Search Results

The NextAR Spine platform is intended as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures in either open or percutaneous spine procedures. It is indical for any medical condition in which the use of stereotaxtic surgery may be appropriate, when reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as vertebrae or pelvis, can be identified relative to images of the anatomy. This can include the following spinal implant procedures, such as:

• · Pedicle Screw Placement (Thoracic and Lumbosacral spine)
• Iliosacral Screw Placement
  The NextAR Spine platform is intended to be used in combination with NextAR™M Stereotaxic instruments and / or Medacta preoperative planning. In the case of pre-operative planning software is used preoperatively to plan the surgical placement of pedicle screws based upon radiological images of the patient. As an optional display, the NextAR Smart Glasses can be used auxiliary to the NextAR Spine Platform to view stereotaxic information as presented by the NextAR Spine Platform. The NextAR Smart Glasses should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with the primary computer display.

The NextARTM Spine Platform is a CT based computer-assisted surgical navigation platform used in either open/mini open or percutaneous spine surgery procedure and includes the following components:

• Navigation software which displays information to the surgeon; ●
• Augmented Reality glasses; ●
• Optical tracking system; ●
• PC based hardware platform; ●
• Fiducial Block: ●
• Adaptor for sensor:
• Spine attachment instruments ●
• Reusable surgical instruments for spine surgery procedures. ●
  The system operates on the common principle of stereotaxic technology in which markers are mounted on the bones and an infrared camera is used to monitor the spatial location of the instruments. Tracking sensors attached to the bones enable the surgeon to view the position and orientation of the instrumentation relative to the intra-operative data in real-time while performing the surgical procedure. The tracking sensors, the fiducial block, and a group of pins and drills are provided sterile.
  The NextAR™ Spine Platform aids the surgeon in executing the surgical plan by visualizing all the information in real time on a screen monitor.
  The NextAR Spine system is a surgical navigation platform which uses the information of either an intra-operative scan or pre-operative CT in combination with an intra-operative 3D-CArm scan in order to register the spine to navigation elements.
  The registration can be performed with one of the following approaches:
• Direct 3D: based on the use of an intra-operative 3D-CArm scan ●
• . 3D-3D: based on the use of a pre-operative CT scan and an intra-operative 3D-CArm scan
  The system's navigation technology is based on an active infrared camera coupled with an active tracker (Target). These elements allow, by means of the different registration approaches and use of compatible instruments, to accurately prepare trajectories in the vertebrae and/or to implant screws while visualizing information in real time on a screen monitor.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance:

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than explicitly stating numerical acceptance criteria for clinical performance. However, based on the performance data section, the device's accuracy was a key performance metric evaluated. The acceptance criteria for accuracy are not explicitly stated in numerical terms in this document, but the study described aimed to confirm its performance comparable to the predicate.

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

The document mentions a "Cadaver study" as part of the performance testing.

• Sample Size: The exact number of cadavers used is not specified in the provided text.
• Data Provenance: The study was a "Cadaver study," indicating it was conducted on human cadavers. This is a form of retrospective data in terms of patient-specific outcomes, as the cadavers represent once-living individuals, but the experimental setup is controlled like a prospective study. The country of origin is not specified.

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

The document does not provide details on the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologists with X years of experience) used to establish ground truth within the cadaver study. It states the system is intended to aid surgical placement, implying the ground truth would typically be related to the accuracy of instrument placement or trajectory relative to anatomical landmarks, ideally verified by expert assessment or post-procedure imaging analysis.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document does not specify any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set (cadaver study).

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

The document does not mention a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or any effect size regarding human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance. The device is a navigation platform for surgeons, implying human-in-the-loop assistance, but a formal MRMC study as typically performed for diagnostic AI is not described.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

The document does not explicitly describe a standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study. The device is designed as a "surgical navigation platform" to "aid the surgeon" and display information "in real-time on a screen monitor," indicating an inherent human-in-the-loop design.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the "Accuracy test" and "Cadaver study" related to placement, the ground truth would likely involve:

• Precise measurements of instrument tip position or trajectory relative to anatomical landmarks.
• Verification using high-resolution imaging (e.g., CT scan) of the cadaver after "screw placement" to assess deviation from planned trajectories or ideal anatomical placement.
  The document does not explicitly state the method for establishing ground truth, but for a navigation system, it would generally be based on anatomic truth verified by imaging or detailed measurements.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide any information regarding the sample size for a training set. As a substantial equivalence determination, the focus is on performance testing and comparison to predicates, not on the details of algorithmic training. The "Dedicated algorithm" is mentioned as a technological characteristic, implying machine learning components, but its training details are not disclosed here.

