Search Results

ASTRA and AVANT Navigated Reusable Instruments are indicated for preparation and placement of SpineCraft ASTRA Spine system pedicle screws during thoracolumbar sacroiliac spinal surgery to assist surgeon in precisely locating anatomical structures in either open, minimally invasive procedures, or percutaneous, procedures.

ASTRA and AVANT Navigated Reusable Instruments are specifically designed for use with Medtronic StealthStation® System S8 (V1.2.0), which is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure such as a vertebra can be identified relative to a CT or MR based model, fluoroscopy images, or digitized landmarks of the anatomy. Use of the ASTRA and AVANT Navigated Reusable Instruments is limited to use only with ASTRA Spine System implants.

ASTRA-OCT Navigated Reusable instruments are indicated for preparation and placement of SpineCraft ASTRA-OCT Spine screws during cervico-thoracic spinal surgery to assist surgeon in precisely locating anatomical structures in open procedures.

ASTRA-OCT Navigated Reusable Instruments are specifically designed for use with Medtronic StealthStation® System S8 (V1.2.0), which is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure such as a vertebra can be identified relative to a CT or MR based model, fluoroscopy images, or digitized landmarks of the anatomy. Use of the ASTRA-OCT Navigated Reusable Instruments is limited to use only with ASTRA-OCT Spine System implants.

The ASTRA, AVANT and ASTRA-OCT Navigation instruments are non-sterile, reusable surgical instruments designed for compatibility with the Medtronic NavLock Trackers and to ultimately provide seamless interaction with the Medtronic StealthStation® System. The ASTRA and AVANT Navigation instruments are for use with ASTRA Spine System pedicle screws and the ASTRA-OCT Navigation instruments are for use with ASTRA-OCT Spine System pedicle screws. The instruments are manufactured from medical grade stainless steel. The ASTRA-OCT navigation instruments are available in same or similar diameters and lengths as the corresponding predicate Medtronic navigated instruments. This includes awls, probes, drill bits, taps and screwdrivers.

This looks like a 510(k) summary for a medical device rather than a study evaluating the performance of an AI/ML powered device. As such, it does not contain the specific information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria for an AI/ML system.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance testing based on the provided document:

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

The document provides a list of performance tests conducted according to ASTM F2554-18, implying that the device performance demonstrated it "perform[s] as designed, are suitable for their intended use and are substantially equivalent to the cited corresponding predicate devices under the same test conditions." However, specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "accuracy must be greater than X") and corresponding numerical performance results are not provided in this summary.

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

This document describes non-clinical performance testing of physical surgical instruments, not a study involving patient data or an AI/ML algorithm's test set. Therefore, information regarding "sample size for the test set" and "data provenance" (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) summary. The testing was laboratory-based.

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)

This is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical performance testing of physical instruments, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring expert ground truth for a test set.

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

This is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed as this device is a set of navigated surgical instruments, not an AI/ML assistance system for human readers. No clinical studies were performed.

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

This refers to an AI/ML algorithm. The device described, "ASTRA & AVANT Navigation Instruments System and ASTRA-OCT Navigation Instruments System," is a set of non-sterile, reusable surgical instruments designed for compatibility with a navigation system (Medtronic StealthStation® System S8). It is not a standalone AI/ML algorithm. Non-clinical performance testing was done on the instruments themselves.

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

For the non-clinical performance testing, the "ground truth" would be established by the precise measurement systems and methodologies outlined in ASTM F2554-18 for determining positional accuracy. This is a technical standard measurement, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data typically associated with AI/ML clinical studies.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable as there is no AI/ML algorithm being trained by this device.

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

This is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The 7D Surgical System is a stereotaxic image guidance system intended for the spatial positioning and orientation of neurosurgical instruments used by surgeons. The system is also intended to be used as the primary surgical luminaire during image guided surgery. The device is indicated for posterior approach spine surgery where reference to a rigid anatomical structure can be identified.

