Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

• Versafitcup CC TRIO

The Versafitcup CC Trio and the Versafitcup CC Trio No-Hole are designed for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The patient should be skeletally mature.

The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, congenital hip dysplasia, ankylosing spondylitis.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

• Quadra-P and Quadra-P Collared

The hip prosthesis Quadra-P and Quadra-P Collared are designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. The Quadra-P Cemented is designed for cemented use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. Hip Replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

• AMIStem-H, AMIStem-H Collared, AMIStem-H Proximal Coating, AMIStem-P and AMIStem-P Collared

The hip prosthesis AMIStem-H, AMIStem-H collared, AMIStem-H Proximal Coating, AMIStem-P and AMIStem-P Collared are designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. The AMIStem-C is designed for cemented use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

Hip Replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

• MiniMAX

The MiniMax is designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. Hip Replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

• Quadra-H and Quadra-R

The hip prosthesis Quadra -S, Quadra-H and Quadra-R is designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. The hip prosthesis Quadra-C is designed for cemented use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. Hip Replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

The Quadra-C size 0 implant should not be implanted in patients with a mass of 65 kg or greater.

• SMS and SMS Collared

The hip prosthesis SMS and SMS Collared are designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. Hip Replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

• Mpres

The Mpres stem is a cementless neck preserving stem designed for use in total or partial hip arthroplasty for primary or revision surgery.

Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Mpres stem is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthrosis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis or congenital hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head.
• Failure of previous hip surgery:
  • Conservative hip surgery,
  • Internal fixation,
  • Arthrodesis,
  • Hip resurfacing replacement.

Partial hip arthroplasty with the Mpres stem is indicated in the following cases:

• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Primary pathology involving the femoral head but with a non-deformed acetabulum.

• Mpact Acetabular Shell

The Mpact implants are designed for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The patient should be skeletally mature.

The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, congenital hip dysplasia, ankylosing spondylitis.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

The aim of this submission is to seek clearance for the addition of a new coating supplier for the following coatings:

• Titanium + Hydroxyapatite coating;
• Hydroxyapatite coating;
• Porous Titanium coating for Mpact devices; and
• Titanium coating for Mpact T sizes devices.

The already FDA cleared devices affected by the change are listed in Table 1 below.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

PowerKnot High Strength Suture is indicated for soft tissue approximation and/or ligation. These sutures may be incorporated, as components, into surgeries where constructs including those with allograft or autograft tissues are used for repair.

PowerKnot High Strength Sutures are non-absorbable braided suture constructs made of 100% UHMWPE. They consist of a multifilament core yarn with a braided sheath and they are available in various color options, with or without a stainless steel needle. The PowerKnot High Strength Sutures portfolio also includes a Running Direction Indicator (RDI) surface of the suture, aiding the surgeon when applying the suture.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The NextAR Shoulder™ Platform supports the surgeon during glenoid implantation in anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement procedures providing information on bone preparation, instrument guidance, and implant positioning.

The NextAR Shoulder™ Platform works in conjunction with NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments and general surgical instruments to implant the Medacta Shoulder System shoulder prosthesis.

As an optional display, the smart glasses can be used auxiliary to the NextAR Shoulder™ Platform to view the same 2D stereotaxic information as presented by the NextAR Shoulder™ Platform.

The NextAR Shoulder™ stereotaxic instruments are to support the surgeon during specific orthopedic surgical procedures by providing information on bone preparation, instrument guidance, and implant positioning. Once registered, the NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments provide reference to a patient’s rigid anatomical structures on the surface of the glenoid that are identified relative to preoperative C.T. based planning.

The smart glasses should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with the primary computer display.

The NextAR™ Shoulder Platform is a CT based computer-assisted surgical navigation platform used to perform a total shoulder arthroplasty on the glenoid and includes the following components:

• PC based hardware platform; (K210153)
• Optical tracking system; (K210153)
• Augmented Reality glasses; (K210153)
• Platform (K210153)
• navigation software which displays information to the surgeon in real-time;
• Reusable surgical instruments to perform the surgical steps of a shoulder arthroplasty on the glenoid.

