Search Results

The ELSA™ Spacer is an interbody fusion device intended for use in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels of the lumbosacral spine (L2-S1). DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment. In addition, these patients may have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). The ELSA™ Spacer is to be filled with autograft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone, may be used with two bone screws, and is to be used with supplemental fixation. Hyperlordotic (≥20°) implants must be used with the two bone screws and supplemental fixation in addition to the bone screws.

ELSA™ Spacers are expandable lateral lumbar interbody fusion devices used to provide structural stability in skeletally mature individuals following discectomy. The devices are available in various heights and geometric options to fit the anatomical needs of a wide variety of patients. Protrusions on the superior and inferior surfaces of each device grip the endplates of the adjacent vertebrae to aid in expulsion resistance.

ELSA™ Spacers are manufactured from titanium alloy, as specified in ASTM F136 and F1295, and include an internal component manufactured from radiolucent PEEK polymer, as specified in ASTM F2026. The screws used with ELSA™ are manufactured from titanium allov, as specified in ASTM F136 and F1295, and are available with hydroxyapatite (HA) coating, as specified in ASTM F1185.

The provided text describes a medical device, the ELSA™ Spacer, which is an intervertebral body fusion device. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary submitted to the FDA. The submission seeks to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided text does not include information about acceptance criteria for a device's performance (such as a diagnostic algorithm or AI system) or a study that specifically proves the device meets such criteria in terms of clinical accuracy or effectiveness. Instead, it describes mechanical and material performance testing for the physical implant itself, aimed at demonstrating functional equivalence to existing devices.

Therefore, many of the requested categories about acceptance criteria, clinical study design, ground truth establishment, and AI performance metrics cannot be answered from the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document lists performance tests conducted for the physical device, not for a diagnostic algorithm's accuracy. The "acceptance criteria" here relate to the mechanical integrity and safety of the implant itself, aligning with established ASTM standards for intervertebral fusion devices.

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

• Not applicable. This document describes mechanical and material testing of a physical implant, not a clinical study involving a test set of patient data or images. The "samples" would refer to the number of devices subjected to various mechanical stress tests, which is not specified 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)

• Not applicable. Ground truth establishment by clinical experts is relevant for diagnostic or AI devices, not for the mechanical testing of an interbody fusion device.

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

• Not applicable. This pertains to clinical studies for diagnostic accuracy, not 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 for AI-assisted diagnostic devices. The ELSA™ Spacer is a physical implant.

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

• Not applicable. There is no algorithm or AI component described for the ELSA™ Spacer.

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

• Not applicable. For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering standards (ASTM and FDA guidance) for device strength, durability, and biocompatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

• Not applicable. No training set or ground truth in the AI context are relevant to this document.

Summary of Device and Study Type:

The ELSA™ Spacer is an interbody fusion device, a physical implant used in spinal surgery. The "study" described in this document is a series of mechanical and material performance tests (e.g., static and dynamic compression, subsidence, expulsion, bacterial endotoxin) conducted in accordance with established ASTM standards and FDA guidance. The purpose of these tests is to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of the ELSA™ Spacer to legally marketed predicate devices in terms of safety, function, and mechanical integrity, rather than clinical diagnostic performance or AI accuracy.

Ask a specific question about this device