Search Results

The TIGER" Spine System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

When used as a pedicle screw system, the TIGER™ Spine System is intended for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebrae in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

The TIGER™ Spine System is comprised of polyaxial pedicle screws, rods and crosslinks. The TIGER™ Spine System can be used for single or multiple level fixations. The pedicle screws are available in various lengths and diameters. The rods are available in straight and pre-iordosed (curved) configurations. The system has variable length cross connectors.

The provided text describes the TIGER™ Spine System, a pedicle screw system, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of the requested AI/medical device performance evaluation framework.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (TIGER™ Spine System), which is a premarket submission made to the FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This process typically relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than meeting pre-defined performance acceptance criteria in the way an AI algorithm might have.

Here's a breakdown of why many of your requested points cannot be answered from the provided text:

• Acceptance Criteria & Device Performance: The document outlines the device's characteristics and compares them to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence. It does not define performance metrics, thresholds, or acceptance criteria in the sense of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or other performance measures that would be relevant for an AI device.
  • The "performance" described is in terms of the device's physical properties, materials, and intended function, not diagnostic or predictive performance.
• Study Details (Sample Size, Data Provenance, Ground Truth, Experts, Adjudication, MRMC, Standalone): The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed." This means there are no details about a test set, training set, experts, ground truth, or any other elements related to performance evaluation studies for an AI/diagnostic device.
• Training Set Sample Size & Ground Truth: Since no clinical studies were performed, there is no mention of a training set or how ground truth for such a set would have been established.

Summary based on the provided document:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly defined in terms of measurable performance thresholds for a diagnostic device. The acceptance criteria for its 510(k) approval are based on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices in terms of intended use, design, materials, and function.
   • Reported Device Performance: No quantitative performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity) are reported. The performance described is its function as a posterior pedicle screw system for temporary stabilization.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: None, as no clinical studies were performed.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: None, as no clinical studies were performed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: None, as no clinical studies were performed.

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, as this is a physical spinal implant system, not an AI diagnostic device, and no clinical studies were performed.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is a physical spinal implant system.

7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable, as no clinical studies requiring ground truth for performance evaluation were performed.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as no clinical studies were performed.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as no clinical studies were performed.

What the document does provide regarding "performance" and "studies":

• Non-clinical Test Summary: Mentions "Static and dynamic compression and static torsion per ASTM F1717." These are mechanical tests to ensure the physical integrity and strength of the implant, not performance as a diagnostic or AI device. The results of these tests (e.g., meeting ASTM F1717 standards) would be the "performance" data, but specific numerical outcomes are not detailed in this summary.
• Conclusion: States that the TIGER™ Spine System is "substantially equivalent to the predicate devices in terms of indications for use, design, material, and function." This "substantial equivalence" is the primary basis for its acceptance (510(k) clearance).

In essence, the provided document is for a traditional medical device (implant) and not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, therefore the requested information fields related to AI performance evaluation are not relevant or present in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: fracture, dislocation, failed previous fusion {pseudoarthrosis}, spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, spinal deformations such as scoliosis or kyphosis and loss of stability due to tumors.

When used as a pedicle screw system, the Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System is intended for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grade 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebrae in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft having implants attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 to sacrum) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion.

As a posterior pedicle screw system designed for temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of spinal fusion, the Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System is comprised of polyaxial pedicle screws, rods, and crosslinks. The S 100 System can be used for single or multiple level fixations

The screws are a top loading tulip design and are available in multiple diameters and lengths. Reduction screws are available for cases of spondylolisthesis where the short arms of the standard screw are not long enough to engage the rod. The rods are available in straight and pre-lordosed (curved) configurations. The system also has variable and fixed crosslinks.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Renovis S 100 Pedicle Screw System, a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving efficacy through clinical studies that would establish acceptance criteria and device performance in the same way as an AI/ML medical device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to this document. The "acceptance criteria" here refers to demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through mechanical testing and comparison of design and materials.

Here's a breakdown of the information as it relates to the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (as applicable for a 510(k) of this nature)

• Testing per ASTM F1717
• Testing per ASTM F1798
• Component dissociation testing
  The results “were equal or higher than the predicate system” (ZODIAC™ Polyaxial Spinal Fixation, and other predicates for specific components). This indicates the device meets or exceeds the mechanical performance of established similar devices. |

Study Information (Based on the provided K101682 document):

Because this is a 510(k) for a pedicle screw system, the "study" is primarily a non-clinical, mechanical testing comparison to predicate devices, rather than a clinical trial or AI/ML model validation.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of screws, rods, or crosslinks) used for the mechanical tests (ASTM F1717, ASTM F1798, component dissociation testing).
   • Data Provenance: The tests conducted are standard ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards, implying laboratory-based mechanical testing. No geographical origin of the data is specified beyond the company's location (Redlands, CA, USA). The testing is prospective for this device, comparing its new components against existing standards and predicates.

