Search Results

ExcelsiusXR™, when used in conjunction with ExcelsiusHub™ and/or ExcelsiusGPS®, is intended for use as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures to be used by surgeons for navigating and/or guiding compatible surgical instruments in open or percutaneous procedures provided that the required fiducial markers and rigid patient anatomy can be identified on CT scans or fluoroscopy. This system is indicated for the placement of spinal and orthopedic (Sacroiliac, Ulna, and Tibia) bone screws, and interbody fusion devices.

The ExcelsiusXR™ Headset displays 2D stereotactic images and 3D virtual anatomy images, and displays the virtual instrument location in relation to the virtual anatomy to assist in percutaneous visualization and trajectory planning. This headset should not be relied upon solely for absolute positional information and should always be used in conjunction with the primary stereotactic display.

ExcelsiusXR™ is a head-mounted navigation device, or headset, that is used in conjunction with ExcelsiusHub, and ExcelsiusGPS if robotic guidance is desired, as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures in open or percutaneous procedures, and for precisely positioning compatible surgical instruments or implants (screws and interbody devices) during surgery. ExcelsiusXR™ includes hardware and software that enables real-time surgical visualization using radiological patient images (preoperative CT, intraoperative CT, and fluoroscopy), provides tracking and planning capabilities for a series of compatible instruments, and contains hand tracking cameras for manipulation of the head-mounted display by the user. The Headset displays 2D stereotactic images and provides a 3D visual, or virtual image, of the patient anatomy in the lower region. The 2D data and 3D model, along with tracking information, are projected to the surgeon's retina from the transparent near-eye-display Headset, allowing the surgeon to look at the patient and the navigation data at the same time.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for ExcelsiusXR™ describes performance testing in a general manner but does not contain the specific details required to fully address all parts of your request for acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what information is missing based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not provide a specific table with numerical acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics. It generally states that "Verification and validation testing were conducted on ExcelsiusXR™ to confirm that the device meets performance requirements under the indications for use and to ensure safety and efficacy of the system."

It mentions the types of tests performed:

• Non-clinical system, software, and instrument verification and validation – demonstrated compliance with user needs and corresponding design inputs
• Surgical simulations conducted on phantom models
• Qualitative and quantitative validation to confirm intended use and accuracy
• Optical bench testing to evaluate the image quality characteristics of the head mounted display
• Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (compliance with standards)
• Software Verification and Validation Testing (compliance with FDA guidance)

Without specific numeric thresholds or results, a detailed table cannot be created. However, generally, for a navigation system like this, key performance metrics and their associated acceptance criteria would typically include:

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size used for any of the performance tests (e.g., number of phantom models, number of tests, number of unique cases).
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. Phantom studies are typically prospective tests under controlled lab conditions.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• The document does not mention the number of experts used to establish ground truth or their specific qualifications (e.g., "Radiologist with 10 years of experience").
• Given that "surgical simulations conducted on phantom models" were performed, the "ground truth" would likely be established by the physical measurements taken from the phantom and the known ideal trajectory/placement, often assessed by engineers and potentially verified by clinically experienced personnel.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not mention any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing ground truth or evaluating performance. This is generally more relevant for studies involving human interpretation of medical images. For phantom studies, ground truth is typically precisely measured rather than adjudicated in the same way.

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

• The document does not mention a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• There is no information provided on the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance. This type of study would typically be done if the device were primarily an AI-driven diagnostic or interpretative tool, which this navigation system is not. Its primary function is to aid surgical guidance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop) Performance

• The document describes the device as "an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures to be used by surgeons for navigating and/or guiding compatible surgical instruments." It also states "This headset should not be relied upon solely for absolute positional information and should always be used in conjunction with the primary stereotactic display."
• This strongly indicates that the device is intended for human-in-the-loop use, assisting the surgeon.
• While there are "software verification and validation testing" and "surgical simulations on phantom models," these would assess the algorithm's performance within the system context, but the document does not present a standalone, algorithm-only performance metric separate from its intended use as a surgeon's aid. The emphasis is on the system's performance when used by surgeons.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Based on "surgical simulations conducted on phantom models" and "qualitative and quantitative validation," the ground truth was likely established through physical measurements and known anatomical references on the phantom models. This is a form of objective, fabricated ground truth suitable for evaluating a navigation system's precision and accuracy in a controlled environment. It is not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the traditional sense, though expert surgical opinion would guide the design and interpretation of phantom studies.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not provide any information regarding the training set size. The FDA 510(k) summary focuses on the "performance testing" (verification and validation), which relates to the test set that demonstrates the device's capabilities post-development. Information about model training (if applicable for any AI components involved in image processing or tracking) is typically not included in such summaries unless it's a primary AI/ML device where the training data directly impacts the cleared function.

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

• Since no information about a training set is provided, there is no information on how its ground truth was established.

In summary, the 510(k) summary provides a high-level overview of the types of performance tests conducted (phantom models, software V&V, electrical safety), but it lacks the detailed quantitative data, sample sizes, and specific methodologies for ground truth establishment that would be found in a full study report. This level of detail is typically contained in the more comprehensive "Basis for Substantial Equivalence" documentation submitted to the FDA, which is not fully replicated in the public 510(k) summary letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

VERZA™ High Speed Drills are indicated for drilling, burring, removing, and otherwise manipulating hard tissue, bone, bone cement, prosthesis, implant, and other bone related tissue during spinal and orthopedic procedures.

ExcelsiusGPS® is intended for use as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures and for the spatial positioning and orientation of an instrument holder or guide to be used by surgeons for navigating and/or guiding compatible surgical instruments in open or percutaneous procedures provided that the required fiducial markers and rigid patient anatomy can be identified on CT scans or fluoroscopy. The system is indicated for the placement of spinal and orthopedic bone screws and interbody fusion devices.

ExcelsiusHub™ is intended for use as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures to be used by surgeons for navigating compatible surgical instruments in open or percutaneous procedures provided that the required fiducial markers and rigid patient anatomy can be identified on CT scans or fluoroscopy. The system is indicated for the placement of spinal and orthopedic bone screws and interbody fusion devices.

VERZA™ High Speed Drills are electrical drill handpieces/attachments powered by a motor with a control unit and foot pedal, and may be navigated using ExcelsiusGPS® or ExcelsiusHub™. The navigated components are provided nonsterile and are reusable. Burs are provided sterile and are single-use.

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding a medical device called "VERZA™ High Speed Drills". This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for regulatory clearance. It does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your specific questions about acceptance criteria, performance studies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment for an AI/ML-based medical device.

The document mentions that "The navigation and guidance accuracy of VERZA™ High Speed Drills was evaluated using intra-operative imaging and accuracy verification testing. Testing confirmed that accuracy values meet the product requirement specification." However, it does not provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample size used for the test set or data provenance.
• Number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth.
• Adjudication method.
• Information about multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or effect sizes.
• Details about standalone (algorithm-only) performance.
• The type of ground truth used (beyond "accuracy verification testing" and meeting "product requirement specification").
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

This device appears to be a surgical tool (drills) that may be navigated using existing systems (ExcelsiusGPS® or ExcelsiusHub™), rather than a new AI/ML software device that diagnoses or predicts outcomes based on data. Therefore, the types of studies and information you are requesting are not typically found in a 510(k) for this kind of physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device