Search Results

When used for posterior pedicle screw or posterior non-pedicle fixation, the Innovasis Vector™ Pedicle Screw System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine: degenerative disc disease (DDD - defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spinal stenosis, spinal deformities (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), fracture, dislocation, failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis), and/or tumor resection.

When used for posterior non-cervical screw fixation in pediatric patients, the Innovasis Vector Pedicle Screw System is indicated as an adjunct to freat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Additionally, the Innovasis Vector Pedicle Screw System is intended to treat pediatric patients diagnosed with the following conditions: spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis, and fracture caused by tumor and/or trauma. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach and is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft.

The Vector" Pedicle Screw System is a thoracolumbar system composed of polyaxial pedicle screws, rods, hooks, rod connectors, locking caps, lateral connectors, and transverse cross links. The system is designed with multiple options to address complex, multi-level deformity cases and accommodate various patient anatomies. The Vector Pedicle Screw System is also designed to facilitate percutaneous screw and rod placement via Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). The cannulated pedicle screws and extended reduction tabs allow for rod placement and minimal tissue disruption. The system was designed to minimize the number and complexity of procedural steps. Implants are manufactured from Titanium (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ASTM F136 or Cobalt Crome (CoCr) per ASTM F562.

This is a 510(k) summary for the Vector™ Pedicle Screw System. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and mechanical performance. It does NOT describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted directly from this document.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and a clear statement of what cannot:

Information that can be extracted:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria (Mechanical Performance): The document states that "All testing performed demonstrated substantially equivalent mechanical performance to legally marketed predicate devices." This implies the acceptance criteria were to be substantially equivalent to the predicates in the tested mechanical properties.
   • Reported Device Performance:
     • Static and Dynamic Compression Bending per ASTM F1717
     • Static Torsion per ASTM F1717
     • Static Axial and Torsional Grip per ASTM F1798
     • The performance for these tests was deemed "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices. Specific quantitative values are not provided in this summary.

2. Sample sized for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This document refers to mechanical testing of components, not clinical data from a test set of patients. The provenance would be the test labs where the mechanical tests were performed.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This pertains to clinical or diagnostic accuracy studies, which were not conducted or reported here.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.

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 device is a pedicle screw system, not an AI diagnostic device.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used: For the mechanical tests, the ground truth was the established standards and performance of the predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This refers to mechanical testing, not a training set for an AI model.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary of what the document addresses vs. what it does not:

This FDA 510(k) summary is for a physical medical device (pedicle screw system), not an AI/software device. The "study" referenced is a series of non-clinical (mechanical) tests to establish substantial equivalence with predicate devices, as opposed to a clinical study demonstrating diagnostic accuracy or clinical effectiveness in patients.

Therefore, the detailed questions about ground truth, expert adjudication, test set/training set sizes, and MRMC studies related to human reader performance with or without AI are not applicable to this document. The document explicitly states: "N/A - no clinical data were necessary."

Ask a specific question about this device

When used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the NuVasive® 4.5-5.0 System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the posterior thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: 1. Degenerative disc disease (as defined by back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies) 2. Degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment 3. Fracture 4. Dislocation 5. Scoliosis 6. Kyphosis 7. Spinal tumor and/or 8. Failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis) The NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System is also indicated for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebral joint in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft, having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum), with removal of the implants after attainment of a solid fusion. When used as an anterolateral non-pedicle screw system in the thoracic and lumbar spine, the NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System is also intended for the following indications: 1. Degenerative disc disease (as defined by back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies) 2. Spinal stenosis 3. Spondylolisthesis 4. Spinal deformities 5. Fracture 6. Pseudoarthosis 7. Tumor resection and/or 8. Failed previous fusion When used for posterior non-cervical screw fixation in pediatric patients, NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System is indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Additionally the NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System is intended to treat pediatic patients diagnosed with the following conditions: spondylolysis, and fracture caused by turnor and/or trauma. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach and is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. In order to achieve additional levels of fixation, the NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System rods may be connected to the Reline System.

The NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System is a pedicle screw system that consists of a varietv screws, hooks, rods, lock screws, transverse connectors, rod-to-rod connectors, iliac connectors and associated general instruments. Implant components are available in a variety sizes and can be rigidly locked into a variety of different configurations to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System, a pedicle screw system. It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. The information provided focuses on demonstrating this equivalence through non-clinical performance testing rather than clinical studies or AI-driven performance.

Here's an analysis of the provided text based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Important Note: The document confirms that "demonstrate that the subject NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." However, it does not provide specific numerical values for the acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum bending strength in Nm) or the numerical performance results of the NuVasive Reline 4.5-5.0 System or its predicate for direct comparison. It only states that the results show substantial equivalence.

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

The study described is non-clinical performance testing of a physical medical device (pedicle screw system), not an AI/software device involving data sets, patients, or human readers. Therefore:

• Sample Size for Test Set: This information is not provided as the tests are for mechanical properties of the device components. The ASTM standards typically specify the number of samples required for each test.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable, as this involves mechanical testing of physical implants, not patient data.

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

Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of expert consensus, is relevant for AI/diagnostic devices interpreting medical images or patient data. This is a physical device subject to mechanical engineering standards.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used to resolve disagreements among human experts in clinical studies, not for non-clinical 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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document describes the testing of a physical medical implant (pedicle screw system), not an AI device.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This document focuses on the mechanical properties and substantial equivalence of a physical medical device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for this type of device is defined by the ASTM standards (ASTM F1717 and ASTM F1798) themselves, which specify the test methodologies and, implicitly, the expected performance characteristics for pedicle screw systems. Substantial equivalence is determined by comparing the new device's performance to that of a legally marketed predicate device under these standardized test conditions.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of mechanical testing for substantial equivalence of a physical medical device.

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

Not applicable. As there's no training set, there's no ground truth for it to be established.

Ask a specific question about this device