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

Since there is no information on a training set, the document does not provide details on how its ground truth was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The M.U.S.T. Pedicle screws system is intended for posterior non-cervical pedicle fixation (T1-S2/ilium) and non-pedicle fixation, or anterolateral fixation (78-L5). These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The M.U.S.T. Midline Cortical (MC) Screw System is intended to be used as part of the M.U.S.T. Pedicle Screw system (K12115, K132878, K141988, K153664, K162061, K171170, K171758, K193365) for the stabilization and the fusion of the lumbar and thoracic spine. The M.U.S.T. pedicle screw system includes cannulated or non-cannulated poly-axial pedicle screws (K121115, K132878, K153664), cannulated or non-cannulated mono-axial pedicle screws (K132878), set screws (K121115, K171758), straight and pre-bent rods (K12115, K141988, K162061), lateral connectors (K162061) and cross connectors (K132878, K193365). The M.U.S.T. pedicle screw system also includes the enhanced screws and rods designed for percutaneous surgery (K141988).

The M.U.S.T. Midline Cortical (MC) Screw System introduce new polyaxial screws and reduction screws (solid and cannulated), developed with a focus on Midline Cortical Trajectory approach. The devices subject of this submission are:

• M.U.S.T. MC polyaxial screws Solid
• M.U.S.T. MC polyaxial screws Cannulated
• M.U.S.T. MC polyaxial reduction screws Solid
• M.U.S.T. MC polyaxial reduction screws Cannulated

Intended purpose and the performance specification of the devices are equivalent to the ones of the current US cleared portfolio: polyaxial screws are already used in the MUST implant construct.

The M.U.S.T. Midline Cortical (MC) Screws and the Inlay are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V ELI (ISO 5832-3 Implants for surgery -Metallic materials - Part 3: Wrought titanium 6-vanadium alloy + ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401); the Tulip and the Setscrew are made of Co-Cr-Mo alloy according to ISO 5832-12:2019, Implants for Surgery - Metallic materials -Part 3: Wrought cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, the same material of the previous cleared M.U.S.T. Pedicle Screw (K153664, K121115, K171170).

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the M.U.S.T. Midline Cortical (MC) Screw System:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The provided document does not explicitly state specific quantitative acceptance criteria for many of its tests. Instead, it describes various tests performed and implies that the results of these tests met the necessary standards for substantial equivalence. For instance, mechanical evaluations were conducted "according to ASTM F1717-18" without specifying the pass/fail thresholds. The "geometrical analysis" was performed "to ensure that the implant has sufficient fixation" and "in comparison to approved and marketed implants," implying an acceptance of similarity or non-inferiority.

To create a table, I will infer the performance reported based on the conclusion of substantial equivalence.

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:
  • Wetlab (Surgical Technique): The "cadaver labs were performed by 3 experienced surgeons." This refers to the number of users of the devices, not a number of distinct device units or anatomical samples tested. The number of cadavers used is not specified.
  • Geometrical Analysis: Not specified, but it would involve measurements of the (new) M.U.S.T. MC implants and approved/marketed implants.
  • Mechanical Performance Testing (ASTM F1717): Not specified. ASTM F1717 standards generally define specific sample sizes (e.g., minimum of 5 samples per test condition for static tests, 3-6 for dynamic fatigue). The document states "Worst Case definition... for mechanical testing," implying specific samples were chosen.
  • Pyrogenicity Assessment: Not specified, but would align with standard biological testing protocols.
• Data Provenance (Country of Origin, Retrospective/Prospective): Not explicitly stated. These were non-clinical studies conducted for regulatory submission. Given the manufacturer is Medacta International SA (Switzerland) and its US counterpart Medacta USA, the testing could have been conducted in any accredited lab globally. They are prospective tests conducted on the device components and system.

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):

• Number of Experts: 3 experienced surgeons were used for the wetlab (surgical technique validation).
• Qualifications of Experts: They are described as "experienced surgeons." No further detailed qualifications (e.g., years of experience, specific sub-specialty) are provided in this document.

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

The document mentions "3 experienced surgeons" performed the wetlab. However, it does not describe an adjudication method for their observations or findings. It simply states the lab was performed "according to MUST MC surgical technique," implying their use was for validation of the technique and device performance, not necessarily for a consensus-driven "ground truth" establishment in the typical sense of diagnostic accuracy.

