Search Results

The FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide system is intended to provide mechanical guidance for the preparation and drilling of pilot holes for the placement of posterior cervical spine (C1-C7) and the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3). Pilot holes are created using the FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide in the pedicles (C2-T3), Pars (C2), or lateral masses (C1) during open, posterior spinal fixation procedures, on skeletally mature patients, that are intended for fusion. The patient's pedicles, pars, or lateral masses must be dimensionally adequate to safely accommodate a posterior cervical screw, as determined on a preoperative CT/CTA scan.

The FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide system is compatible with FDA cleared, legally marketed, posterior cervical screw systems (and their respective components) that are specified in the precautions. Pedicle sounding probes (a.k.a. feeler/ball-tip probes) may be used to confirm each pedicle's integrity. Only qualified compatible OEM posterior cervical screw system taps may be used to visually guide the tapping of pilot holes. All other posterior cervical screw system components and accessories (including non-visually guided taps) are to be used, after removal of the FIREFLY @ Cervical Navigation Guide, as directed by the posterior cervical screw system's instructions for use.

The FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide system is only compatible with consoles systems (attachments and burs) listed in the precautions.

This system (guide, bone model, drill bit, and depth stop) are intended for single use only.

The FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide is intended to assist in the accurate placement of posterior cervical screws. It consists of single-use components designed for treatment of a specific patient.

The FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide uses Patient-Specific Cervical Guides that fit on the patient's anatomy to guide surgical instruments in line with trajectories chosen presurgically, by the surgeon, based on the patient's CT/CTA imaging data. Navigation guides are intended to guide instruments to create pilot holes in the pedicles (C2-T3), Pars (C2), or lateral masses (C1) for placing screws following the Approved Patient-Specific Surgical Plan.

Patient-Specific Bone Models are also provided.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide. It outlines the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and a summary of performance data from cadaveric accuracy testing.

Here's the breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document states that "Cadaveric accuracy testing of the FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide was performed. The results demonstrated that the acceptance criteria were met and that the FIREFLY® Cervical Navigation Guide's performance is adequate to perform as intended." However, the specific quantitative acceptance criteria and the corresponding reported device performance values (e.g., accuracy in angle or translation) are not explicitly provided in the document.

Therefore, the table cannot be fully constructed.

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: Not explicitly stated in the document. The text only mentions "Cadaveric accuracy testing." It does not specify the number of cadavers or the number of pilot holes tested.
• Data Provenance: The study was "Cadaveric accuracy testing." The country of origin is not specified, and it is a type of prospective study on cadavers.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not explicitly stated.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance was not conducted or described. The device is a "Cervical Navigation Guide" which provides mechanical guidance for instrument placement. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretation tool for human readers but rather a surgical guidance tool.

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

• This question is less directly applicable to a mechanical surgical navigation guide. The "performance" described is the accuracy of the guide itself in directing instruments. Since it's a mechanical guide, its function is inherently "standalone" in guiding the physical instrument, although a human surgeon is always "in the loop" operating the instruments through the guide. The cadaveric testing assesses the mechanical accuracy of the guide as intended.

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

• For the cadaveric accuracy testing, the ground truth would typically be established by highly precise measurements of the actual pilot hole trajectory and depth in relation to the pre-surgically planned trajectory, often using imaging (e.g., post-procedure CT scans) and/or metrology. The document does not specify the exact method for ground truth establishment.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document describes a cadaveric performance study, not a machine learning model that relies on a training set. Therefore, this question is not applicable.

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

• As this is not a machine learning device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device