT Interbody System and corresponding trials. Additionally, the Indications for Use are being revised.

The new configurations will be manufactured from PEEK – Optima® and plasma sprayed with commercially pure titanium coating, identical to the existing devices in the system. The new ACIF configurations have superior and inferior surfaces that are inclined at larger angles than the existing configurations. In addition, a new extra-large configuration for these sizes will be included. Other geometries, such as the open lumen area and teeth geometry on the superior and inferior surfaces remain identical to the devices within the Tyber Medical PT Interbody System.

The trials will be manufactured from stainless steel and will incorporate trial geometries that match the corresponding implant.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Tyber Medical PT Interbody Spacer System, which is a medical device. This document does NOT contain information about an AI/ML device or any study involving human readers and AI assistance. Therefore, I cannot generate a response that includes information related to acceptance criteria for an AI device, sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance.

The document details the substantial equivalence of new configurations of an intervertebral body fusion device to previously cleared predicate devices. The performance data presented are for non-clinical mechanical tests (static, dynamic compression, shear, torsion, and expulsion testing) and pyrogenicity testing, which are standard for this type of medical implant. Clinical data was explicitly stated as "not needed for this device."

To reiterate, the provided text does not describe an AI/ML device, its acceptance criteria, or studies related to its performance in the context of human-AI interaction or standalone AI performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The VIRTU Lumbar Spacer System is indicated for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine (L2-S1) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthessis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved level may be treated with the VIRTU Lumbar Spacer System.

Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the VIRTU PLIF/TLIF System.

The VIRTU Lumbar Spacer System is designed for use with autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The system is also intended to be used with supplemental internal spinal fixation systems that are cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.

The VIRTU Posterior Lumbar Spacer System consists of implants, trials and instruments. The VIRTU Lumbar Spacer System may be implanted bilaterally using a posterior (PLIF) approach, or as a single device employing a transforaminal (TLIF) approach.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "VIRTU Lumbar Spacer System", a medical device. As such, it does not present independent clinical studies or acceptance criteria for AI/ML device performance. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/ML device performance (like sample size for test set, ground truth experts, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set size, etc.) are not applicable to this submission.

However, I can extract information related to the device's non-clinical performance acceptance criteria and the study that proves it meets them.

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

Based on the document, the acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to demonstrating performance "sufficient for its intended use" and "substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices." While specific numerical acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in the provided text, the device was tested against recognized ASTM standards. The reported device performance is that it met these standards and was found to be substantially equivalent.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document does not specify the sample size for the mechanical tests. The data provenance is "non-clinical testing" conducted by the submitter (Met 1 Technologies, LLC). This is laboratory testing, not human patient data.

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. This is mechanical testing to established engineering standards, not human expert consensus. The "ground truth" is adherence to the specified ASTM testing methodologies and achieving results comparable to predicate devices.

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

Not applicable. This is mechanical testing, not a clinical trial with human disagreement.

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 device, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This is a spinal implant device, not an AI algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical performance data, the "ground truth" is adherence to established mechanical testing standards (ASTM standards) and the resultant data demonstrating the device's mechanical properties. The benchmark for "sufficient" is implied to be comparable performance to predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion is indicated for intervertebral body fusion of the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, in skeletally mature patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. The device is intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients may have had a previous nonfusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). The device system is designed for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion.

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System will be offered in various device configurations based on surgical approach and patient anatomy. The Integrity Spine lumbar interbody fusion device(s) may be implanted:

• bi-laterally in pairs via a posterior (PLIF) approach;
• as a single device via an oblique (OLIF) approach:
• as a single device via a transforaminal (TLIF) approach; or
• as as a single device via an anterior or anterolateral (ALIF) approach.
  The System is implanted using a combination of device specific and universal class I instruments manufactured from stainless steel materials that conform to ASTM F899.
  The implant components are made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK Zeniva ZA-500) that conforms to ASTM F2026. Additionally, the devices contain tantalum markers (ASTM F560) to assist the surgeon with proper placement of the device.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System. It is an FDA clearance letter and a 510(k) summary, not a study report proving a device meets acceptance criteria. As such, it does not contain the specific information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, ground truth, or expert involvement for evaluating device performance in the context of AI or diagnostic accuracy studies.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on intended use, technological characteristics, and non-clinical mechanical testing for safety and performance in a physical device context (interbody fusion).