The 7D Surgical System is intended for use as a stereotaxic image guided surgical navigation system during spine surgery. The system provides image registration between preoperative scan data and data captured intraoperatively from the 7D Surgical System structured light scanner and/or user selected points. The system provides guidance data by tracking and displaying the position and orientation of wireless optically tracked Spinal Instruments including the 7D Surgical Pedicle Probe and Awl, now including the IZI Pedicle Access Kit, relative to the patient. Position and orientation data of tracked Spinal Instruments are linked to the preoperative scan data using the 7D Surgical System workstation. The system is intended to be used as the primary surgical luminaire for image guided surgery.

The system is intended to be used for both image fusion and navigation for neurological applications where reference to a rigid structure can be identified relative to a preoperative image data of the anatomy.

The Tracking System enables the surgeon to view the position and orientation of 7D Surgical System Spinal Instruments relative to registered preoperative image data while performing the surgical procedure. Each of the 7D Surgical System instruments, including the IZI Pedicle Access Kit, utilizes commercially available passive reflective marker spheres to determine the position and orientation of instruments. Each tracked Instruments requires a unique marker position configuration to enable the tracking system to distinguish the tools from one to the other.

The Software links all system components and displays navigational data to the surgeon. It provides methods for loading preoperative scans and guides the surgeon through the process of surface model creation, structured light acquisition, registration, registration verification, and navigation.

The provided text does not contain information about an AI/ML-driven device or study. It describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "7D Surgical System," which is a stereotaxic image guidance system intended for spatial positioning and orientation of neurosurgical instruments and as a primary surgical luminaire during image-guided surgery. This system appears to be a hardware and software system for surgical navigation, not an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic tool.

Therefore, many of the requested details regarding acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, and standalone algorithm performance, which are typical for AI/ML validation, are not applicable or described in this document.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance testing and general acceptance criteria as described for this non-AI system.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the provided text, highlighting what is missing or not applicable:

1. A table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance:

The document describes performance in terms of verification and validation activities, particularly accuracy.

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: The document mentions "phantom models" for non-clinical accuracy testing. It does not specify a numerical sample size (e.g., number of phantoms, number of measurements per phantom).
• Data Provenance: The studies were "Non-Clinical Performance Surgical Simulations Conducted on Phantom Models" and "Non-Clinical Accuracy" tests on phantom models in a "clinical simulated environment." This indicates the data is synthetic/simulated, not from real patient cases. No information on country of origin for this simulated data.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable as it's non-clinical, phantom-based 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):

• This information is not provided in the document. Given that the testing was "Non-Clinical Accuracy" on "phantom models" and describes "Target Registration Error (TRE)" as a comparison between the system's reported position and "ground truth position measured physically or otherwise," it's highly likely the ground truth was established through precise physical measurements using metrology tools, not human expert consensus, for this mechanical/optical navigation system.

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

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. This concept (adjudication for discordant interpretations) typically applies to human readers interpreting medical images or data, not to the performance measurement of a surgical navigation system's mechanical/optical accuracy on phantoms.

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:

• No MRMC study was performed or described. The device is a surgical navigation system, not an AI diagnostic/prognostic tool that assists human image readers. Clinical data (and thus human reader studies) were deemed "unnecessary" because the device introduces "no new indications for use" and its features are "equivalent to the previously cleared predicate device."

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

• The document describes "Non-Clinical Accuracy" testing of the "System's accuracy... on phantom models." This testing measures the system's ability to accurately track and report positions relative to a physical ground truth, which can be considered a standalone performance assessment of the navigation component. The device's primary function is to provide guidance (essentially "standalone" positional data) that a human surgeon then uses. The document states, "TRE evaluates the error discrepancy between the position reported by the image guided surgery system and the ground truth position measured physically or otherwise." This implies a direct algorithmic measurement comparison.

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

• For "Non-Clinical Accuracy," the ground truth was established through "physical measurements" or "otherwise" on "phantom models." This is evident from the description of Target Registration Error (TRE) as comparing the system's reported position to the "ground truth position measured physically or otherwise." It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. This device does not appear to be an AI/ML system that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense for model development. The system's operation is based on structured light sensing and optical tracking of physical markers.

