Search Results

The LITe® BIO Delivery System is intended to deliver autograft, allograft, or synthetic bone grafting materials to all orthopedic surgical sites.

The LITe® BIO Delivery System is a manually operated hand-held device used to facilitate delivery of bone graft material to all orthopedic surgical sites. The LITe® BIO Delivery System consists of a delivery cannula, a delivery plunger, a delivery plunger tip, a loading syringe, and a delivery handle. The cannula is filled with the physician's choice of bone graft material and is then delivered to the intended surgical site.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the LITe® BIO Delivery System, a medical device. This document is a premarket notification for a Class II piston syringe intended to deliver bone grafting materials.

The document does not describe a study involving an AI/Machine Learning device. It refers to a physical medical device for delivering bone graft material. Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, performance metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, or MRMC studies for an AI/ML device is not applicable to this document.

The "Summary of Performance Data" section lists several bench tests conducted to demonstrate the device's performance, but these are engineering performance criteria for a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

Summary of Performance Data Provided:

The document states:
"Testing was conducted to demonstrate performance as intended and included the following bench testing:

• Functional testing (delivery of graft material through cannula)
• Life cycle testing
• Cantilever bending of cannula
• Radial compression of cannula
• Retention strength test of cannula
• Connection strength test of cannula to loading funnel"

This information aims to demonstrate that the LITe® BIO Delivery System is substantially equivalent to other currently marketed bone graft delivery systems and that its technological differences do not raise any new safety or effectiveness issues.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and studies for an AI/ML device based on this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Stryker Spine AERO®-C Cervical Cage is indicated for use in cervical interbody fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level from the C2-C3 disc to the C7-Tl disc.

DDD is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have six weeks of non-operative therapy.

The AERO®-C Cervical Cage System is to be used with autogenous bone graft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft, and is to be implanted via an open, anterior approach.

The AERO®-C Cervical Cage System is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation systems that have been cleared for use in the cervical spine. In addition, the device must be used with the included fixation anchors.

The AERO®-C Cervical Cage is a hollow, ring-shaped PEEK Optima (per ASTM F2026) cage surrounded by a titanium alloy (per ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3) jacket. It is intended for use as an interbody fusion device and is offered in a variety of heights, widths, depths, and lordotic angles to adapt to varying patient anatomies. The PEEK Optima cage portion consists of two closed pockets for graft containment and has serrations on the superior and inferior surfaces of the cage. The implant is designed to be used with the internal supplemental fixation provided (AERO®-C Fixation Anchors). The AERO®-C Fixation Anchors are constructed from titanium alloy and possess rails that mate with dovetail channels located within the AERO®-C Cervical Cage. Once fully seated into the channels, the anchors are designed to lock into the titanium jacket.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Stryker Spine AERO®-C Cervical Cage System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through design features, indications for use, technological characteristics, material use, and mechanical performance. It does NOT contain information about a clinical study involving human patients, human readers, or ground truth established by experts for classification performance.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria through clinical performance metrics is largely absent because this document pertains to a premarket notification based on substantial equivalence and non-clinical (mechanical) testing, not clinical outcome studies measuring performance like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy compared to a ground truth.

However, I can extract information related to the non-clinical testing performed:

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

The document states that "Testing in compliance with FDA's June 12, 2007 'Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device' was performed for the AERO-C® implant system and demonstrated substantially equivalent performance to the identified predicate device systems."

While explicit numerical acceptance criteria are not detailed in this summary, the criteria are implicitly derived from the FDA's guidance document and the performance of the predicate devices. The reported performance is that the device demonstrated "substantially equivalent performance" to the predicates across the listed mechanical tests.

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, primarily involving physical samples of the device and biological (cadaveric) material for a specific test. It does not refer to a "test set" in the context of clinical data for AI/algorithm performance.

• Mechanical Tests (e.g., Static Compression, Dynamic Compression, etc.): The specific number of physical samples (devices) tested for each mechanical test is not provided in this summary but would typically be specified within the full test reports referenced by the ASTM standards.
• Dynamic Cadaveric Testing: The summary mentions "the implantation of the AERO®-C device into multiple functional spinal units." The exact "multiple" number is not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of country of origin of patient data or clinical retrospective/prospective studies, as this is purely mechanical and cadaveric 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. This document describes non-clinical mechanical testing for an implantable device, not an AI or diagnostic device that requires expert-established ground truth for its performance.

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

Not applicable. This document describes non-clinical mechanical testing, not a clinical study involving adjudication of clinical outcomes or decisions.

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 document describes non-clinical mechanical testing for a spinal implant, not an AI or diagnostic device.

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

Not applicable. This document describes non-clinical mechanical testing for a spinal implant, not an AI or algorithm.

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

For the mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the acceptance criteria established by national and international standards (e.g., ASTM F2077, ASTM F2267) and FDA guidance documents, which quantify acceptable mechanical properties and behaviors of intervertebral body fusion devices. The performance of the predicate devices also serves as a benchmark for "substantial equivalence."

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This document describes non-clinical mechanical testing, not an AI/machine learning model where a "training set" would be relevant.

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

Not applicable, as no training set for an AI/ML model is described.

Ask a specific question about this device