Search Results

The PROW FUSION-L is intended for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2 through S1. DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by the history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade I Spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved levels. The patient may have had a previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). Patients must have undergone a regimen of at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to being treated with the PROW FUSION-L device is intended to be used with autogenous bone graft and a supplemental spinal fixation system that have been cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine (e.g. posterior pedicle screw and rod systems).

PROW FUSION-L is lumbar interbody fusion devices used to provide structural stability in skeletally mature individuals following discectomy. PROW FUSION-L is provided in different sizes to fit the anatomical needs of a wide variety of patients. PROW FUSION-L is manufactured from titanium alloy per ASTM F136 and Polyetheretherketone per ASTM F 2026. The device contains an expandable mechanism that allows it to achieve its final footprint in situ. PROW FUSION-L is to be filled with autogenous bone graft material.

Protrusions on the superior and inferior surfaces of each device grip the endplates of the adjacent vertebrae. The devices require the use of commercially available supplemental spinal fixation systems.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "PROW FUSION-L" intervertebral body fusion device. A 510(k) is a submission to the FDA demonstrating that the device is at least as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This type of submission generally does not require clinical trials with acceptance criteria and statistical performance metrics in the same way a PMA (Premarket Approval) would.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth, expert qualifications, and MRMC studies is not applicable to this 510(k) submission.

Instead, the submission relies on the concept of substantial equivalence to a predicate device, demonstrated primarily through mechanical testing.

Here's the summary of what is provided:

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

• Not Applicable. As this is a 510(k) for substantial equivalence, formal acceptance criteria in the context of clinical performance (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) are not presented. The "acceptance" is based on the mechanical test results demonstrating equivalence to the predicate and compliance with relevant ASTM standards.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified in terms of human subjects or clinical cases. The "test set" here refers to the physical devices subjected to mechanical testing. The number of devices tested for each mechanical test (static and dynamic axial compression, compression-shear, subsidence, expulsion, wear particle assessment) is not explicitly stated.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing was conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device and compliance with ASTM standards. The submission originates from NLT SPINE Ltd. in Kfar-Saba, Israel. The context suggests that the testing was performed in a lab setting rather than involving human 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. Ground truth in the context of clinical expert consensus is not relevant for this type of submission focused on mechanical equivalence. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing is adherence to predefined engineering specifications and performance within established ASTM standards.

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

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical studies where expert review is needed for diagnoses or outcomes. This document describes 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. No MRMC or clinical comparative effectiveness study involving human readers or AI is mentioned, as this is a mechanical device, not an imaging or AI diagnostic tool.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical intervertebral body fusion device, not an algorithm or AI system.

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

• For the mechanical performance data, the "ground truth" is adherence to established ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards and demonstrating performance similar to the predicate device. The specific standards cited are ASTM F2077 (for static and dynamic axial compression, static and dynamic compression-shear) and ASTM F2267 (for subsidence).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a machine learning algorithm for this physical device.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set for an algorithm, this question is not relevant.

In summary, the PROW FUSION-L device gained market clearance via a 510(k) submission based on:

• Substantial Equivalence: To several predicate devices including Life Spine, Longbow Spacer System (K133717).
• Mechanical Performance Data: Consisting of static and dynamic axial compression, static and dynamic compression-shear (according to ASTM F2077), subsidence (according to ASTM F2267), and additional expulsion and wear particle assessment testing.
• Compliance with Guidance: Per "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intervertebral Fusion Device", June 12, 2007.

The "study" that proves the device meets the criteria is a set of mechanical tests designed to show that the device performs functionally and structurally equivalent to its predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device