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

• Not applicable. As a non-AI/ML system, there is no "training set" for which ground truth would need to be established in the context of machine learning model training.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medtronic Surgical Instruments are intended to be used during the preparation and placement of Medtronic implants during spinal surgery to assist the surgeon in precisely locating anatomical structures in either open, or minimally invasive, procedures. Medtronic Surgical Instruments are specifically designed for use with the MAZOR X Stealth™ Edition, which is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as a skull, a long bone, or vertebra can be identified relative to a CT or MR-based model, fluoroscopy images, or digitized landmarks of the anatomy. Medtronic Surgical Instruments can be navigated or non-navigated manual instruments that may or may not be guided through the MAZOR X Arm Guide. Medtronic surgical drills shall only be used through the MAZOR X arm guides, Medtronic cannulas, and Medtronic drill guides. Some of the Medtronic Surgical Instruments are also compatible with the IPC™ POWEREASE™ System. An instrument may incorporate a measuring function which has uses as described on the label and the instrument.

DO NOT IMPLANT THE INSTRUMENTS

The CD HORIZON™ Spinal System surgical instruments are non-sterile, single or re-usable instruments that may be used during the preparation and placement of various Medtronic spinal implants during spinal surgery. The subject instruments are made of a variety of materials commonly used in orthopedic and neurological procedures which meet available national or international standards specifications. Single-use Medtronic Surgical instruments should never be reused under any circumstances.

The CD HORIZON™ instruments are specifically designed for use in spinal procedures with MAZOR X Stealth™ Edition. The instruments can be navigated or non-navigated manual instruments that may or may not be guided through the MAZOR X Arm Guide. Some instruments (e.g. drills, drivers, taps etc.) are also compatible with Medtronic's IPC™ POWEREASE™ System when connected to the POWEREASE™ Driver, these CD HORIZON™ instruments may or may not be guided through the MAZOR X Arm Guide. Medtronic surgical drills shall only be used through the MAZOR X arm guides, cannulas, and drill guides. Placing Medtronic single-use sterile spheres on each of the NavLock™ Tracker passive stems allow MAZOR X Stealth™ Edition to track the Medtronic instruments in the surgical field.

The document provided describes the CD HORIZON Spinal System Instruments for use with MAZOR X Stealth™ Edition. This is a medical device subject to FDA approval, specifically a 510(k) premarket notification. The document states that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

The provided text does not contain the detailed information requested regarding specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), sample sizes for test or training sets, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods. The information pertains to the regulatory approval process and a general summary of performance testing.

Therefore, many parts of your request cannot be answered from the provided document. I can, however, extract the information that is present.

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

The document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics in the format of sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy, which are typical for AI/diagnostic devices. Instead, it lists general performance tests conducted.

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

The document does not specify the sample sizes used for any of the described tests, nor does it detail the provenance of any data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective nature). The tests are described as "simulated use" and "analysis" rather than clinical trials with patient 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)

The document does not mention using experts to establish ground truth for a test set. The nature of the device (surgical instruments for navigation) suggests performance testing would involve engineering and functional verification rather than expert clinical assessment of diagnostic output.

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

The document does not mention any adjudication method, as it doesn't describe expert-based ground truth establishment or a review process for a test set in the context of diagnostic performance.

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

The document does not indicate that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is a set of surgical instruments used with a navigation system (MAZOR X Stealth™ Edition), not typically an AI-powered diagnostic device that assists human readers.

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

This request is not applicable to the device described. The device consists of surgical instruments that are part of a system intended for human use during surgery. It is not an algorithm that can perform standalone diagnostics or analysis.

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

The concept of "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense (e.g., pathology for a diagnosis) is not directly applicable here. The "ground truth" for the performance tests would likely be engineering specifications, physical measurements, and expected functional behavior of the instruments and system. For instance, "Navigation Accuracy Analysis" would involve comparing the navigated position to an objectively measured physical position, which is a form of engineering ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not mention a training set specific to an AI algorithm. This device is a set of physical surgical instruments, not a machine learning model that requires training data.

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

Not applicable, as no training set for an AI algorithm is mentioned or relevant to this device description.

Ask a specific question about this device