Search Results

The CarboClear Cervical Cage System is indicated for intervertebral body fusion procedures of the cervical spine in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at levels C2 – T1. DDD is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies.

The implants are to be implanted via an open, anterior approach and packed with autograft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft.

This device is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation systems that have been cleared for use in the cervical spine.

Patients should receive at least six (6) weeks of non-operative treatment with the CarboClear Cervical Cage System.

The CarboClear Cervical Vertebral Body Replacement (VBR) System Spacers are vertebral body replacement devices intended for use in the cervical spine (C2 - T1).

The CarboClear Cervical VBR devices are intended for use in skeletally mature patients to replace a diseased or damaged vertebral body caused by tumor, fracture, or osteomyelitis, or for reconstruction following corpectomy performed to achieve decompression of the spinal cord and neural tissues in cervical degenerative disorders. The spacers are intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage tumors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion, with bone graft used at the surgeon's discretion.

The devices are intended to be used with supplemental internal spinal fixation systems that have been labeled for use in the cervical spine (i.e., posterior screw and rod systems, and anterior plate systems).

When used at more than two levels, supplemental fixation should include posterior fixation. The use of allograft or autograft with the CarboClear Cervical VBR device is optional.

1. CarboClear Cervical Cage System is composed of implants of various sizes, and of instruments. The CarboClear Cervical Cage is made of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK), with titanium alloy endplates.

2. The CarboClear Cervical VBR System is composed of implants (spacers) in various sizes, and of instruments. The CarboClear Cervical VBR spacers are made of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK), with titanium alloy endplates.

This appears to be a review of a 510(k) premarket notification for two spinal implant systems: the CarboClear® Cervical Cage System and the CarboClear® Cervical VBR System. This document does not describe a study that uses a test set, experts, or ground truth to evaluate device performance against acceptance criteria in the manner you are asking about for AI/software devices.

Instead, this is a regulatory document addressing the substantial equivalence of medical devices, primarily based on engineering and material performance testing rather than clinical efficacy studies in the AI/ML context.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them because the provided text does not contain that type of study.

Here's why and what kind of information is present:

• Type of Device: These are physical medical implants (cages and vertebral body replacement systems for the cervical spine), not AI/software.
• Regulatory Pathway: A 510(k) submission primarily demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device already on the market, meaning it's as safe and effective as the existing device. It does not typically require new clinical effectiveness trials in the way a PMA (Pre-Market Approval) or studies for novel AI algorithms might.
• Performance Data: The document mentions "Performance Data" which refers to benchtop mechanical testing according to ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards. This is to ensure the implant's structural integrity, durability, and resistance to wear are comparable to predicate devices.

Specifically, the document mentions these performance tests:

• Static and dynamic axial compression tests (according to ASTM F2077)
• Static and dynamic compression-shear tests (according to ASTM F2077)
• Static and dynamic torsion tests (according to ASTM F2077)
• Wear debris evaluation
• Subsidence test (according to ASTM F2267)

It states: "as applicable to each of the devices, are comparable to those of predicate devices (where applicable), thus demonstrating that the devices are safe and effective for their intended use."

My answers to your specific points, based on the provided text, will reflect this distinction:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with specific numerical targets and the device's performance against them. It broadly states that the performance characteristics are comparable to those of predicate devices. The specific benchmark values would be detailed in the confidential 510(k) submission, not typically in the public summary.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The "test set" here refers to the physical devices undergoing mechanical testing, not a dataset of patient information. The provenance is from benchtop testing, not clinical data, and the sample size for mechanical tests would typically refer to the number of implants tested, which is not detailed in this summary.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This device does not use an "expert ground truth" in the AI/ML sense. Mechanical tests are performed by engineers and technicians according to standardized protocols.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. This refers to consensus building among experts for labeling data, which is not relevant for 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: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used: For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is adherence to the specified ASTM standards and comparable performance to predicate devices demonstrated through physical measurements. This is not "expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data."

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory approval letter for physical medical implants based on engineering and material performance testing, not an AI/ML device study. Therefore, most of your questions, which are framed for AI/ML device evaluation, are not applicable here.

Ask a specific question about this device