Search Results

The standard and oblique Rampart One devices are integrated intervertebral body fusion devices indicated for intervertebral body fusion at one level or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine from L2 to S1 in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months non-operative treatment.

The standard and oblique Rampart One devices are designed for use with autograft and/or allograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft and are intended for use with supplemental fixations systems cleared by FDA for use in the lumbar spine.

Rampart One implants are intervertebral body fusion devices for use with bone graft in the intervertebral disc space to stabilize spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion. These devices are manufactured from PEEK-OPTIMA HA Enhanced (spacer), titanium alloy (face plate), and tantalum (radiopaque markers) materials. Rampart One devices incorporate integrated fixation in the form of titanium allov screws. Rampart One devices are provided in standard and oblique configurations. The standard device accommodates four screws and the oblique device accommodates two screws. In each device the screws are inserted through the anteriorly-located face plate into the adjacent vertebral bodies. Rampart One devices are provided in various heights and lordotic angles and contain a hollow core to receive autograft and/or allograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft. Placement is achieved with an insertion instrument that allows for manipulation of the implant in the intervertebral disc space.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Rampart One Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than proving clinical efficacy or diagnostic performance. Therefore, the information typically requested in your prompt (such as a table of acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets for AI, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance) is not part of this document.

The document primarily addresses the device's design, materials, indications for use, and non-clinical mechanical testing to show that it is as safe and effective as existing predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown of the available information in relation to your request, with an emphasis on what is not present because it's not a required component of a 510(k) for this type of device:

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

• Acceptance Criteria for Substantial Equivalence: The primary acceptance criterion for a 510(k) is the demonstration of "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device. This is achieved by showing that the new device has the same intended use and technological characteristics as the predicate, or that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical): Mechanical testing was conducted. The document states:
  • ASTM F2077: Static and Dynamic Compression, Static and Dynamic Compression Shear tests were performed.
  • ASTM F2267: Subsidence test was performed.
  • ASTM F543-13: Axial Pullout test was performed.
  • Anti-Screw Backout Expulsion: A test was performed.
  • Bacterial endotoxin testing (BET): Conducted in accordance with ANSI/AAMI ST-72:2011.
  • Specific performance metrics (e.g., precise load limits, displacement values, or pass/fail thresholds) are NOT detailed in this summary. The FDA review process would have evaluated the raw data and compared it against established standards or predicate device performance, but these specific numbers are not public in this summary document. The "Conclusion" states: "Spineology has demonstrated that the Rampart One Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

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 in the traditional sense for this type of device: For a mechanical device like an interbody fusion device, "test set" typically refers to the samples of the device itself (e.g., a certain number of devices tested for mechanical properties). The document does not specify the number of devices tested for each mechanical test.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted according to ASTM and ANSI/AAMI standards, likely in a laboratory setting. Country of origin for data is not specified, but the submitter is Spineology Inc. in Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. The testing is prospective in the sense that the manufacturer specifically conducted these tests for this submission.

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 not a diagnostic device or an AI/ML algorithm that requires expert ground truth labeling. Mechanical properties are measured objectively by instrumentation in a laboratory, not by expert opinion.

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

• Not applicable: No expert adjudication is involved in evaluating the primary performance of this mechanical device.

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 a mechanical implantable device, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted device. No human reader studies (with or without AI assistance) are relevant or mentioned.

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

• Not applicable: This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

• Mechanical Standards: The "ground truth" for the mechanical testing is adherence to established industry standards (ASTM, ANSI/AAMI) for biocompatibility, sterility, and mechanical strength, often compared against performance data from predicate devices. Clinical "outcomes data" is generally part of a PMA (Premarket Approval) process, not a 510(k), unless specific new safety/effectiveness questions arise.

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: As above, no training set is involved.

Summary of what the document does provide:

• Device Name: Rampart One Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device
• Intended Use: Intervertebral body fusion at one or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine (L2-S1) for patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade I spondylolisthesis, who are skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment.
• Materials: PEEK-OPTIMA HA Enhanced (spacer), titanium alloy (face plate), tantalum (radiopaque markers).
• Mechanisms of Action: Integrated fixation with titanium alloy screws, hollow core for bone graft.
• Non-Clinical Testing Conducted: Mechanical tests (Static/Dynamic Compression/Shear, Subsidence, Axial Pullout, Anti-Screw Backout Expulsion) and Bacterial Endotoxin Testing, all performed according to recognized standards.
• Predicate Devices: Several predicate devices are listed, including other Spineology Rampart devices and devices from Cutting Edge Spine, Synthes Spine, and Biomet Spine. The new device is compared to these predicates to demonstrate substantial equivalence in intended use, indications for use, fundamental scientific technology, principle of operation, biological safety, base materials, and size offering.

Ask a specific question about this device

Elite™ Expandable implants are intervertebral body fusion devices indicated for intervertebral body fusion at one level or two contiguous levels in the lumbar spine from L2 to S1 in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) with up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment.

Elite™ Expandable implants are designed for use with autograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft as an adjunct to fusion and are intended for use with supplemental fixation systems cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.

The Elite™ Expandable Interbody Fusion System is designed for use as a lumbar intervertebral body fusion device and consists of medical grade titanium alloy (Ti-6AL-4V, ELI) cages and implantation instrumentation. The cages are available in various geometries and sizes to accommodate patient anatomy. The cages have ridges or teeth that resist rotation and migration and have cavities to accept packing of bone graft. Components of the Elite™ IBF Expandable Lumbar Fusion System should not be used with components of any other system or manufacturer.

This document does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or a study specifically designed to establish acceptance criteria for the Elite™ Expandable Interbody Fusion Device.

The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and a 510(k) summary for the Elite™ Expandable Interbody Fusion Device. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not on proving that the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through a clinical study or detailed non-clinical performance report.

Here's what can be extracted from the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This information is not provided in the document. The document lists mechanical tests performed (ASTM F2077, F2267) and bacterial endotoxin testing, but it does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for these tests nor does it report specific numeric results against those criteria. It only states that these tests were "conducted in accordance with FDA's Class II Special Controls Guidance Document... and applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards." This implies the tests were performed to demonstrate mechanical integrity and biocompatibility, but the specific performance values and acceptable ranges are not disclosed.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable as no specific clinical or performance test set (in the context of real-world patient data or detailed device performance metrics) is described in terms of a sample size. The "test set" here refers to the physical devices subjected to mechanical testing.
• Data Provenance: The document refers to non-clinical mechanical testing and bacterial endotoxin testing. This is laboratory-based testing, not clinical data from patients.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

Not applicable. The document describes mechanical and biocompatibility testing of the device, not a study evaluating human interpretation or diagnosis. Therefore, there's no "ground truth" established by experts in the context of diagnostic performance.

4. Adjudication Method:

Not applicable. There's no adjudication method mentioned as this document does not describe a study involving expert review or interpretation.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, Effect Size:

No. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study typically assesses the performance of human readers (e.g., radiologists) with and without AI assistance, which is not relevant to this mechanical device submission.

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 software. Therefore, "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm is not relevant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

Not applicable in the context of diagnostic or interpretive performance. For the mechanical and biocompatibility testing, the "ground truth" would be established by the physical properties of the materials and the manufacturing process, verified by standardized laboratory tests.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

Not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device