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from this document. The document discusses:

• Device Name: Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System (Page 2)
• Intended Use: Intervertebral body fusion of the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, for degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis, for skeletally mature patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. (Page 2)
• Testing: Non-clinical mechanical testing including static and dynamic compression, static and dynamic torsion, subsidence, and expulsion testing. These tests were conducted according to ASTM standards (F2077-11, F2267-04, and a Draft Standard F-04.25.02.02). (Page 5)
• Conclusion: The device is substantially equivalent to predicate devices based on shared intended use, implant design, material, and non-clinical mechanical test results. (Page 5)

The prompt asks for acceptance criteria and study details that are typically found in studies evaluating diagnostic devices, AI algorithms, or clinical performance. This document pertains to a surgical implant and its mechanical properties.

Ask a specific question about this device

PEEK System Indications
The Tyber Medical PEEK Wedge System is intended to be used for internal bone fixation for bone fractures or osteotomies in the ankle and foot such as:

• Cotton and Evans Wedges
• Opening wedge osteotomies of the foot including osteotomies for Hallux Valgus
• Opening wedge of Medial Cuneiform of Cotton osteotomies
• Lateral Column Lengthening (Evans Lengthening Osteotomy or Calcaneal Z Osteotomy)
• Midfoot Wedges
• Opening wedge osteotomies of the bones of the foot including osteotomies for Hallux Valgus
• Nonunion of arthrodesis of the Midfoot including Metatarsal/Cuneiform arthrodesis (TMT or Lapidus)
  The device is intended for use with ancillary fixation The Tyber Medical Wedge System is not intended for use in the spine

TyPEEK System Indications
The Tyber Medical TyPEEK Wedge System is intended to be used for internal bone fixation for bone fractures, fusions, or osteotomies in the ankle and foot such as:

• Cotton and Evans Wedges
• Opening wedge osteotomies of the bones of the foot including osteotomies for Hallux Valgus
• Opening wedge of Medial Cuneiform of Cotton osteotomies
• Lateral Column Lengthening (Evans Lengthening Osteotomy or Calcaneal Z Osteotomy)
• Midfoot Wedges
• Opening wedge osteotomies of the bones of the foot including osteotomies for Hallux Valgus
• Nonunion of arthrodesis of the Midfoot including Metatarsal/Cuneiform arthrodesis (TMT or Lapidus)
  The device is intended for use with ancillary fixation The Tyber Medical Wedge System is not intended for use in the spine

The Tyber Medical Wedge System, manufactured from PEEK-Optima®, consist of implants available in various foot prints, heights and indication 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. The device come in a PEEK or PEEK with a plasma-sprayed commercially pure titanium coating on the superior and inferior surfaces.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Tyber Medical Wedge System (K150394), presented in the requested format.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary, the Tyber Medical Wedge System is a Class II medical device, and the submission does not involve clinical data for performance assessment. Instead, its substantial equivalence to predicate devices is established through non-clinical mechanical testing. Therefore, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study details for AI/software devices (like expert adjudication, MRMC studies, or training set details) are not applicable here.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set: Not applicable in the context of clinical studies with human participants.
• Data Provenance: The "test set" here refers to the physical devices and materials used in non-clinical mechanical testing. The provenance relates to the manufacturing process of the Tyber Medical Wedge System and the specific tests conducted. The document does not specify the exact number of samples or iterations performed for each mechanical test, nor does it detail the specific lab or location where the tests were performed beyond stating "non-clinical mechanical testing was performed."

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

• Not applicable. This device's performance was evaluated through non-clinical mechanical testing, not through expert human assessment of clinical data or images. The "ground truth" is defined by the objective standards of the ASTM specifications for mechanical strength and material properties.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. There was no expert adjudication involved as the performance was determined by
  non-clinical mechanical testing to objective standards.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted device. The evaluation method was non-clinical mechanical testing to establish substantial equivalence.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm device. The evaluation was a standalone device performance (mechanical testing) without human-in-the-loop for its primary function.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering standards and specifications, specifically the ASTM standards referenced (ASTM F2077, ASTM F1044, ASTM F1147, ASTM F1978), which define the acceptable mechanical properties and coating characteristics for similar bone fixation devices. The actual results of the tests (e.g., load to failure, shear strength) are compared against the performance of predicate devices, which implicitly adhere to similar standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. There is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SpineFrontier Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device System (Dorado IBC, Dorado PLIFT, Dorado ELIFT, Arena-L, Dorado TILT, Dorado TLIFT, Dorado Wide, and Ursa S-LIFT) is intended for intervertebral body fusion of the spine of skeletally mature patients, using autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The device is indicated for use in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous spinal levels from L2-S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s).

