Search Results

The ISOBAR Spinal 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: degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment; fracture; dislocation; scoliosis; spinal tumor; and failed previous fusion.

As a pedicle screw system, the ISOBAR Spinal 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 solid fusion.

The Semi-Rigid Rod and Dual Dampener Rod should only be used at levels (one and two levels, respectively) that will be fused.

The ISOBAR Spinal System consists of pedicle screws, rigid rods and crosslink members (K990118, K013444, K020245, K031290 and K051063), semi-rigid rods (K991326) and hooks (K013440 & 013447). The Isobar Semi-rigid Dual Dampener Rod is an addition to the ISOBAR Spinal System family. The semi-rigid rod allows a very small amount of compression, torsion and bending. The components in this submission are fabricated from Ti6A14V alloy, conforming to ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3, which is known to be biocompatible.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the "ISOBAR Spinal System." It details the device's indications for use, description, and states its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the specific information required to answer your questions regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, or grand truth establishment for performance evaluation.

Here's an explanation of why the requested information is not present in the given document:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: The document only states that "Testing performed indicates the ISOBAR Spinal System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices." It does not provide specific acceptance criteria (e.g., specific thresholds for mechanical strength, fatigue life) or the quantitative results of the tests performed against such criteria.
• Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance: This document is a regulatory submission for a spinal implant system. Performance testing for such devices typically involves benchtop mechanical testing (e.g., fatigue, static strength), not studies on human data or medical images. Therefore, concepts like "test set," "data provenance," or "country of origin of the data" in the context of medical imaging or clinical study data do not apply here. The "sample size" would refer to the number of devices or components tested mechanically, which is not disclosed.
• Number of Experts and Qualifications: As the evaluation is based on mechanical performance and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, there isn't a need for medical experts to establish "ground truth" or to adjudicate observations in the way they would for, say, an AI-powered diagnostic device analyzing medical images.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable for a mechanical device substantial equivalence submission.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable. This type of study is used for diagnostic devices, particularly those involving human interpretation of medical data, to assess how a new technology (like AI) affects reader performance.
• Standalone Performance: While the device is "standalone" in the sense that it's an implantable device, the concept of "algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance" is typically relevant to AI/ML software devices.
• Type of Ground Truth: The "ground truth" for a spinal implant system's performance would generally be established by adherence to recognized ASTM or ISO standards for mechanical testing (e.g., fatigue strength, pull-out strength). The document only mentions conformity to ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3 for material properties, but not specific performance test standards or their results.
• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This pertains to AI/ML models.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) summary primarily focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on indications for use, design, function, and materials, rather than detailed performance study results against specific acceptance criteria. For mechanical devices like spinal implants, "performance standards" typically refer to adherence to recognized test methods and successful completion of those tests, rather than clinical studies with human participants. The document indicates that testing was performed to show substantial equivalence, but it does not elaborate on the specific tests, their results, or the acceptance criteria used.

Ask a specific question about this device