Search Results

The Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS) is intended to help provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the lumbar and/or sacral spine, specifically as follows:

When used as a pedicle screw fixation system of the posterior lumbar spine in skeletally mature patients, the SLPSS is indicated for one or more of the following: (1) degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment. (2) fracture, (3) dislocation, (4) spinal tumor, and/or (5) failed previous fusion (pseudarthrosis).

In addition, when used as a pedicle screw fixation system, the SLPSS is indicated for skeletally mature patients: (a) having severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the fifth lumbar-first sacral (L5-S1) vertebral joint; (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.

The Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS) is also intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of the spinal segments of the lumbar and sacral spine as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis other than either severe spondylolisthesis (grades 3 and 4) at L5-S1 or degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurologic impairment.

The Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System is comprised of a variety of pedicle screws sizes, couplers, a ball swivel, rods and locking nuts that can be uniquely fitted for each individual case. All implantable components are manufactured from medical grade titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V-Eli).

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS). It describes the device, its indications for use, and how it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that specifically proves the device meets such criteria.

Instead, the document states:

"The pre-clinical testing performed indicated that the Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices."

This implies that the device's performance was compared to existing, legally marketed devices (predicates) rather than against specific, predefined acceptance criteria through a standalone clinical or performance study with detailed metrics. The regulatory pathway chosen, a 510(k), relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, which often involves comparing technical characteristics and performance data to show that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate.

Therefore, for your request, the following information is largely not present in the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: No specific acceptance criteria or performance metrics are listed.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not mentioned.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as this is a surgical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable for a surgical implant.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable, as it's not a diagnostic device.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned.

Summary of available information:

• Device Name: Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System (SLPSS)
• Regulatory Pathway: 510(k) Premarket Notification (K072116)
• Claim of Performance: "The pre-clinical testing performed indicated that the Savannah Lumbar Percutaneous Stabilization System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices."
• Predicate Devices Listed:
  • Synthes USS Pedicle Screw System (K022949, K010108, K010658, K994121, K982987)
  • DePuy Moss Miami Spinal System (K022623, K983583, K964024, K955348, K933881)
  • U&I Optima Spinal System (K031585)
  • Stryker Spine Xia Spinal System (K001319, K984251, K951725)
• Nature of Testing: "Pre-clinical testing" was performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but details of this testing (e.g., in-vitro, mechanical, benchtop) are not provided in this summary.

Conclusion:

The provided document relies on showing substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on pre-clinical testing, rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria as you've requested for a device that might involve diagnostic performance or AI. Therefore, most of the detailed information you are seeking is not available in this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Xia® 4.5 Spinal System is intended for anterior/anterolateral and posterior, noncervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (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, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, pseudoarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

The Stryker Spine DIAPASON™ Spinal System, Opus™ Spinal System and XIA® Spinal System can be linked to the XIA® 4.5 Spinal System via the rod-to-rod connector.

The Stryker Spine Xia® 4.5 Spinal System is comprised of Ø 4.5 mm rods, Polyaxial and Monoaxial bone screws, Blockers, Hooks, Dual Staples, and Connectors. The components are available in a variety of diameters and lengths in order to accommodate patient anatomy and are fabricated from titanium alloy. The implants are provided non-sterile and are used for either posterior or anterolateral non-cervical spinal fixation.

This submission is intended to address a line extension to Xia " 4.5 Spinal System. The line extension includes:

• A new size dual staple component in both a rostral and a caudal configuration.
• A new polyaxial cross connector in sizes small, medium, large, and extra large, and
• A new longitudinal rod-to-rod connector to join a Ø 4.5 mm rod from the Xia" 4.5 ■ Spinal System to a Ø 6.0 mm rod from the Xia® Spinal System (K013688, K984251), DIAPASON The Spinal System (K951725), and OPUS "M Spinal System (K993402 & K030369).

This submission describes a line extension to an existing spinal system, not a device that would typically involve acceptance criteria and a study to prove performance in the way an AI/ML diagnostic device would.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (such as sample size for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone performance studies) are not applicable to this type of device (a spinal fixation system).

Here's an interpretation based on the provided document and the nature of the device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Not Applicable (N/A): This is a mechanical device, not typically evaluated with "test sets" of data in the sense of AI/ML or diagnostic devices. The "test set" would consist of samples of the components for mechanical testing.
• Provenance: This information is not detailed in the summary, but given it's a medical device manufacturer, it would typically be internal testing performed by Stryker Spine.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Not Applicable (N/A): No "ground truth" in the diagnostic or AI sense is established for this type of device. Performance is determined by engineering specifications and mechanical testing standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable (N/A): Adjudication methods are relevant for subjective evaluations, typically in diagnostic or AI studies. For mechanical testing, results are typically quantitative and compared against predefined engineering standards.

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 (N/A): This is for a spinal fixation system, not an AI/ML diagnostic and does not involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

• Not Applicable (N/A): This is for a spinal fixation system, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable (N/A): For mechanical devices like this, the "ground truth" is defined by engineering specifications, material properties, and performance standards established through industry-recognized mechanical testing (e.g., fatigue, strength, torsional stability). The regulatory body (FDA) assesses if these tests demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable (N/A): No "training set" in the AI/ML sense is used for this device.

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

• Not Applicable (N/A): No "ground truth" or "training set" as understood in AI/ML is relevant for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device