Search Results

The SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant is intended for use in the non-cervical spine.

When used for anterior/anterolateral and posterior, non-cervical pedicle fixation system, the SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant is intended to provide additional support during fusion using autograft or allograft in Skeletally mature patients in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities:

• · Degenerative disc disease (DDD) (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

When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant implants are indicated as an adjunct to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

The SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant for pediatric use is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant constructs of monoaxial screws, uniplanar screws, polyaxial screws, reduction screws, locking cap set screws, rods, hooks, monoaxial and muttiaxial transverse connectors and associated surgical instruments. The SACICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplants are available in a variety of sizes to accommodate individual patient anatomy and pathology conditions. SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant implants are designed to adapt 5.5mm diameter rods; the implants are manufactured from Ti6A14V alloy and offered in a sterile package option.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant, a medical device for spinal fixation. It details the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and performance data used to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, this document does not describe an AI/ML device or algorithm. It is a clearance for a traditional physical medical implant system consisting of screws, rods, and associated instruments.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, or comparative effectiveness studies for an AI device cannot be extracted from this document, as it pertains to a mechanical spinal implant system.

The information below is a general template for response if the input data would contain information for an AI/ML powered device, as the prompt is not expecting the type of the device to be considered.

This document does not describe an AI/ML powered medical device. It describes a traditional, mechanical spinal implant system (SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM by Osimplant). Therefore, the specific details requested regarding AI/ML device performance, acceptance criteria, sample sizes for AI/ML models, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance are not available in this document.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the mechanical implant system to predicate devices based on:

• Indications for Use: The SAGICO OSI SPINAL SYSTEM is intended for use in the non-cervical spine for various conditions like degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, trauma, spinal stenosis, curvatures, tumor, pseudoarthrosis, and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients. For pediatric patients, it's indicated for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (posterior approach only).
• Technological Characteristics: The device consists of monoaxial screws, uniplanar screws, polyaxial screws, reduction screws, locking cap setscrews, rods, hooks, monoaxial and multiaxial transverse connectors, and associated surgical instruments. Implants are made from Ti6Al4V alloy and designed for 5.5mm diameter rods.
• Performance Data (Non-clinical):
  • ASTM F1717-04: Standard Test Methods for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Vertebrectomy Model (Static Compression Bending Test, Dynamic Compression Bending Test).
  • ASTM F1798-13: Standard Guide for Evaluating the Static and Fatigue Properties of Interconnection Mechanisms and Subassemblies Used in Spinal Arthrodesis Implants (Axial Gripping Test, Axial Torsion Gripping Test, Flexion Extension Static Test).
• Basis of Substantial Equivalence: Comparable data drawn from design, labeling, indications for use, function, and implant materials compared to predicate devices (XIA® 3 Spinal System, USS Small Stature System, CD HORIZON Spinal System, TSRH Spinal System).

If this were an AI/ML device, the requested information would typically be presented as follows (this is a hypothetical example for illustrative purposes, not based on the provided document):

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Hypothetical for an AI/ML device)

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Set (Hypothetical)

• Sample Size: 500 spinal imaging studies (e.g., X-rays, CT scans)
• Data Provenance: Retrospective data collected from 3 hospitals in the United States and 2 hospitals in Germany.

3. Number and Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth (Hypothetical)

• Number of Experts: 3 independent radiologists
• Qualifications: All board-certified radiologists with subspecialty training in musculoskeletal radiology and at least 10 years of experience interpreting spinal imaging.

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set (Hypothetical)

• Adjudication Method: 2+1. Initial assessment by two radiologists. Discrepancies were resolved by a third, senior radiologist.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study (Hypothetical)

• Was an MRMC study done? Yes.
• Effect Size: In the MRMC study, human readers (radiologists) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in fracture detection accuracy (AUC increased by an average of 0.05, p

Ask a specific question about this device

The PASS XS Spinal System is a pedicle screw fixation system intended for 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: degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), spondylolisthesis, tracture or dislocation), deformity or curvature (e.g., scoliosis, and/or lordosis), tumor, spinal stenosis, pseudoarthrosis, or failed previous fusion.

When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the PASS XS Spinal System implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The PASS XS Spinal System is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The PASS XS Spinal System is designed to contribute to the correction and surgical stabilization of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The system consists of pedicle screws, connectors, rods, nuts, and crosslink components. It can be used for single or multiple level fixations. Components are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) that conforms to ASTM F136 and ISO5832-3 and cobaltchromium molybdenum alloy Co-Cr28Mo6 that conforms to ISO 5832-12 and ASTM F1537.

The PASS XS components can be rigidly locked into a variety of configurations, with each construct being tailor-made for the individual case.

The purpose of this submission is to introduce the PASS XS Spinal System which is, essentially, a smaller version of the PASS-LP system.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Medicrea PASS XS Spinal System, a pedicle screw fixation system. It outlines the device's characteristics and its equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not include acceptance criteria or a study designed to prove the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML performance.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through:

• Comparison of technological characteristics with predicate devices.
• Performance data limited to biocompatibility and mechanical testing of the physical implant components.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and a study to prove meeting those criteria, as it is not present in the provided text. The document specifically states:

• Clinical study: "No clinical studies were performed."
• Animal study: "No animal studies were performed."

