Search Results

The Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System, with or without MIS instrumentation, is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), spinal tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

When used for posterior, non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System implants are indicated as an adjunct to treat progressive spinal deformities (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, or lordosis) including idiopathic scoliosis, neuromuscular scoliosis, and congenital scoliosis. Additionally, the Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System is intent patients diagnosed with: spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis, fracture caused by tumor and/or trauma, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion. This system is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatic pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System is a top loading, multiple component, posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods, and cross links. All the components are available in a variety of sizes to match more closely the patient's anatomy

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices, primarily through non-clinical mechanical testing, rather than a clinical study involving human patients or complex AI algorithms. Therefore, much of the information requested about acceptance criteria for AI/ML performance, sample sizes for test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment is not applicable to this specific submission.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The "acceptance criteria" presented in this submission are not expressed as specific performance metrics and thresholds (e.g., accuracy > X%, AUC > Y%) typical for AI/ML devices. Instead, the acceptance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through various comparisons, primarily mechanical testing.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of human data or image data for AI/ML. The "test set" here refers to the Black Diamond Pedicle Screw System components themselves undergoing non-clinical mechanical testing. The specific number of physical components tested is not detailed, but standard mechanical testing involves multiple samples to ensure statistical validity.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of human data. The "data" comes from mechanical testing of the device components.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications:

Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering standards and measurements, not human expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method:

Not applicable.

5. MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study:

Not applicable. No clinical studies involving human readers or AI assistance were performed.

6. Standalone Performance Study:

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm. The performance evaluation is based on mechanical testing of the device itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

Ground truth for this submission is based on engineering standards and direct physical measurements derived from non-clinical mechanical testing (e.g., static and dynamic compression per ASTM F1717, static torsion per ASTM F1717).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML model and does not have a "training set" in that context.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The APEX-DL Spine System with APEX Spine System Components is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization 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; kyphosis; spinal tumor; and failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis).

The APEX-DL Spine System with APEX Spine System Components is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft, with the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (levels of pedicle screw fixation are L3 to S1), and for whom the device is intended to be removed after solid fusion is attained.

The APEX-DL Spine System with APEX Spine System Components is also a sacraliliac screw fixation system of the non-cervical spine 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 AIM MIS instrumentation, the APEX-DL Spine System with APEX Spine System Components is intended for non-cervical pedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as 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, pseudoarthrosis, 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 pediatic patients, the APEX-DL Spine System implants with APEX Spine System Components are indicated as an adjunct to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The APEX DL Spine System is intended to be used with autograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The APEX-DL Spine System includes Monoaxial, Uniplanar, and Polyaxial Double Lead Thread Screws in the cannulated and non-cannulated versions and in regular and reduction (extended tab) versions. APEX-DL Spine System is a low profile thoracolumbar implant for use with wide range of patient statures. The APEX-DL Spine System Polyaxial screws feature a friction head, which is designed to provide precise reduction mechanism as a result of easier rod capturing. The APEX-DL Spine System also includes Lordosed Percutaneous Rods. The APEX-DL Spine System is compatible with the APEX Spine System 5.5mm and 6.0mm rods, hooks, side-by-side connectors, iliac connectors, cross connectors, and washers.

The APEX-DL Spine System is a spinal implant for immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments. The document indicates that no clinical studies were performed. The acceptance criteria and testing are based on non-clinical (mechanical) tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined as demonstrating mechanical properties that are "equal or higher" than the identified predicate devices, based on the testing standards.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the provided document. For each of the ASTM tests listed, a specific number of samples (implants/constructs) would have been used, but this detail is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The data is from non-clinical (mechanical) testing conducted presumably by SpineCraft, LLC or a contracted testing facility. It is not patient or human data; therefore, country of origin or retrospective/prospective does not apply in the typical sense.

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

Not applicable. This is a non-clinical, mechanical testing study, not a study requiring expert clinical assessment or ground truth establishment in a medical imaging or diagnostic context. The "ground truth" here is the objective measurement of mechanical properties according to established ASTM standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This is a non-clinical, mechanical testing study. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for expert consensus in clinical or imaging studies.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No. An MRMC study is a clinical study involving multiple human readers interpreting medical cases. The provided document explicitly states, "No clinical studies were performed."

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This device is a physical spinal implant, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is based on objective mechanical measurements according to recognized industry standards (ASTM F1717 and ASTM F1798). The performance is then compared to "predicate systems" as a benchmark for substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device undergoing mechanical testing, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As described in point 8, there is no "training set" for this type of device evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ASTRA 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 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 indicated for pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft, with the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (levels of pedicle screw fixation are L3 to S1), and for whom the device is intended to be removed after solid fusion is attained.

The ASTRA System is also a sacral/iliac screw fixation system of the non-cervical spine indicated for degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radies), 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 disease (defined as 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, kyphosis), tumor, pseudo-arthrosis, and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients . Levels of fixation are for the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The ASTRA Spine System is a top loading, multiple component, posterior spinal fixation 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 more closely match the patient's anatomy.

