Search Results

The Sovereign Posterior Cervical System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization 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-T3): traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudoarthrosis); 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.

The Sovereign Posterior Cervical System 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.

In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the Sovereign Posterior Cervical System may be connected to the Xultan 5.5 system using rod-to-rod connectors or transition rods. Please refer to the individual system's Instructions for Use for a list of indications for use for each system.

The Met One Technologies Sovereign Posterior Cervical System is an implant device designed for the posterior stabilization of the cervical and upper thoracic spine. The system includes implants such as polyaxial screws, blocker screws, rods, crosslinks, lateral connectors, and rod to rod connectors to form a unique construct to match patient anatomy.

Polyaxial screws are offered in a range of sizes in both standard and reduction tulips for ease of use. All screws are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI per ASTM F136).

Straight, pre-bent, and transition rods are offered in 3.5mm and 4.0mm diameters and in two different materials, titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI per ASTM F136) and cobalt chrome (Co-Cr28-Mo6 per ASTM F1537). Transition rods are fully compatible with Met One Technologies Xultan 5.5 Pedicle Screw System line of implants.

A variety of connectors and crosslinks are offered for surgeons to create the desired construction. Rod to rod crosslinks improve the torsional stability of the construct. Lateral connectors are provided in open and closed configurations, 3.5mm and 4.0mm diameters, and in long and short lengths. Rod to rod connectors are offered in several configurations to join rods together. All connectors are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI per ASTM F136).

I am sorry, but the provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a Sovereign Posterior Cervical System, which is a physical medical device (spinal implant system), not an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD).

Therefore, the document does not contain any information about:

• Acceptance criteria for an AI/SaMD's performance.
• A study proving the device meets AI/SaMD acceptance criteria.
• A test set (sample size, provenance).
• Experts establishing ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness studies.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Types of ground truth.
• Training set details.

The non-clinical testing described (ASTM F1717 and ASTM F1798) refers to mechanical testing of the physical implant's strength and durability, not software performance.

As such, I cannot fulfill your request for information related to AI/SaMD acceptance criteria and study details based on the provided input.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BRIDALVEIL Occipital Cervical Thoracic System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (Cl to C7) and the thoracic spine from TI-T3: traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions ( e.g., pseudarthrosis ); tumors involving the cervical 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. The BRIDALVEIL Occipital Cervical Thoracic System 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.

In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the BRIDALVEIL Occipital Thoracic System may be connected to the OLYMPIC Posterior Spinal Fixation System rods and connectors. Transition rods with differing diameters may also be used to connect the BRIDALVEIL Occipital Cervical Thoracic System to the OLYMPIC Posterior Spinal Fixation System. Refer to the OLYMPIC Posterior Spinal Fixation System package insert for instructions for use and indications for use.

The BRIDALVEIL Occipital Cervical Thoracic System is a spinal fixation system intended to stabilize the uppermost portion of the spine during the fusion process. The system contains a wide variety of implants and instruments which allows for the transition across multiple spinal segments: Occipital Plate with Screws, Cervical Polyaxial Screws, Laminar Hooks, Cross Connectors, Rod Connectors, and Rods manufactured from Ti6Al4V ELI (ASTM F136) and cobalt chrome alloy (ASTM F1537).

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for the BRIDALVEIL Occipital Cervical Thoracic System, a spinal fixation system. It does not detail acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML device.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a traditional medical device (spinal fixation system), not an AI/ML device. Therefore, the details requested in the prompt, such as reported device performance, sample size for test sets, expert qualifications for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, and ground truth establishment for the training set, are not applicable in the context of this submission.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on:

• Intended Use: Providing immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for various conditions (traumatic fractures/dislocations, instability, tumors, degenerative disease, etc.) in the craniocervical junction, cervical spine (C1-C7), and thoracic spine (T1-T3). It also mentions restoring spinal column integrity for a limited time in advanced stage tumor patients.
• Design: The system includes occipital plates with screws, cervical polyaxial screws, laminar hooks, cross connectors, rod connectors, and rods.
• Materials: Ti6Al4V ELI (ASTM F136), cobalt chrome alloy (ASTM F1537), Elgiloy CoCrNi alloy (ASTM F1058), and Nitinol #1 (ASTM E2063).
• Mechanical Safety and Performance: Evaluated through non-clinical bench testing.