The performance data mentioned ("static axial compression, static torsion and dynamic axial compression according to ASTM F1717, and axial gripping, torsional gripping and flexion-extension according to ASTM F1798") refers to mechanical testing of the hardware, not the performance of an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Firebird Spinal Fixation System is intended for posterior, non-cervical pedicle, and nonpedicle fixation (T1-S2/Ilium). Pedicle screw fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and is intended to be used as an adjunct to fusion using autograft or allograft. The device is indicated for all of the following indications:

• . degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies)
• . spondy lolisthesis,
• . trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation),
• . spinal stenosis,
• . deformities or curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis),
• . tumor;
• . pseudoarthrosis, and
• failed previous fusion .
  When used for fixation to the ilium, the offset connectors of the Firebird Spinal Fixation System must be used in conjunction with pedicle screws placed at the S1 or S2 spinal level.
  The Phoenix MIS Fixation System when used with the Firebird Spinal Fixation System is indicated to provide the surgeon with a minimally invasive approach for posterior spinal surgery.
  The Firebird Spinal Fixation System components are used with certain components of the Orthofix Spinal Fixation System, including rods, rod connectors and cross-connectors.
  When used for posterior non-cervical pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, the Firebird Spinal Fixation System implants are indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The Firebird Spinal Fixation System for pediatric use is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft. Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

The Firebird Spinal Fixation System is a temporary, titanium alloy, multiple component system comprised of a variety of non-sterile, single use components, made of titanium alloy or cobalt chrome alloy, that allow the surgeon to build a spinal implant construct. The system is attached to the vertebral body and ilium by means of screw or hook fixation to the non-cervical spine. The Firebird Spinal Fixation System consists of an assortment of rods, multi-axial and mono-axial pedicle screws, set screws, lateral offsets, bone screws, screw bodies, hooks and iliac connectors. The expansion of indications for the Firebird Spinal Fixation System is proposed for the inclusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis alone, and not other indications for a pediatric population.
A subset of the Firebird Spinal Fixation System and Phoenix MIS System components may be used in pediatric patients. These components consist of a variety of screws ranging in diameters from 4.5mm to 7.5mm and lengths ranging from 25mm to 60mm.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Orthofix Firebird Spinal Fixation System. This type of regulatory submission (510(k)) is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria as you might see for a novel device or a PMA.

Therefore, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets them in the way a diagnostic AI device or a novel therapeutic device would. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence to existing devices based on design, materials, indications for use, and mechanical performance.

I will attempt to extract the closest equivalents to your requested information where possible, based on the context of a 510(k) submission.

Analysis of the Provided Document Regarding Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The Orthofix Firebird Spinal Fixation System is a Class III Preamendment Device (Pedicle screw spinal system) for which the manufacturer is seeking 510(k) clearance. A 510(k) clearance means the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices. This type of submission generally relies on demonstrating that the new device has the same intended use, technological characteristics, and performs as safely and effectively as a legally marketed device. It typically does not involve traditional clinical studies with acceptance criteria for device classification as one would expect for a novel device or an AI/diagnostic product.

Therefore, many of the requested points below are not directly applicable or quantifiable from this document.

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

   Not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. The performance assessment is focused on "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices, primarily through mechanical testing and engineering analysis rather than specific clinical acceptance criteria.

   The document states:
   "Previous mechanical testing of the system included static and dynamic compression bending testing and static torsion testing per ASTM F1717-04 and finite element analysis."

   While these tests have criteria for compliance with the standard, the document does not present a table of these criteria alongside specific device performance data. The conclusion drawn is that the device is substantially equivalent based on these results.

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

   Not explicitly stated for the mechanical testing mentioned. When mechanical testing is performed, the "sample size" refers to the number of physical devices or components tested. The data provenance is 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)

   Not applicable. Mechanical testing does not involve "experts" establishing ground truth in the way a diagnostic study would. The standards for mechanical testing (e.g., ASTM F1717-04) define the methods and parameters.

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

   Not applicable. Mechanical testing does not involve adjudication.

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 spinal fixation system, not a diagnostic or AI-powered device.

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

   Not applicable. This is a spinal fixation system, not an algorithm.

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

   For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the physical properties and performance limits set by engineering standards (e.g., ASTM F1717-04). For the expansion of indications (specifically for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis), the document mentions: "Published clinical results and engineering analysis supported expansion of indications." This implies that existing clinical literature for similar predicate devices, combined with engineering analysis (which would include the mechanical testing), served as the basis for justifying the expanded indications. Outcomes data or expert consensus from previously published studies might have indirectly informed this, but no new study for this submission is detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

   Not applicable. This is a spinal fixation system, not a machine learning model requiring a training set.

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

   Not applicable. This is a spinal fixation system, not a machine learning model.

Summary regarding the Firebird Spinal Fixation System and 510(k) process:

The K130932 submission for the Firebird Spinal Fixation System is a 510(k) premarket notification. The core of this submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices. This is achieved by showing that the device:

• Has the same intended use.
• Has the same basic technological characteristics (design, materials: titanium alloy per ASTM F136 and cobalt chrome per ASTM F1537, as with predicates).
• Performs as safely and effectively as the predicate devices.

The "proof" the device meets acceptance criteria in this context relies on:

• Mechanical Testing: Static and dynamic compression bending, and static torsion testing per ASTM F1717-04.
• Finite Element Analysis (FEA).
• Comparison to existing predicate devices: K081684, K082797, K100044, K093926, K122901 (Orthofix Inc.), K113666 (Stryker Spine), K091445 (Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA), K994121 (Synthes Spine), K121630 (K2M, Inc.), K111492 (Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA).

The document states: "Previous testing performed on this device indicates that the Firebird Spinal Fixation System is substantially equivalent to predicate devices." and "Published clinical results and engineering analysis supported expansion of indications." This means the mechanical performance met relevant engineering standards, and the safety and efficacy for the expanded indications (specifically pediatric adolescent idiopathic scoliosis) were supported by existing clinical literature and the device's engineering characteristics being similar to already approved predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

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