Search Results

Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.
When used with MDM® Liners
Treatment of nonumion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
Dislocation risks
When used with Constrained Liner
The Trident® Constrained Acetabular Insert is indicated for use in primary and revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, joint or soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intraoperative instability.
The Trident® II Acetabular Shells are indicated for cementless use only.

The Trident® II Acetabular Shells, 6.5mm Low Profile Hex Screws and dome hole plugs are sterile, single-use devices that are intended for cementless fixation into a prepared acetabulum for either primary or revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. The Trident® II Acetabular Shells are intended to be used with existing Trident® polyethylene inserts, Trident® Constrained Acetabular Inserts, MDM® liners and both new and existing surgical instruments. The purpose of this Special 510(k) is to add an additional dome hole plug option for use with the Trident® II Acetabular System.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Stryker Orthopaedics Trident® II Acetabular System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device for the addition of an acetabular dome hole plug option.

Based on the provided text, the device is a medical implant, not an AI/ML powered device, and therefore the request to describe acceptance criteria and associated studies for an AI/ML device is not applicable.

Here's the breakdown of why the requested information cannot be provided from this document:

• No AI/ML Component: The device described, the Trident® II Acetabular System, is a hip joint prosthesis. The document discusses its components (shells, screws, liners, dome hole plugs), intended use, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, all of which are characteristic of traditional medical devices. There is no mention of artificial intelligence, machine learning, software algorithms for image analysis, or any computational diagnostic or prognostic functionality.
• Focus on Substantial Equivalence for a Physical Component: The primary purpose of this 510(k) filing is to add an "additional dome hole plug option." The entire "Non-Clinical Testing" section explicitly states "No new non-clinical testing was performed." Instead, it references analyses for "equivalence in dimensions and MR evaluation" and prior bacterial endotoxin testing. This is typical for a minor modification to an already cleared physical device, not for a new AI/ML product.

Therefore, the following information points from your request are not present because they relate to the evaluation of an AI-powered medical device:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not applicable.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. Multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable.
6. Stand-alone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study: Not applicable.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In conclusion, this document describes a physical medical device (hip implant components) and its regulatory clearance process, which does not involve the type of AI/ML performance evaluation criteria and studies you are inquiring about.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Trident® II Acetabular System is intended for use in total hip arthroplasty and is intended for either primary or revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Indications for Use:
• Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, posttraumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
• Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
• Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
• Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.

When used with MDM Liners:
• Treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.

• Dislocation risks

When used with Constrained Liners:
• The Trident Constrained Acetabular Insert is indicated for use in primary and revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, joint or soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intraoperative instability.

The Trident II Acetabular Shells are indicated for cementless use only.

The Trident® II Acetabular Shells, 6.5mm Low Profile Hex Screws and Hex Dome Hole Plug are sterile, single-use devices that are intended for cementless fixation into a prepared acetabulum for either primary or revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. The Trident® II Acetabular System is an extension of the Trident System product line and features the same locking mechanism as the current Trident® and Trident® II Tritanium® product lines. The Trident® II Acetabular Shells are intended to be used with existing Trident® polyethylene inserts, Trident Constrained Acetabular Inserts, MDM® liners and both new and existing surgical instruments.

The Trident® II Tritanium® implant consists of a unique configuration of both solid and porous sections that are simultaneously built using a Laser Rapid Manufacturing (LRM) method of additive manufacturing, applying Stryker's proprietary Tritanium® In-Growth Technology. Tritanium® is a novel highly porous titanium material designed for biological fixation. The Trident® II PSL® Clusterhole HA and Trident® II Clusterhole HA Acetabular Shells feature hydroxylapatite coating over a Commercially Pure Titanium plasma sprayed surface for cementless fixation.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Trident® II Acetabular System," a medical device for total hip arthroplasty. The submission asserts substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices, and therefore, clinical testing was not required. The information provided focuses on non-clinical testing.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request:

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

The document does not explicitly present acceptance criteria in a table format with corresponding reported performance for each criterion. Instead, it lists a series of non-clinical tests performed, implying that the device "meets the requirements" or was "characterized according to methods" outlined in various ASTM standards and FDA guidance documents.

Here's a partial reconstruction of what could be inferred as acceptance criteria and "device performance" based on the text:

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

The document does not provide details on the sample sizes used for each non-clinical test (e.g., how many shells were tested for fatigue, how many samples for material chemistry, etc.). It only mentions that "testing was performed."

Since these are non-clinical (laboratory/bench) tests, the concept of "country of origin of data" or "retrospective/prospective" does not directly apply in the way it would for human study data. These tests would typically be conducted in a laboratory environment associated with the manufacturer or a contract testing facility.

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)

This section is not applicable as no clinical studies were performed. The "ground truth" for non-clinical tests is established by adhering to widely accepted engineering standards (e.g., ASTM standards) and FDA guidance documents. The "experts" would be the engineers and technicians performing the tests and
interpreting the results according to these predefined standards. Their qualifications are not specified but are implied to be sufficient for compliance with these standards.

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

This is not applicable as no clinical studies were performed requiring human adjudication on a test set.

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

This is not applicable. The device is an orthopedic implant, not an AI/imaging device. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

This is not applicable. The device is an orthopedic implant, not an algorithm. No standalone algorithm performance was assessed.

