Search Results

The Active "10 Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for the treatment of the cervical spine in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous and/or allogenic bone graft. The implants are attached to the anterior cervical spine (C2-11) with removal of the implants after the attainment of a solid fusion mass. The Active ™ Anterior Cervical Plate System is intended for use under the following indications:

· Degenerative disease (DDD) (defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies)

• · Spondylolisthesis
• · Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation)
• · Spinal stenosis
• · Deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis)

• Tumor

• Pseudoarthrosis

• · Failed previous fusion

The Active " Anterior Cervical Plate System is a fixation system designed to allow for settling of the bone graft during fusion. Plates are provided in various lengths to accommodate fusions from 1 to 4 Ievels. Fixed and variable angle locking unicortical screws are provided in lengths of 12, 14, 16, and 18mm and diameters of 4mm and 4.5mm.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the "Active Anterior Cervical Plate System" (K073500), a medical device intended for spinal fixation. This submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices, primarily through mechanical performance testing and comparison of technological characteristics.

Here's an analysis based on your requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not specify a separate "test set" in the context of clinical data or patient samples. The evaluation of this device is based on mechanical performance attributes per ASTM F1717. For such testing, the "sample size" would refer to the number of devices or components tested. This information is not provided in the given text.

Similarly, the data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable as the study described is a mechanical engineering test, not a clinical study involving human subjects or their data.

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

This information is not applicable. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing is typically established by the specifications of the ASTM F1717 standard and the results of the physical tests themselves. It does not involve human expert consensus in the way clinical studies do.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable for mechanical performance testing. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are used in clinical studies where human interpretation or consensus is required to establish ground truth or resolve discrepancies in evaluations.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

This information is not applicable. The submission describes a spinal fixation system, which is a physical implant, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance is irrelevant to this device.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical implant, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's evaluation is primarily mechanical performance standards (ASTM F1717). The device's performance was compared to existing predicate devices based on these standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as the evaluation is based on mechanical performance testing, not a machine learning model that requires a "training set."

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

This is not applicable for the same reasons as #8.

Summary of the Study and Device Performance:

The study described for the Active Anterior Cervical Plate System is largely a technical and mechanical performance evaluation to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The primary "study" involved:

• Comparison of Technological Characteristics: The device's features (augmenting stability, segmented plate for screw translation, use of titanium alloys, compression application) were compared and found to be substantially equivalent to features present in various predicate devices.
• Mechanical Testing per ASTM F1717: The device underwent mechanical performance testing according to the ASTM F1717 standard. The results of this testing demonstrated that its mechanical attributes were "substantially equivalent" to those of the predicate devices.

The FDA's review concluded that the device is substantially equivalent to predicate devices for its stated indications for use, primarily based on these comparative analyses and mechanical testing. No clinical studies with human participants, expert consensus for diagnosis, or AI performance evaluations are mentioned in this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior screw fixation at the vertebral bodies of the cervical spine (C2-C7). The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is indicated for use in temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of cervical spinal fusions in patients with degenerative disc disease (as defined by neck pain in discogenic origin of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, deformity (defined as kyphosis, and scoliosis), trauma (including fractures), tumors, pseudoarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusions.

This device is not approved for screw attachment to the posterior elements (pedicles) of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine. The device is intended for anterior cervical intervertebral body fusions only.

The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is comprised of an assortment of titanium alloy plates and screws that act to stabilize the spine during the intervertebral fusion process. The Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is manufactured from wrought Ti-6A1-4V in accordance with ISO 5832-3.

The provided text describes a medical device, the "Valeo™ Cervical Plate System," and its 510(k) clearance by the FDA. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, a specific study proving the device meets acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert involvement, adjudication methods, or direct performance metrics for the device itself.

Instead, the document states:

• Performance Standards: "Testing performed on this device indicates that the Valeo™ Cervical Plate System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices. ASTM F1717 performance standards were adhered to and all applicable requirements were met."

This indicates that the device's substantial equivalence was established by demonstrating adherence to a recognized ASTM standard (F1717) and by comparison to existing predicate devices, rather than through a clinical study that measures specific acceptance criteria against reported device performance, as would be expected for an AI/CADe device.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the specific details outlined (points 1-9) because the provided text does not contain that type of information for this device submission. The device is a physical spinal fixation system, not an AI/CADe system, and its clearance relies on substantial equivalence and adherence to engineering standards for medical implants.

Ask a specific question about this device

The VERTEBRON SCP™ Cervical Plate System is intended for anterior interbody fixation of the cervical spine. The system is indicated for use in the temporary stabilization of the anterior spine during the development of cervical spine fusions in patients with degenerative disc disease (as defined by neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), trauma (including fractures), tumors, deformity (defined as kyphosis, lordosis, or scoliosis), pseudoarthriosis, and/or failed previous fusions. The SCP™ Cervical Plate System can be implanted in the sub-axial cervical spine from C3 through C7 levels.

The Reduced Stature VERTEBRON SCP™ Cervical Plate System is comprised of non-sterile, single-use, titanium alloy components. The VERTEBRON SCP™ Cervical Plate System attaches to the vertebral body by means of self tapping and self drilling cervical screws. This system's design is intended to stabilize the spinal operative site during the fusion process of a bone graft in the disc space. This submission adds a reduced stature cervical plate.

The provided text describes a medical device, the VERTEBRON SCP™ Cervical Plate System, and its clearance process with the FDA. However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of device performance metrics typically associated with AI/ML algorithms (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy).

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving specific performance against quantitative acceptance criteria through a clinical study. The "study" mentioned refers to mechanical testing for equivalence, not a clinical performance study with human subjects, ground truth, or expert readers.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document, and the following answers reflect that absence.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study Information

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable (No test set for clinical performance is described).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable (No clinical data provenance is described). The study mentioned is mechanical testing.

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

• Not applicable (No experts for establishing ground truth are mentioned as this is not a study assessing diagnostic or clinical performance against ground truth).

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable (No adjudication method is mentioned).

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a cervical plate system, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

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

• Not applicable. The device is a physical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Not applicable. The document describes mechanical testing for substantial equivalence, not a study requiring clinical or diagnostic ground truth. The "ground truth" for the mechanical testing would be the physical properties and performance of the device under specific loads, as compared to established standards (ASTM F1717) and predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable (No training set is mentioned as this device is not an AI/ML product).

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

• Not applicable (No training set or associated ground truth establishment is mentioned).

Ask a specific question about this device