Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K220186

    Validate with FDA (Live)

    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2022-05-13

    (109 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.5000
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Zone Specific AIM™ Device is an implantable suture retention device which facilitates percutaneous or endoscopic soft tissue repairs, including repair of meniscal tears.

    Device Description

    The Zone Specific AIM™ is an all-inside meniscal repair device that sequentially deploys implants and suture. The device is composed of peek implants and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) suture (Hi-Fi). The handheld, disposable device, provided sterile for single use, is removed at the end of the repair leaving behind a suture/implant construct. The anchor, suture, and disposable handheld device are EO Sterilized.

    AI/ML Overview

    This is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Zone Specific AIM™ Device, a meniscal repair device. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (ConMed Linvatec Sequent™ Meniscal Repair Device).

    Since this is a 510(k) submission for a medical device that performs a mechanical repair, the acceptance criteria and performance data are primarily focused on physical and mechanical properties, not on a diagnostic algorithm. There is no AI component described in this document. Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI algorithm performance (like sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this type of regulatory document.

    However, I can extract the general acceptance criteria and the types of studies performed to demonstrate the device's performance relative to its intended use and substantial equivalence.

    Here's a breakdown of the available information:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document does not explicitly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" in a direct numerical comparison for each test. Instead, it states that "Testing has been completed to demonstrate that the Zone Specific AIM™ performs as intended and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device" and "met the endotoxin limits." This implies that the device met the acceptance criteria for each test, but the specific numerical targets and results are not detailed in this summary.

    Acceptance Criteria Category (Implied)Reported Device Performance (Implied)
    Mechanical PerformancePerforms as intended and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device in terms of:
    Ultimate Fixation StrengthSuccessfully demonstrated (implied to meet predicate performance/safety standards)
    Cyclic PerformanceSuccessfully demonstrated (implied to meet predicate performance/safety standards)
    Material/Biological SafetyPerformed as intended and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device in terms of:
    Pyrogenicity (Bacterial Endotoxin)Met the endotoxin limits
    BiocompatibilitySuccessfully demonstrated (implied to meet safety standards)
    MR SafetySuccessfully demonstrated (implied to be safe for MR environments)
    Device Integrity/ReliabilityPerformed as intended and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device in terms of:
    ReliabilitySuccessfully demonstrated
    TransportationSuccessfully demonstrated
    PackagingSuccessfully demonstrated
    LabelingSuccessfully demonstrated
    SterilizationSuccessfully demonstrated
    Shelf-lifeSuccessfully demonstrated
    UsabilityPerforms as intended:
    User ValidationSuccessfully demonstrated

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

    • Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in the provided text.
    • Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided text (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This type of information is typically not included in a 510(k) summary for mechanical device testing.

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

    Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI diagnostic algorithm. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to established engineering standards or validated test methods, not expert consensus on anatomical findings.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. This is a mechanical device. Adjudication methods like 2+1, 3+1 are used for human review of data, typically in diagnostic 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. This document does not describe an AI-powered device or an MRMC study.

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

    Not applicable. This document does not describe an AI algorithm.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    For mechanical and material tests, the "ground truth" implicitly refers to:

    • Established engineering standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO standards for strength, cyclic loading, sterilization effectiveness, biocompatibility).
    • Predicate device performance data, used as a benchmark for substantial equivalence.
    • Regulatory limits (e.g., for endotoxin levels).

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. There is no AI training set described.

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

    Not applicable. There is no AI training set described.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1