The system operates on the common principle of stereotaxic technology in which markers are mounted on the bones and an infrared camera is used to monitor the spatial location of the markers. Tracking sensors attached to the scapula and surgical instruments enable the surgeon to register the position and orientation of scapula and instrumentation relative to preoperative data in real-time while performing the surgical procedure. The tracking sensors are provided sterile.

NextAR™ Shoulder Platform aids the surgeon in executing the surgical plan by visualizing all the information in real time in a screen monitor.

The NextAR™ Shoulder system is intended to assist the surgeon in executing a preoperative surgical planning. The navigation platform tracks the surgical instruments in real-time and displays intraoperative and planned surgical parameters on a screen, thus allowing the surgeon to match the intraoperative parameters with the planned ones.

Specifically, the navigation system utilizes established technologies of navigation and via an active infrared camera rigidly coupled with the scapula and an active infrared tracker that can be rigidly coupled to the surgical instruments. The registration of the patient's scapula on the preoperative scapula model is performed through the use of dedicated surgical instruments (pointers) and a dedicated registration algorithm.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Mpact Constrained Liner is intended to be used as part of a Total Hip Arthroplasty, uncemented in combination with the Mpact and Mpact 3D Metal System acetabular shells.

Total Hip Arthroplasty is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthrosis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis or congenital hip dysplasia
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, partial hip arthroplasty, hip resurfacing replacement or total hip arthroplasty.

Mpact Constrained Liner is intended for primary or revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intra-operative instability and for whom all other options to constrained acetabular components have been considered. Mpact Constrained Liner should be considered only for patients with limited functional demand, as it offers a smaller range of motion than the standard total hip replacement components.

The Mpact Constrained Liner is an acetabular preassembled liner consisting of an UHMWPE liner incorporating a bipolar head.

The subject device is available in six sizes and two configurations, flat or 10° face-changing.

The Mpact Constrained Liner implants are provided sterile and individually packaged.

The provided document, an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "Mpact Constrained Liner," focuses on establishing substantial equivalence for a medical implant. It DOES NOT describe the acceptance criteria or a study proving that a device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm-based medical device performance study.

The document details the physical characteristics, intended use, and comparison to predicate devices for a hip joint prosthesis liner. The "Performance Data" section lists various non-clinical tests and validations (e.g., mechanical tests, biocompatibility, shelf-life) which are standard for implantable devices to ensure their physical integrity, safety, and compatibility with the human body. These are not related to "acceptance criteria" and "study proving device meets acceptance criteria" as requested in the prompt, which specifically implies evaluation of an algorithm's performance (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity).

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information (acceptance criteria table, sample sizes for test/training, expert and adjudication details, MRMC study, standalone performance, ground truth types, training set details) from this document, as it pertains to a physical medical device and not an AI/algorithm-based device.

To provide the information requested in your prompt, I would need a document describing the regulatory submission and performance evaluation of an AI/algorithm-based medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NextAR Spine platform is intended as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures in either open/mini-open or percutaneous spine procedures. It is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotaxic surgery may be appropriate, when reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as vertebrae or pelvis, can be identified relative to images of the anatomy. This can include posterior approach spinal procedures, such as:

• Pedicle Screw Placement (Thoracic and Lumbosacral spine)
• Sacro-Iliac Screw Placement

NextAR Spine is also intended to provide planning tools for measuring and selecting the fixation rod for the thoracic and lumbosacral spine.

The NextAR Spine platform is intended to be used in combination with NextAR™ Stereotaxic instruments and / or Medacta preoperative planning. In the case of pre-operative planning, surgical planning software is used pre-operatively to plan the surgical placement of pedicle screws based upon radiological images of the patient. As an optional display, the NextAR Smart Glasses can be used auxiliary to the NextAR Spine Platform to view stereotaxic information as presented by the NextAR Spine Platform. The NextAR Smart Glasses should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with the primary computer display.