Materials:
Titanium alloy
CoCr alloy

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the ASTRA Spine System, focusing on acceptance criteria and study details.

Important Note: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Spine System), not an AI/ML device. Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI/ML specific studies (like sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable to this type of medical device submission. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical (mechanical) testing.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this medical device, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly defined by performance equivalence to predicate devices in standardized mechanical tests. The "reported device performance" is a statement of comparative equivalence.

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

This is a physical device, and the "test set" refers to the tested device components.

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of components tested for each test, but standard engineering practices for medical device testing would involve a sufficient number (e.g., n=5 or n=10 per test) to ensure statistical significance, though the exact numbers are not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical, meaning they were conducted in a laboratory setting. There is no patient data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) since no human data was used for these mechanical tests.

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

• Not Applicable. For mechanical testing of a physical device, ground truth is established by standardized testing protocols (e.g., ASTM standards) and measured physical properties, not by expert consensus on clinical data. Engineers and lab technicians perform and analyze the tests according to these standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. There is no adjudication in the sense of reconciling human expert opinions for clinical images or data. The results of mechanical tests are objective measurements against defined criteria.

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 a physical spinal implant, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device. No MRMC studies were performed.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• Not Applicable. This is a physical spinal implant; there is no algorithm or standalone performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Mechanical Test Standards and Predicate Device Performance: The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on the established performance characteristics and safety profiles of legally marketed predicate devices, as defined by FDA regulations for substantial equivalence, and adherence to relevant ASTM standards (ASTM F1717 and ASTM F1798).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device; there is no AI/ML model or "training set" in the context of machine learning. The device design and materials are based on engineering principles and knowledge of predicate devices.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/ML model, this question is not relevant. The "ground truth" for developing the physical device is based on established biomechanical and medical understanding of spinal fixation and the performance of existing, cleared devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CosmoLock Pedicle Screw 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, deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, and/or lordosis), spinal tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

The CosmoLock Pedicle Screw System is also intended for non-cervical pedicle screw fixation for the following indications: severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebra 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. It is also intended for the following indications: trauma (i.e. fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, and/or lordosis), tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion.

The CosmoLock Pedicle Screw System is a top loading, multiple component, posterior spinal fixation system which consists of pedicle screws, rods and cross links. All of the components are available in a variety of sizes to match more closely the patient's anatomy.

Materials:

Ti-6Al-4V per ASTM F136 CoCr per ASTM F1537

This document is a 510(k) Summary for the CosmoLock Pedicle Screw System. It describes the device and its intended use and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the detailed information needed to answer many of your questions, as it explicitly states that no clinical studies were performed.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

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

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

This information is not provided in the document. The studies mentioned are non-clinical (mechanical tests), and details about sample sizes for these tests are not specified.

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)

This information is not applicable/provided. No clinical studies were performed, and therefore no ground truth established by experts is relevant to the data presented.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. 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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document states, "No clinical studies were performed."

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a mechanical pedicle screw system, not an AI or algorithm-based device. No standalone performance study in this context was performed.

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

The ground truth for the non-clinical tests would be the established mechanical testing standards (ASTM F1717) and the performance of the predicate devices. There is no biological or expert-defined "ground truth" in the typical medical imaging/diagnosis sense, as this is a mechanical implant.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/provided. No clinical studies were performed, and there is no mention of an algorithm or AI requiring a training set.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. No training set or associated ground truth was established, as no clinical studies or AI development are described. The focus is on demonstrating mechanical equivalence to predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Lancer Pedicle Screw 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: fracture, dislocation, failed previous fusion (pseudoarthrosis), 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 Lancer 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.

The Lancer Pedicle Screw System is comprised of polyaxial pedicle screws, rods and crosslinks. The system consists of a variety of color coded top loading pedicle screws. The rods are Ø5.5mm and are available in straight and pre-lordosed (curved) configurations. The cross linkage assemblies fit over the rods to supply torsional stability to the construct.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Lancer Pedicle Screw System, a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials. Therefore, the information you're asking for, which is typical for AI/ML device evaluations or drug trials (e.g., acceptance criteria tables with performance, sample sizes for test/training sets in an AI context, expert ground truth establishment for AI, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, and training data details), is largely not applicable to this specific document.

However, I can extract the relevant "acceptance criteria" information in the context of what is provided in a 510(k) for a device like this, which primarily relates to non-clinical performance and substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

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

For a pedicle screw system, "acceptance criteria" are not reported as clinical performance metrics (like sensitivity/specificity for an AI model). Instead, acceptance criteria are met by demonstrating a device's substantial equivalence to predicate devices in terms of intended use, design, materials, and mechanical strength, along with meeting certain recognized standards for mechanical testing.