2. 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. For mechanical performance testing of a physical medical device, "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized national/international standards (like ASTM) and comparison to the published properties/performance of legally marketed predicate devices. Expert consensus in the clinical sense is not directly relevant here. The manufacturing and testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

   • Not Applicable. Mechanical testing under ASTM standards typically involves precise measurements and quantitative outcomes. There isn't an "adjudication" process in the sense of resolving disagreements among human observers for image interpretation or diagnosis. The "acceptance" is based on meeting the quantitative performance metrics relative to the predicate devices and applicable standards.

4. 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 device is a pedicle screw system, a physical orthopedic implant. It is not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or assistive technology, so MRMC studies involving human "readers" or AI assistance are irrelevant.

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

   • Not Applicable. As above, this is a physical implant, not an algorithm or software device.

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

   • The "ground truth" for this 510(k) submission is based on established mechanical engineering principles, recognized industry standards (ASTM F1717, F1798), and the performance characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices. The claim of "substantial equivalence" is the central "truth" being established through these comparisons.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a physical medical device like a pedicle screw system. This term is relevant for AI/ML models.

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

   • Not Applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

Non-Pedicle Screw Fixation

When used as an anterior spinal system the Rogozinski Spinal Rod System is intended for the treatement of DDD (degenerative disc disease defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history or radiographic studies), pseudoarthrosis, stenosis, deformities (scollosis, kyphosis), spondylolisthesis, fracture, previous failed fusion, or tumor resection. The Rogozinski Spinal Rod System is limited to non-cervical use.

When used as a posterior, non-pedicle spinal system (consisting of hooks and sacral/iliac screws), the Rogozinski Spinal Rod System is intended for the treatement of DDD (degenerative disc disease defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history or radiographic studies), pseudoarthrosis, deformities (scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis), spondylolisthesis, fracture, previous failed fusion, or tumor resection. The Rogozinski Spinal Rod System is limited to non-cervical use.

Pedicle Screw Fixation

When used as a pedicle screw system, in the spine of skeletally mature patients, the Rogozinski Spinal Rod System is indicated for patients: (a) having severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) at the LS-S1 igint: (b) who are receiving fusions using autogenous bone graft only; (c) who are having the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (L3 and below); and (d) who are having the device removed after the development of a solid fusion mass.

In addition, when used as a pedicle screw system, in the non-cervical spine of skeletally mature patients, the Rogozinski Spinal Rod System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments, as an adjunct to fusion, in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The Rogozinski Spinal Rod System consists of stainless steel rods attached to the spinal column through the use of interlaminal hooks and/or screws. Crossbars may be used to connect rods to rods to provide a more rigid construct, as well as screws to rods and hooks to rods.

This is a medical device submission, specifically a Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for the Rogozinski Spinal System (K983904), dated December 22, 1998. This document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or specific study data.

Medical device submissions like this primarily focus on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on design, materials, and intended use. They typically do not include detailed performance studies with acceptance criteria in the way an AI/software device would. The "study" here is more about asserting equivalency to previously cleared devices rather than a performance study measuring metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy against a ground truth.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is what can be extracted based on the nature of this document:

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

• Not applicable / Not present. This document does not describe acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) or report quantitative device performance data against such criteria. The device is a physical spinal fixation system, and its "performance" is generally established through material testing, mechanical testing, and clinical history of predicate devices, not through a statistical study with specific acceptance thresholds for diagnostics.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not applicable / Not present. This document does not detail a "test set" or clinical study data. It is a substantial equivalence submission for a physical implant.

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 / Not present. No ground truth establishment for a test set is described.

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

• Not applicable / Not present. No test set or adjudication process is described.

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 / Not present. This is not an AI/software device.

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

• Not applicable / Not present. This is not an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable / Not present. No ground truth for device performance is defined or used in the context of a "study" here. The "truth" for this device lies in its mechanical properties meeting standards and its clinical use being consistent with predicate devices that have established safety and effectiveness.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable / Not present. This is not a machine learning/AI device, so there is no training set mentioned.

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

• Not applicable / Not present. See point 8.

In summary: The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a spinal implant, focusing on its substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than providing performance metrics from a study that would include acceptance criteria, test sets, or ground truth establishment in the context of diagnostic or AI devices.

Ask a specific question about this device