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 device is a medical implant (spinal screw system), not an AI/software device that assists human readers. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply to this submission.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was NOT done.
• As explained above, this is a physical medical implant, not a software algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical studies:

• Wetlab: "Performance by 3 experienced surgeons according to MUST MC surgical technique" implies the ground truth for surgical technique validation was established through expert application/observation and adherence to predefined protocols.
• Geometrical Analysis: Ground truth was the geometric properties of approved and marketed implants used for comparison, and engineering specifications.
• Mechanical Testing (ASTM F1717): Ground truth was defined by the requirements and methodologies of the ASTM F1717-18 standard and comparisons to the mechanical characteristics of the predicate device.
• Pyrogenicity: Ground truth was established by standard biological assessment methods for endotoxins, validated against established limits.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is a physical medical implant, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

The M.U.S.T. Pedicle screws system is intended for posterior non-cervical pedicle fixation (T1-S2/ilium) and non-pedicle fixation, or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). These devices are indicated as an adjunct to fusion for all of the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The M.U.S.T. Extension and M.U.S.T. Long Tab is intended to be used as part of the M.U.S.T. Pedicle Screw system (K121115, K132878, K141988, K153664, K162061, K171170, K171758, K193365) for the stabilization and the fusion of the lumbar and thoracic spine. The M.U.S.T. pedicle screw system includes cannulated or non-cannulated poly-axial pedicle screws (K121115, K132878, K153664), cannulated or non-cannulated mono-axial pedicle screws (K132878), set screws (K121115, K171758), straight and pre-bent rods (K121115, K141988, K162061), lateral connectors (K162061) and cross connectors (K132878, K193365). The M.U.S.T. pedicle screw system also includes the enhanced screws and rods designed for percutaneous surgery (K141988).

The M.U.S.T. Extension and M.U.S.T. Long Tab introduce new sizes of sterile implantable devices intended to be used for posterior non-cervical pedicle fixation (T1-S2/ilium) or anterolateral fixation (T8-L5). The devices subject of this submission are:

• New size of Straight Rods (both Titanium and CoCr version): length 600mm Hex interface at the end
• New size of Straight Rods (Anodized Titanium version): length 600mm
• Pre-contoured Rods (both Titanium and CoCr version)
• New sizes of Lateral Connectors: length 80; 100; 125 & 150mm
• New sizes of Enhanced Cannulated Pedicle Screws: Ø8; Ø9; Ø10 length from 30 to 100mm
• New cannulated pedicle screws with thread 4 leads (15 and 25 mm)
• Setscrews in Titanium

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from Medacta International SA for their M.U.S.T. Pedicle Screw Extension and Long Tab Implants. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices rather than providing detailed clinical study data on device performance against specific acceptance criteria for AI/ML-enabled devices.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, human reader improvement with AI assistance, standalone algorithm performance, and ground truth establishment cannot be found in the provided text. The document describes a traditional medical device submission (pedicle screws) which relies on bench testing and comparison to predicates, not AI/ML performance studies.

However, based on the structure of the provided document, I can infer the "acceptance criteria" and "study" are related to the engineering and design validation of the medical device, rather than the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

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

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

The document describes several non-clinical studies and tests with implied acceptance criteria, but it does not present them in a clear table format with specific quantitative performance results against those criteria. Instead, it lists the types of tests performed.

2. Sample size 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 explicitly stated for each test, but standard ASTM methods often define minimum sample sizes for mechanical testing. For the cadaver surgery, it states "experienced surgeons," implying at least one or more instances.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, but given the company is Medacta International SA (Switzerland) and the testing labs are mentioned (Endolab), the data is presumed to be from their internal testing facilities or contracted labs, likely within Europe. No mention of patient data or clinical data is made, so "retrospective or prospective" is not applicable in the context of this submission. This is a bench test and design validation 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 an AI/ML study involving human expert ground truth. The "ground truth" for these tests is defined by engineering standards (e.g., ASTM) and physical measurements. For the cadaver surgery, it states "experienced surgeons" performed the procedure, but their role was to evaluate the instrument's use in a simulated environment, not to establish a "ground truth" for an AI model.

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

Not applicable. This concept is for resolving disagreements in expert labeling for AI/ML ground truth, which is not relevant here.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a physical pedicle screw system, not an AI/ML software.

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 is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" in this context is based on:

• Engineering Standards: Adherence to established ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for spinal implants and medical bone screws to define acceptable mechanical properties.
• Physical Measurements/Analysis: Geometrical analysis of threads and characterization of mechanical properties (tensile strength, torsion, etc.).
• Risk Analysis: Identification of new risks and verification against predefined acceptance criteria based on this analysis, likely conforming to ISO standards for medical device risk management.
• Biocompatibility Testing: Demonstrated through pyrogenicity assessment reports.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable. As above, no AI/ML device with a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device