Search Results

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 Stryker Spine OASYS® 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 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 Stryker Spine OASYS® 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 Stryker Spine OASYS® System can be linked to the Xia® System, SR90D System and Xia® 4.5 Spinal System via the rod-to-rod connectors and transition rods.

The Stryker Spine OASYS® System can also be linked to the polyaxial screws of the Xia® II and Xia® 3 Systems via the saddle connector.

The Stryker Spine OASYS® System is comprised of rods, polyaxial screws, bone screws, hooks, connectors, and occiput plates. The components are available in a variety of lengths in order to accommodate patient anatomy. The components are fabricated from Titanium alloy and CP Titanium and are provided non-sterile. The subject system also offers Vitallium® rods. The Stryker Spine OASYS® System can be linked to the Stryker Spine Xia® family and Xia 4.5 Systems and SR90D System.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the use of the OASYS® System to include the use of screws in the posterior cervical spine.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Stryker OASYS® System, a spinal fixation device. It outlines the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and a summary of performance data. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving a device meets specific performance acceptance criteria for a new AI/software-based medical device study.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific study design details like sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment, which are typical for studies validating AI or software devices, cannot be found in this document.

However, I can extract the following information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria in the typical sense for an AI/software device (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds). Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence through mechanical testing and comparison with predicate devices.

• Published literature
• Mechanical testing per ASTM F1717 (Static/Dynamic Compression Bending)
• Mechanical testing per ASTM F1798 (Static/Dynamic Torsion) |
  | Material/Geometric Equivalence | The subject OASYS® System shares the same materials, geometries, and fundamental scientific technologies as the predicate devices. None of these characteristics have been altered, augmented, or otherwise changed. |

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

Not applicable. This is a medical device for spinal fixation, and the "test set" refers to mechanical testing of the physical device, not an AI model's dataset. The document does not provide sample sizes for the mechanical tests, nor does it refer to data provenance in the context of clinical 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 a physical medical device. "Ground truth" in this context would implicitly refer to established engineering standards for mechanical strength and durability. Expertise is inherent in the design, manufacturing, and testing process against these standards, but the document does not specify a number of experts for "ground truth" establishment in the way it would for clinical AI validation.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device. Mechanical testing results are objective measurements against established standards, not subject to human adjudication methods like those used for expert consensus in clinical image interpretation.

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 pertains to a physical spinal fixation system, not an AI or imaging diagnostic device that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or software-only device.

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

The "ground truth" for the performance of this physical device is based on established engineering standards (ASTM F1717 & F1798) for mechanical testing (static/dynamic compression bending; static/dynamic torsion) and the characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices by which substantial equivalence is claimed.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for this type of physical medical device in the context of an AI/software study.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set mentioned or implied for this physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device