Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K190100

    Validate with FDA (Live)

    Device Name
    USTAR II System
    Date Cleared
    2019-09-23

    (244 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3510
    Predicate For
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    USTAR II Knee System

    1. Metastatic tumor (i.e. osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, giant cell tumor or osteoma) where massive resection and transplantation are needed.
    2. Severe knee joint damage resulting from trauma where massive resection and transplantation are needed.
    3. Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as avascular necrosis, osteoarthritis, or traumatic arthritis.
    4. Revision of previously failed total joint arthroplasty, osteotomy, or arthrodesis.
    5. Joint instability resulting from excessive bone resection.

    For Femoral component, Hinged/ Tibial baseplate, Hinged/ Cemented tibial stem/ Cemented Straight stem, RHS, non coated/ Cemented Curved stem, RHS, non coated/ Cemented Straight stem, RHS/ Cemented Curved stem, RHS/ Tibial Augment: These devices are single use implant and intended for cemented use only.

    For Distal Femoral Component, RHS/ Proximal Tibial Component, RHS/ Tibial stem/ Segment Part, RHS/ Segment Part, RHS, Bridge: These devices are single use implant and intended for cementless use only.

    USTAR II Knee System, Stem

    1. Metastatic tumor (i.e. osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, giant cell tumor or osteoma) resulting from trauma where massive resection and transplantation are needed.
    2. Severe knee joint damage resulting from trauma where massive resection and transplantation are needed.
    3. Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as avascular necrosis, osteoarthritis, or traumatic arthritis.
    4. Correction for revision of unsuccessful osteotomy, arthrodesis, or failure of previous joint replacement.
    5. Joint instability resulting from excessive bone resection.

    Cemented Tibial Stem is a single use implant and intended for cemented use only. Tibial Stem is a single use implant and intended for cementless use only.

    USTAR II Hip System

    1. Metastatic tumor (i.e. osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, giant cell tumor or osteoma) where massive resection and transplantation are needed.
    2. Severe knee joint damage resulting from trauma where massive resection and transplantation are needed.
    3. Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as avascular necrosis, osteoarthritis, or traumatic arthritis.
    4. Revision of previously failed total joint arthroplasty, osteotomy, or arthrodesis.
    5. Joint instability resulting from excessive bone resection.

    This device is a single use implant and intended for cementless use only.

    Device Description

    "United" USTAR II System is used for patients who need a special prosthesis for their particular indication, which may present large quantity of bone loss and deformity associated with previous failed arthroplasty, ligament deficiencies, one tumors resection, or trauma and may require a further operation or reconstruction.

    USTAR II System includes two sub-systems, which is "USTAR II Knee System" and "USTAR II Hip System". USTAR II Knee System is designed as modular combinations. It offers a variety of component options for treatment of patients that require femoral component, tibial baseplate and tibial insert. The tibial augment, segment part and stem are provided for patient with more bone resection. USTAR II Hip System is designed as a modular system which is composed Proximal femoral component, Trochanteric claw, and Press-fit, RHS straight/curved stem.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "USTAR II System" by United Orthopedic Corporation. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria and conducting a study to prove performance against those criteria in the context of an AI/ML device.

    Therefore, the requested information for an AI/ML device (e.g., acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone performance) is not applicable to this document.

    The document describes a medical device (a knee and hip prosthesis system) and its non-clinical performance testing. It states that "Performance data demonstrate the device is as safe and effective and is substantially equivalent to the legally marketed predicate devices."

    Here's what can be extracted regarding the device performance and testing for this non-AI/ML medical device:

    1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-AI/ML)

    The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a table format for diagnostic performance, as it's not a diagnostic AI/ML device. Instead, it lists non-clinical performance tests conducted to demonstrate safety and effectiveness and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The reported performance is that the device "met" or "demonstrates" parity with predicate devices.

    Acceptance Criterion (Implicit)Reported Device Performance (Implicit)
    Device functions safely and effectively under mechanical stressPass: Hyperextension fatigue test, Internal and external rotation, Stem fatigue test, Neck fatigue test, Disassembly Force and Fretting Corrosion completed.
    Device exhibits acceptable wear and corrosion propertiesPass: Wear and corrosion test completed.
    Device has acceptable range of motionPass: Range of Motion test completed.
    Modified surface treatment is acceptablePass: Evaluation of Modified Surface Treatment completed.
    Device meets biocompatibility requirementsPass: Bacterial endotoxin testing conducted and met USP <161> limits.
    Overall performance is substantially equivalent to predicate devicesPass: "Performance data demonstrate the device is as safe and effective and is substantially equivalent to the legally marketed predicate devices."

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

    • Not applicable. This pertains to a physical medical device (prosthesis), not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm that uses a "test set" of data in the common sense. The testing performed involves mechanical and material properties.

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

    • Not applicable. Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant for diagnostic AI/ML systems where human interpretation is the gold standard. For a physical device, performance is evaluated against engineering standards and validated test methods.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    • Not applicable. This concept belongs to the evaluation of human judgment in diagnostic AI/ML studies.

    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. MRMC studies are for evaluating how AI assistance impacts human reader performance in diagnostic tasks.

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

    • Not applicable. This refers to a diagnostic algorithm's performance in isolation. The USTAR II System is a physical implant.

    7. The type of ground truth used

    • For the non-clinical tests (e.g., fatigue, wear, endotoxin), the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering and biological standards (e.g., ISO standards, USP pharmacopeial limits). The device is tested against these predefined performance benchmarks.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    • Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML system that requires a "training set."

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

    • Not applicable.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1