NextAR Spine sterile drill and pins

The sterile drills, pins and iliac pins are part of the NextAR Spine platform which is intended as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures in either open / mini open or percutaneous spine procedures. The NextAR Spine sterile drills pins and iliac pins are intended for use with the NextAR Spine platform according to its approved indications for use. All the drills are motorized. Pins may be used either motorized or manually. Iliac pins are manual.

The NextAR™ Spine platform is a CT based computer-assisted surgical navigation platform used in either open/mini open or percutaneous spine surgery procedure and includes the following components:

• Navigation software which displays information to the surgeon
• Augmented Reality glasses
• Optical tracking system
• PC based hardware platform
• Fiducial Block
• Surgical instruments for spine surgery procedures

The system operates on the common principle of stereotaxic technology in which markers are mounted on the bones and an infrared camera is used to monitor the spatial location of the instruments. Tracking sensors attached to the bones enable the surgeon to view the position and orientation of the instrumentation relative to the intra-operative data in real-time while performing the surgical procedure. The tracking sensors, the fiducial block, and a group of pins and drills are provided sterile.

NextAR™ Spine aids the surgeon in executing the surgical plan by visualizing all the information in real time in a screen monitor. The platform uses the information of either an intra-operative scan or pre-operative CT in combination with an intra-operative 3D scan in order to register the spine to navigation elements. The registration can be performed with one of the following approaches: 1) Direct 3D: based on the use of an intra-operative 3D scan, or 2) 3D-3D: based on the use of a pre-operative CT scan and an intra-operative 3D scan.

Where the Direct 3D approach is utilized, NextAR™ Spine allows for planning of screw positioning on the patient's intraoperative DICOM images just before system setup. The application allows for navigating the spine with a screw planning superimposed on the acquired scan.

The NextAR™ Spine platform also includes the rod planning tool, which gives the surgeon information about the length and the rod type to best fit the spine anatomy and to perform the desired curvature correction.

The system's navigation technology is based on an active infrared camera coupled with an active tracker (Target). These elements allow, by means of the different registration approaches and use of compatible instruments, to accurately prepare trajectories in the vertebrae and/or to implant screws while visualizing information in real time on a screen monitor.

The FDA 510(k) clearance letter for NextAR™ Spine (K250477) provides limited details on a comprehensive study proving acceptance criteria. However, based on the provided text, we can infer some aspects of the performance data and the methods used to demonstrate the device's substantial equivalence.

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on your request, highlighting what is explicitly stated and what can be inferred or is missing from this document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The FDA 510(k) summary does not explicitly list acceptance criteria in a quantitative table format nor does it provide numerical performance metrics. Instead, it relies on comparative evaluations and qualitative assessments to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "Performance Data" section primarily focuses on non-clinical studies.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of cases or subjects. "Cadaver workshops" imply surgical procedures performed on anatomical models (cadavers), but the number is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the cadaver studies or the software testing. The studies were non-clinical. The studies were likely prospective in nature, as they were "performed in support of a substantial equivalence determination."

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. However, the mention of "Cadaver workshops" suggests that surgeons or other qualified medical professionals would have been involved to assess the adequacy of the instruments and system for surgical use.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated. Given that these were "cadaver workshops" to demonstrate adequacy, it's likely qualitative assessments by the participating surgeons, rather than a formal, multi-reader quantitative adjudication process.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• MRMC Study: No. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were conducted." This indicates that no MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was performed. The device, NextAR™ Spine, is a surgical navigation platform, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device that would typically undergo MRMC studies for reader performance improvement (e.g., radiologists interpreting images).

