Search Results

The Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis is intended to be used in cemented patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with degenerative arthritis in the distal femur and patella, patients with a history of patellar dislocation or patella fracture, or patients with failed previous surgery (arthroscopy, tibial tubercle elevation, lateral release) where pain, deformity or dysfunction persists.

These components are single use only and are intended for implantation with bone cement.

This submission covers the Avon femoral and patellar components of the Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis. The femoral components are manufactured from Cobalt Chrome (CoCr) and the patellar components are manufactured from Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) materials.

The purpose of this submission is to add Magnetic Resonance (MR) Conditional labeling to the labeling of the Avon femoral and patellar components of the Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis. Additionally, minor labeling and packaging updates, as detailed in the respective sections, are also included in this submission.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis) seeking clearance for minor labeling and packaging updates, specifically to add Magnetic Resonance (MR) Conditional labeling. This submission does not describe a study to prove the device meets acceptance criteria related to its clinical effectiveness or performance in a patient.

Instead, it describes non-clinical testing to demonstrate that the device is "MR Conditional" as per relevant ASTM standards. Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to the information provided.

Here's the breakdown of what can be extracted:

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

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

This information is not provided. The testing was non-clinical (laboratory testing of the device components), not involving human subjects or patient data.

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. The ground truth for the MR Conditional testing is established by the ASTM standards themselves, which define methodologies and criteria for measurement. No human experts were involved in establishing "ground truth" for this non-clinical testing.

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

Not applicable. This was non-clinical, objective testing against predefined engineering standards.

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 is not about AI or diagnostic imaging interpretation. It is for a joint prosthesis and its MR compatibility.

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

Not applicable. This document is not about an algorithm, but a physical medical device.

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

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical testing was defined by adherence to published ASTM standards for MR compatibility. These are objective engineering and physics standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This was non-clinical testing, not a machine learning study.

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

Not applicable. This was non-clinical testing, not a machine learning study.

Ask a specific question about this device