• Static compression bending
• Static torsion
• Dynamic compression bending |

Study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria:

The study proving the device meets its "acceptance criteria" (i.e., demonstrates substantial equivalence and mechanical performance) is the non-clinical testing conducted in accordance with ASTM F1717. The document states:

• "The Lancer Pedicle Screw System is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices in terms of indications for use, design, material, function and strength."
• "The following tests were conducted per ASTM F1717: Static compression bending, Static torsion, Dynamic compression bending."

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 for Test Set: This concept doesn't apply to this 510(k) in the way it would for an AI/ML device or clinical trial. The "test set" here refers to the actual physical devices (Lancer Pedicle Screw System components) that underwent mechanical testing. The specific number of physical samples tested is not reported in this summary, but device manufacturers typically test multiple units to meet ASTM F1717 standards.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data provenance. The data comes from in-vitro mechanical testing performed on the device components.

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)

• This question is not applicable. There is no "ground truth" in the clinical AI sense for this device as no clinical data or image interpretation by experts was involved for regulatory submission. Mechanical tests are typically performed by engineers/technicians in a laboratory setting according to established standards.

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

• This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical endpoints, especially in situations involving human interpretation or subjective assessments. Mechanical tests are objective measurements.

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

• This question is not applicable. An MRMC study is a type of clinical study used to evaluate diagnostic imaging systems or AI devices. The Lancer Pedicle Screw System is a physical implant, not an imaging or diagnostic device.

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

• This question is not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" for the mechanical performance of the device is defined by the acceptance criteria within the ASTM F1717 standard (e.g., minimum loads, fatigue life, etc.). The device passes if it meets or exceeds these pre-defined mechanical benchmarks, which are typically derived from historical data on predicate devices and clinical expectations for device durability.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" for physical mechanical devices in the context of this 510(k). The device's design and manufacturing process are informed by engineering principles and prior device knowledge, but not by a data-driven "training" process in the AI sense.

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

• This question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

When used as a posterior, noncervical hook, and/or sacral/iliac screw fixation system, or as an anterior, thoracic/lumbar screw fixation system, the Moss Miami Spinal system is intended to treat scoliosis, kyphosis and lordosis, fracture, loss of stability due to tumor, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, a previously failed fusion surgery or degenerative disc disease (i.e. discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies).

When used as a pedicle screw fixation system of the noncervical spine in skeletally mature patients, the Moss Miami Spinal system is indicated for degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment, fracture, dislocation, scoliosis, kyphosis, spinal tumor, and failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

The Moss Miami spinal system is also indicated for pedicle screw fixation in skeletally mature patients with severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) at the L5-S1 vertebral joint, having fusions with autogenous bone graft, with the device fixed or attached to the lumbar and sacral spine (levels of pedicle screw fixation are L3 -S1), and for whom the device system is intended to be removed after solid fusion is attained.

The Moss Miami 6.35mm Polyaxial screws described in this submission are modifications of the previously cleared Moss Miami Polyaxial Screws. The head portion of the screw has been increased to allow the placement of a 6.35mm (1/4 inch) rod. The modified screws are available in the same thread diameters and lengths as the existing screws, namely 6.0mm, 7.0mm, and 8.0mm diameters and 30mm to 55mm lengths.

The 6.35mm polyaxial screws are manufactured from either implant grade titanium alloy or stainless steel that conform to ASTM standards F-136 and F-138, respectively.

The provided text describes specific details about a medical device (Moss Miami 6.35mm Polyaxial Screw) that has received 510(k) clearance, but it does not contain information related to software or AI-based devices. Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details (sample sizes, ground truth, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance), and training set information is not available in the provided text.

The document focuses on the mechanical and material characteristics of a pedicle screw modification and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. It states:

• Device Description: The Moss Miami 6.35mm Polyaxial screws are modifications of previously cleared Moss Miami Polyaxial Screws. The head portion has been increased to allow for a 6.35mm (1/4 inch) rod. They come in 6.0mm, 7.0mm, and 8.0mm diameters and 30mm to 55mm lengths, made from implant-grade titanium alloy or stainless steel conforming to ASTM standards F-136 and F-138 respectively.
• Testing: "Testing was presented to evaluate the performance characteristics of the modified polyaxial screws. Specific tests of the construct included static tests in compression bending and torsion, and fatigue testing in compression bending."
• Substantial Equivalence Basis: "The substantial equivalence of the modified Polyaxial screws is based on an equivalence in intended use, materials, design, and relative indications and contraindications to the existing Moss Miami Polyaxial Screw System."

Without information on the specific acceptance criteria for these mechanical tests (e.g., minimum loads, cycles to failure, maximum deformation), or the detailed results of these tests, it's impossible to fill out the requested table or answer most of the questions. The document only states that "testing was presented to evaluate the performance characteristics," implying the data was submitted to the FDA for review, but the actual data and acceptance criteria are not included in this summary.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and detailed study information as it pertains to AI/software performance acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device