Search Results

The Spinal Alignment Solutions Pelvic Incidence (PI) Rod System is indicated for the use with Medtronic CD Horizon™ SOLERA™ Spinal System which is intended for posterior, lumbar and sacral fixation in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (DDD - 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, or lordosis), tumor, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion.

The Spinal Alignment Solutions Pelvic Incidence (PI) Rod System consists of pre-bent spinal rods compatible for use with the Medtronic CD Horizon™ SOLERA™ Spinal System. The SAS PI Rod System is manufactured from either titanium alloy or cobalt chrome.

The CD Horizon™ Spinal System consists of a variety of shapes and size of rods, screws, CROSSLINK® Plates, and connecting components which can be rigidly locked into avariety of configurations, with each construct being tailor-made for the individual case.

This looks like a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device, which typically focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than presenting a detailed study of the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria for AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD).

The provided text discusses a "Spinal Alignment Solutions Pelvic Incidence (PI) Rod System," which appears to be a physical medical device (pre-bent spinal rods) intended for use with an existing spinal system (Medtronic CD Horizon™ SOLERA™ Spinal System). It is not a software-based or AI-driven device.

Therefore, the prompt's request for:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth
4. Adjudication method
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

...are not applicable to the content provided. The document describes a traditional medical device submission, where "Performance Testing" refers to mechanical testing (or the absence thereof, as noted in this case, due to substantial equivalence) rather than clinical performance or AI algorithm validation.

The key statement in the document regarding "Performance Testing" is:

"When used with the Medtronic CD Horizon™ SOLERA™ Spinal System the subject SAS PI Rods have the same fundamental scientific technology, indications for use, intended use, materials, manufacturing processes, and levels of attachment as the predicate CD Horizon™ SOLERA™ Spinal System devices. The subject device does not introduce a new worst case condition and therefore, no additional mechanical testing was performed."

This indicates that the clearance was based on the substantial equivalence principle, asserting that the new device is so similar to an already cleared device that no new performance studies (mechanical or otherwise) were deemed necessary by the FDA. The "acceptance criteria" for a traditional mechanical device would typically involve meeting specific mechanical strength or fatigue standards, but these are not detailed here because the pre-bent rods are considered equivalent to the existing predicate rods.

In summary, as the provided text pertains to a physical medical device (spinal rods) and a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence, it does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria, study design, ground truth, or expert involvement typically associated with the validation of AI/SaMD devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ASTRA Spine System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic. lumbar, and sacral spine: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment; fracture; dislocation; scoliosis; spinal tumor; and failed previous fusion (pseudo-arthrosis).

The ASTRA Spine System is also a sacral/iliac screw fixation system of the indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (fracture and/or dislocation), spinal stenosis, deformities (scoliosis, lordosis and/or kyphosis), tumor, and previous failed fusion (pseudo-arthrosis).

When used in a percutaneous, posterior approach with AVANT Spine MIS instrumentation, the ASTRA Spine System is intended for non-cervical pedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation), spinal stenosis, curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, pseudo-arthrosis, and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients . Levels of fixation are for the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the ASTRA Spine System implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat progressive spinal deformities (i.e., scoliosis, or lordosis) including idiopathic scoliosis, neuromuscular scoliosis, and congenital scoliosis. Additionally, the ASTRA Spine System is intended to treat pediatric patients diagnosed with the following conditions:

spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis, fracture caused by tumor and/or trauma, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion. These devices are intended to be used with autograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The subject ASTRA Spine System is top loading, multiple components, posterior system which consists of rods, cannulated and non-cannulated monoaxial, uniplanar and polyaxial screws, hooks, iliac connectors, rod connectors, and cross connectors. Most of the components are available in a variety of sizes to match the patient's anatomy more closely.

The subject ASTRA Spine System includes the pediatric use in the indications and other labeling updates to provide more clarity to the device insert.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for the ASTRA Spine System, which is a medical device. This type of submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials as typically done for new drug applications or certain high-risk medical devices.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or multi-reader multi-case studies.

Here's why and what the document does describe:

• Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance: This section is explicitly missing because the submission is not focused on proving the device meets specific performance criteria through new studies. Instead, it argues that the device's design, materials, and function are similar enough to existing, legally marketed predicate devices to be considered substantially equivalent.
• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. No new test set in this context.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No new ground truth establishment study.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No. The document explicitly states "No clinical studies were performed in support of this submission."
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical spinal implant system, not a software algorithm.
• The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. No training set for an algorithm.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

What the document does state regarding testing:

• Non-clinical Test Summary: "Non-clinical tests were not performed in support of this submission." This means no new bench testing or material testing data was submitted for this particular 510(k). The assumption is that the materials and design are already established as safe and effective by the predicate devices they are referencing.
• Clinical Test Summary: "No clinical studies were performed in support of this submission." This further reinforces that no human studies were conducted for this specific submission to prove performance or safety.

In summary, for a 510(k) premarket notification like this one, the "proof" the device meets acceptance criteria is primarily based on its substantial equivalence to already cleared predicate devices, meaning it shares similar technological characteristics and indications for use, and does not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device