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• Standalone Study: Not explicitly detailed with performance metrics. The "Software testing" and "Comparative evaluations" could be considered forms of standalone assessment of the algorithmic components and instrument performance, but no specific quantitative standalone performance (e.g., accuracy, precision) of the navigation algorithms themselves is provided in this summary. The device's primary function is as a navigation aid where a human surgeon is always in the loop.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth:
  • For instrument performance, the ground truth would likely be established through engineering specifications and comparative measurements against predicate instruments.
  • For the cadaver workshops, the ground truth was likely surgical outcomes/adequacy as determined by the participating surgeons in a realistic (cadaveric) surgical environment. This is a form of expert assessment of functional performance. It is not pathology, or clinical outcomes data, as no clinical studies were performed.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. The document describes a traditional medical device (navigation system) with software components, not an AI/Machine Learning device that undergoes a train-test split methodology with large datasets for model training. The software functionality and instrument performance are verified through testing and comparative evaluation, not
  ML model training on patient data.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML system requiring a dedicated training set with established ground truth in the typical sense for image interpretation or diagnosis. The "ground truth" for the device's functionality would stem from its design specifications, engineering principles, and the known anatomical relationships it aims to navigate.

In summary, the FDA 510(k) summary for NextAR™ Spine focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance data, primarily through comparative evaluations with predicate devices and cadaveric workshops, rather than extensive clinical studies or AI model performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

MOTO Medial, MOTO Lateral and MOTO Sphere Partial Knee System is designed for cemented use in partial knee arthroplasty, if there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components. Partial replacement of the articulating surfaces of the knee is indicated when only one compartment of the joint is affected due to the compartmental primary degenerative or post-traumatic degenerative disease, previous tibial condyle or plateau fractures, deformity or revision of previous arthroplasty.

The MOTO Partial Knee System Extension is a Medacta partial knee prosthesis portfolio extension including implantable devices, provided individually packed, sterile and single-use. Specifically, the purpose of this submission is to gain the clearance for: MOTO Sphere femoral components, made of Co-Cr-Mo according to ISO 5832-4 and available in 5 sizes with or without TiNbN coating. They are intended to replace the medial or lateral femoral compartment of the natural knee joint and must be implanted in combination with the tibial component of MOTO Medial or MOTO Lateral (K162084, K183029 and K213071); 7mm thick MOTO Medial and MOTO Lateral inserts fixed made of E-cross, available in 8 sizes and intended to be coupled with the subject MOTO Sphere femoral components as well as MOTO Medial or MOTO Lateral tibial components (K162084, K183029 and K213071).

The provided document is a 510(k) Clearance Letter from the FDA for the MOTO Partial Knee System Extension. This document grants clearance for a medical device (knee implant components) and describes its intended use and comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria and study results you are asking for regarding a software or AI-based device.

The prompt specifically asks for details about a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria, including information on "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance," "standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance)", "ground truth," "training set," etc. These are all concepts related to the validation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML) enabled software as a medical device (SaMD), often used in diagnostics or image analysis.

The MOTO Partial Knee System Extension is an implantable medical device (hardware). The document explicitly states:

• "No clinical studies were conducted." This is a key indicator that a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers or standalone algorithm performance was not performed or required for this type of device clearance.
• The "Performance Data" section lists "Non-Clinical Studies" focusing on mechanical properties and biocompatibility (e.g., fatigue endurance, contact pressures, wear behavior, pyrogenicity, shelf-life). These are standard tests for orthopedic implants, not AI/ML software.

Therefore, because the provided text is for a hardware implant and not an AI/ML software device, I cannot extract the detailed acceptance criteria and study information related to AI/ML performance from this document.

To answer your request, I would need a 510(k) clearance letter or summary for an AI/ML-enabled medical device.

If you were to provide a document for an AI/ML device, the table and information would be structured as follows (but cannot be populated from the current input):

Acceptance Criteria and Study Proof for an AI/ML Device (Hypothetical, based on expected content)

Since the provided document is for a hardware implant (MOTO Partial Knee System Extension) and not an AI/ML-enabled software device, it does not contain the specific performance evaluation metrics, study designs (e.g., MRMC, standalone), or ground truth establishment methods typically associated with AI/ML device validation.