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

Given that the testing was non-clinical:

• Mechanical Tests (e.g., push-out, fatigue): The ground truth is defined by the objective performance criteria set forth in relevant ASTM standards (e.g., minimum force required to cause failure, number of cycles to failure). The device either meets these engineering specifications or it does not.
• Material Characterization: The ground truth is defined by material specifications (e.g., chemical composition per ASTM F136, F1580, F1472; hydroxylapatite per ASTM F1185) and the requirements outlined in FDA guidance documents for porous surfaces.
• Biocompatibility/Pyrogenicity: The ground truth is defined by the ANSI/AAMI ST72:2011 standard, specifically the endotoxin limit of < 20EU/Device.
• MRI Compatibility: The ground truth is defined by the requirements of the listed ASTM standards (F2052, F2213, F2119, F2182) and FDA guidance documents, which determine the conditions under which the device is safe within an MR environment.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable as there is no mention of any machine learning or AI component requiring a training set. The device is a physical orthopedic implant.

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

This is not applicable as there is no machine learning or AI component requiring a training set and its associated ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, posttraumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.
When used with MDM Liners:
Treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
Dislocation risks
When used with Constrained Liner:
The Trident Constrained Acetabular Insert is indicated for use in primary and revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, joint or soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intraoperative instability.
The Trident® II Tritanium Acetabular Shells are indicated for cementless use only.

The Trident® II Tritanium® Acetabular Shell and 6.5mm Low Profile Hex Screws are sterile, single-use devices that are intended for cementless fixation into a prepared acetabulum for either primary or revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. The Trident® II Tritanium® Acetabular Shell is an extension of the Trident System product line and features the same locking mechanism as the current Trident® Tritanium® product line. The Trident® II Tritanium® Acetabular Shell is intended to be used with existing Trident® polyethylene inserts, MDM® liners and existing surgical instruments.
The subject device is manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy. The implant consists of a unique configuration of both solid and porous structures that are simultaneously built using a Laser Rapid Manufacturing (LRM) method of additive manufacturing, applying Stryker's proprietary Tritanium® In-Growth Technology.
There are three designs of Trident® II Tritanium® Acetabular Shells:
Solidback (sizes 42A-66H)
Clusterhole (sizes 42A-66H)
Multihole (sizes 42A-72J)
The new compatible 6.5mm Low Profile Hex Screws feature a hex geometry and are manufactured from wrought Ti-6Al-4V ELI. The new screws range in lengths from 15-80mm.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "Trident® II Tritanium® Acetabular Shells and 6.5 mm Low Profile Hex Screws." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than detailing a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML-driven medical device.

Therefore, most of the requested information (acceptance criteria table, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) is not present in this document as it pertains to AI/ML device validation, which is not the subject of this 510(k) submission.

However, I can extract the following relevant information based on the typical requirements for a 510(k) submission for a non-AI/ML device:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
   The document states that "performance testing show that the Trident® II Tritanium® Acetabular Shell and 6.5mm Low Profile Hex Screw are substantially equivalent to the predicates in terms of intended use, indications, design, materials, performance characteristics and operational principles." This implies that the acceptance criteria are met if the device's performance is comparable to the predicate devices. The performance is assessed through various non-clinical laboratory tests.

   Acceptance Criteria (Implied: Substantially Equivalent to Predicate)	Reported Device Performance (Summary)
   Mechanical strength and fixation (e.g., push-out, lever-out, torque-out, fatigue, plastic deformation)	Device demonstrated acceptable performance in all listed non-clinical tests (e.g., Push out (ASTM F1820), Lever out (ASTM F1820), Torque out (ASTM F1820), Fatigue, Plastic Deformation) ensuring substantial equivalence to predicate.
   Bone screw performance	Demonstrated acceptable performance based on Bone Screw Testing (ASTM F543).
   Porous surface characteristics	Porous surface meets requirements outlined in FDA guidance documents ("Guidance Document for Testing Orthopedic Implants With Modified Metallic Surfaces Apposing Bone Or Bone Cement").
   Biocompatibility / Pyrogenicity	Achieved acceptable endotoxin limit as specified in ANSI/AAMI ST72:2011 via Bacterial endotoxin testing (BET).
   Range of Motion	Acceptable Range of Motion Analysis was performed.
   Fretting Evaluation (for MDM liner)	Acceptable Fretting Evaluation of the MDM liner was performed.
   Material Chemistry	Acceptable Material Chemistry evaluations were performed.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable to this type of device submission. The tests are laboratory-based, often using a small number of physical samples (e.g., implants, screws) for mechanical testing to destruction or specific load cycles.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical performance is typically established through adherence to standardized test methods (e.g., ASTM standards) and material science principles, interpreted by engineers and material scientists.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. Performance data from laboratory tests do not involve human adjudication in the way clinical or image-based studies do.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No, an MRMC study was not done as this is a physical medical implant, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device.

6. If a standalone performance study was done: The non-clinical laboratory testing represents the standalone performance evaluation of the device's physical and mechanical properties.

7. The type of ground truth used: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is defined by established engineering and materials science principles, standard test methodologies (e.g., ASTM standards), and regulatory guidance documents for orthopedic implants. For example, for mechanical strength tests, the ground truth is often a failure point or a resistance level under specific applied loads. For biocompatibility/pyrogenicity, it's the defined acceptable endotoxin limit.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML product developed using a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, this 510(k) document is for a traditional medical device (hip implant) and therefore lacks the detailed information typically requested for AI/ML device validation studies. The "study" mentioned here refers to the battery of non-clinical laboratory tests performed to demonstrate that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device