Here's the information extracted from the document, framed in the context of a traditional medical device submission, rather than an AI/ML one:

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

For this traditional medical device (BRIDALVEIL Occipital Cervical Thoracic System), "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through conformity to recognized standards for mechanical performance and material properties. "Reported device performance" is derived from the results of these non-clinical tests meeting the requirements of those standards.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of human data. The "test set" here refers to physical specimens of the device components tested in a laboratory setting. No human patients or retrospective/prospective data were used for performance evaluation.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance is from non-clinical bench testing conducted in a laboratory. The specific country of origin of the lab is not stated in the provided text.

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" in this context refers to the defined parameters and performance standards derived from the ASTM standards for mechanical testing. These standards are established by expert committees in engineering and materials science, but individual experts are not "adjudicating" a test set as they would for clinical images or diagnoses.

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

• Not applicable. There's no human adjudication process described for the mechanical test results; rather, the results are compared against predefined criteria within the ASTM standards.

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 not an AI/ML device, and no MRMC studies or human reader performance evaluations were conducted.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device. The "standalone performance" is the mechanical testing of the device itself against engineering standards.

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

• For this device, the "ground truth" (or reference for evaluation) is established through recognized industry standards for mechanical testing of spinal implants (e.g., ASTM F1717, ASTM F2706, ASTM F1798). The device's performance is compared against the requirements and typical performance of predicate devices as measured under these standardized conditions.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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 Centurion POCT System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the thoracic spine (T1 – T3); traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations; instability or deformity; failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudoarthrosis); 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. The Centurion POCT System 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.

The Centurion POCT System can also be linked to the Orthofix Spinal Fixation System using the Axial or Parallel Rod Connector.

The Centurion POCT System is a temporary, multiple component system comprised of a variety of non-sterile, single use components made of Titanium alloy or Cobalt Chrome alloy, that allow the surgeon to build a spinal implant construct. The Centurion POCT System consists of an assortment of rods, set screws, cross connectors, parallel and axial connectors, lateral offset adapters, multi-axial screws, hooks, occipital plates, bone screws, and cables.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Orthofix Centurion POCT System, which is a spinal fixation system. It expands the indications for use of an existing device (K131833) to include the use of posterior screws in the cervical region of the spine.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance:

The document does not specify quantified acceptance criteria (e.g., specific tensile strength values, fatigue limits). Instead, the performance assessment relies on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through mechanical testing standards.

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

The document mentions "mechanical testing" and "published literature". It does not specify a human "test set" or explicit sample sizes for the mechanical tests themselves.

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests, but implicitly refers to the number of test articles (implants) tested to meet the ASTM standards.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It relies on "mechanical testing per ASTM F1717 & F2706" and "published literature". These are laboratory tests, not data from human subjects. The data is likely prospective in the sense that the tests were performed specifically for this submission, although the standards themselves are established.

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

• Not applicable. This submission is for a spinal implant fixed via mechanical testing, not a diagnostic or prognostic device requiring expert interpretation of human data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable. No human test set or adjudication process is described.

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 device is a mechanical spinal 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. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Mechanical Testing Standards: The "ground truth" for the device's performance is its ability to meet the established mechanical testing criteria outlined in ASTM F1717 and ASTM F2706. These standards define the acceptable mechanical properties (e.g., static and dynamic strength, torsion resistance) for spinal implant assemblies.
• Predicate Device Equivalence: The ultimate ground truth for this 510(k) submission is substantial equivalence to the legally marketed predicate devices, meaning it performs as safely and effectively as a device already on the market.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This is a physical device submission based on mechanical testing and predicate device comparison, not an AI or machine learning model that would require a training set.

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

• Not applicable. As above, there is no training set for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device