Degenerative disc disease is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history or radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment.

The SpineFrontier Lumbar Intervertebral Body Fusion Device System is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation system(s) cleared for use in the lumbar spine.

The SpineFrontier Ti-Coated Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device System is a spinal intervertebral body fusion device system intended for intervertebral body fusion of the spine of skeletally mature patients, using autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The system is comprised of devices made of titanium coated PEEK Optima® LT1, with varying widths, lengths, and heights to fit the anatomical needs of patients. The devices have raised contours on the superior and inferior surfaces that will resist device movement following implant.

The purpose of this submission is the addition of a CP-Ti coating on a previously cleared lumbar intervertebral fusion device.

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the SpineFrontier Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device System. This document is a regulatory submission for a medical device and, as such, does not contain information about the performance of an AI/ML powered device, nor does it include a study that proves a device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through a comparison of technological characteristics and non-clinical mechanical performance testing. The 'Performance Data' section lists various ASTM standards used for mechanical testing of the device and its coating, but these are related to the physical properties and durability of the implantable device, not the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System is indicated for intervertebral body fusion of the lumbar spine, from L2 to S1, in skeletally mature patients who have had six months of non-operative treatment. The device is intended for use at either one level or two contiguous levels for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients may have had a previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). The device system is designed for use with supplemental fixation and with autograft to facilitate fusion.

The Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System will be offered in various device configurations based on surgical approach and patient anatomy. The Integrity Spine lumbar interbody fusion device(s) mav be implanted:

• bi-laterally in pairs via a posterior (PLIF) approach;
• as a single device via an oblique (OLIF) approach: a
• as a single device via a transforaminal (TLIF) approach: or -
• as as a single device via an anterior or anterolateral (ALIF) approach.
  The System is implanted using a combination of device specific and universal class I instruments manufactured from stainless steel materials that conform to ASTM F899.
  The implant components are made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK Zeniva ZA-500) that conforms to ASTM F2026. Additionally, the devices contain tantalum markers (ASTM F560) to assist the surgeon with proper placement of the device.

Since the extracted text refers to a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Integrity Spine Lumbar Interbody Fusion System), the "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" would typically relate to comparisons to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing, rather than explicit numerical performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity often seen in AI/diagnostic device contexts. Also, there's no mention of a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of clinical trials or AI performance evaluations with ground truth. The summary focuses on substantiating substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that many of your points are not directly addressed due to the nature of this particular 510(k) summary:

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

Based on the provided text, the "acceptance criteria" for this device are primarily met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical testing. The "reported device performance" is the successful completion of these tests with results deemed equivalent. There are no explicit numerical acceptance criteria for performance provided in the document in the way one might see for diagnostic AI (e.g., sensitivity > X%, specificity > Y%).

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document describes non-clinical mechanical testing rather than testing on patient data. Therefore, the concept of "test set" in terms of patient data, data provenance, or retrospective/prospective studies does not apply here. The "samples" used were physical devices subjected to the specified ASTM tests. The sample sizes for these specific mechanical tests are not detailed in this summary.

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)

This question is not applicable to the provided document. The ground truth for this device's evaluation (substantial equivalence) is established through adherence to recognized international standards for mechanical testing (ASTM standards) and comparison to legally marketed predicate devices, not through human expert interpretation of clinical data in a diagnostic context.

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

This question is not applicable to the provided document, as it pertains to clinical data interpretation and not mechanical device 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

There is no mention of a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study. This document describes a medical device (spinal implant) and its substantial equivalence determination, not an AI or diagnostic tool that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical spinal implant, not an algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" is established by the specified ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for mechanical performance (e.g., F2077-11 for static and dynamic testing, F2267-04 for subsidence, and ASTM Draft Standard F-04.25.02.02 for expulsion). The performance of the predicate devices under these same standards also serves as a comparative benchmark.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable to the provided document. There is no concept of a "training set" for a physical medical device like a spinal implant in the context of this 510(k) summary.

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

This question is not applicable to the provided document for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device