(153 days)
The Smith & Nephew TWINFIX Ultra Ti, PK, HA suture anchor families are intended for use for the reattachment of soft tissue to bone for the following indications:
Shoulder
Bankart lesion repairs SLAP lesion repairs Acromioclavicular separation repairs Rotator cuff tear repairs Capsular shift or capsulolabral reconstructions Biceps tenodesis Deltoid repairs
Foot and Ankle Hallux valgus repairs Medial or lateral instability repairs/reconstructions Achilles tendon repairs/reconstructions Midfoot reconstructions Metatarsal ligament/tendon repairs/reconstructions
Elbow
Ulnar or radial collateral ligament reconstructions Lateral epicondylitis repair Biceps tendon reattachment
Knee
Extra-capsular repairs: Medial collateral ligament Lateral collateral ligament Posterior oblique ligament Iliotibial band tenodesis Patellar realignment and tendon repairs: Vastus medialis obliquous advancement
Hip Abductor tendon repair
The TWINFIX Ultra Ti suture anchor is manufactured from titanium, the TWINFIX Ultra PK suture anchor manufactured from polyetheretherketone grade LT3 and the TWINFIX Ultra HA suture anchor is manufactured from poly 1lactide/hydroxylapatite. All anchors are offered in diameters of 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5 mm sizes. The screw-in anchor is preloaded with suture, preassembled onto a stainless steel inserter and offered with and without needles.
The provided text describes an Indication Expansion for a medical device (TWINFIX Ultra Ti, PK, and HA suture anchors), seeking to add "Abductor tendon repair" to its intended uses. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and does not describe a study to establish new acceptance criteria or device performance for the new indication alone.
Instead, the submission states that:
- "The performance testing conducted includes static loading, dynamic loading and in vitro degradation properties that are substantially equivalent to the indicated predicates." (Section H)
- "Testing also demonstrates that the differences in the TWINFIX Ultra Ti, PK and HA families and the predicate devices do not raise any new issues of safety and efficacy." (Section H)
- "Since there are no changes to the design the technological characteristics remain the same." (Section G)
Therefore, the acceptance criteria are implicitly those established for the predicate devices and for general suture anchors, with the new indication being supported by demonstrating that the device's performance characteristics (static loading, dynamic loading, degradation properties) are equivalent to those already accepted for similar devices with similar indications. No new, specific acceptance criteria for "Abductor tendon repair" or a dedicated study for it are detailed.
Given this, I cannot fill the requested table or answer most of the questions about a new study proving devices meet acceptance criteria as such a study is not described in the provided text. The document is a 510(k) summary focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than presenting new performance study data for novel acceptance criteria.
However, I can extract the following relevant information based on the premise of substantial equivalence:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Static loading properties (of predicate devices/suture anchors) | Substantially equivalent to indicated predicates |
| Dynamic loading properties (of predicate devices/suture anchors) | Substantially equivalent to indicated predicates |
| In vitro degradation properties (of predicate HA devices) | Substantially equivalent to indicated predicates (for HA anchors) |
| No new issues of safety and efficacy | Differences in device families and predicates do not raise new safety/efficacy issues |
The rest of the questions relate to a specific study demonstrating device performance against new acceptance criteria. Since this document focuses on substantial equivalence to existing devices and does not describe such a study for the indication expansion, I cannot answer them from the given text.
To reiterate, the provided text is a 510(k) summary for an indication expansion, which relies on demonstrating that the performance of the device (TWINFIX Ultra Ti, PK, and HA suture anchors) for the new indication (Abductor tendon repair) is substantially equivalent to that of already legally marketed predicate devices. It does not describe a de novo study to establish new performance criteria or a new study with the details requested in points 2-9 for the expanded indication.
§ 888.3040 Smooth or threaded metallic bone fixation fastener.
(a)
Identification. A smooth or threaded metallic bone fixation fastener is a device intended to be implanted that consists of a stiff wire segment or rod made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum and stainless steel, and that may be smooth on the outside, fully or partially threaded, straight or U-shaped; and may be either blunt pointed, sharp pointed, or have a formed, slotted head on the end. It may be used for fixation of bone fractures, for bone reconstructions, as a guide pin for insertion of other implants, or it may be implanted through the skin so that a pulling force (traction) may be applied to the skeletal system.(b)
Classification. Class II.