If this were an AI/ML device, the information requested would be typically found in a "Performance Data" or "Clinical Performance" section of the 510(k) Summary, detailing studies conducted to demonstrate the algorithm's accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or impact on human reader performance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Hypothetical Example)

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

• Test Set Sample Size: [Specific Number, e.g., 500 cases]
• Data Provenance: [e.g., Retrospective, multi-center, US, Europe, Asia]

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Number of Experts: [e.g., 3-5]
• Qualifications of Experts: [e.g., Board-certified Radiologists with 10+ years of experience in [specific modality/disease area], Subspecialty-trained Pathologists]

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Method: [e.g., 2-out-of-3 consensus, if disagreement then 3rd/4th expert arbitrates, independent review by a consensus panel]

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Was it done? [Yes/No]
• Effect Size of Human Reader Improvement with AI vs. without AI Assistance: [e.g., "The mean ROC AUC for readers significantly increased from 0.85 (without AI) to 0.91 (with AI assistance), representing an average improvement of 0.06 AUC points (p < 0.001). This translated to a 15% reduction in false negatives."]

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Was it done? [Yes/No]
• Performance Metrics: [e.g., Sensitivity, Specificity, AUC, F1-score, Precision, Recall, Accuracy, etc., with specific values as per the table above]

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: [e.g., Expert consensus (as described in #3), Histopathology/Pathology confirmation, Clinical outcomes data, Follow-up imaging]

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: [e.g., 10,000 cases]

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

• Method: [e.g., Manual annotation by a team of trained technicians overseen by expert clinicians, Automated labeling from electronic health records, Initial review by a single expert with subsequent confirmation of a subset]

Ask a specific question about this device

The MectaLIF implants in combination with supplemental fixation are indicated for use with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous spinal levels from L2 – S1 whose condition requires the use of interbody fusion. Degenerative disc disease is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These patients may have had a previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). Patients must be skeletally mature. Patients should have received 6 months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with the devices.

The MectaLIF 3D Metal are a line extension to the MectaLIF Oblique and Posterior PEEK implants (K110927, K131671, K181970 and K212831) and MectaLIF Oblique and Posterior TiPEEK implants (K133192, K181970 and K212831). Specifically, the purpose of this submission is to obtain the clearance of MectaLIF 3D Metal Posterior, Oblique and Oblique Dome additively manufactured from Ti6Al4V according to ASTM F2924-14. MectaLIF implants are used to replace a degenerative disc in order to restore the height of the spinal column structure. The devices are not intended to be coupled with other implants but are intended to be used with supplemental fixation and autogenous bone graft. The subject implants are provided individually packed, sterile and single-use.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device called "MectaLIF 3D Metal." This type of document is a regulatory submission demonstrating that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. It does not generally contain acceptance criteria or detailed study results for AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD), as it pertains to a physical implant.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set details cannot be extracted from the provided text because it is not relevant to this type of device or submission.

The document details the following for a physical medical device (intervertebral body fusion device):

• Device Name: MectaLIF 3D Metal
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3080
• Regulation Name: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device
• Regulatory Class: Class II
• Product Code: MAX
• Indications for Use: The MectaLIF implants in combination with supplemental fixation are indicated for use with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous spinal levels from L2 – S1 whose condition requires the use of interbody fusion.
• Predicate Devices: MectaLIF Extension (K212831), MectaLIF Posterior Extension (K181970), MectaLIF TiPEEK (K133192), MectaLIF Extension (K131671), MectaLIF (K110927).
• References Devices: Mpact 3D Metal Implants – DMLS Technology (K202568), GMK 3D Metal Tibial Tray (K221850).
• Performance Data (Non-Clinical Studies): Mechanical standard tests (static and dynamic axial/shear compression, axial compressive subsidence), expulsion test, wear analysis, stereological evaluation, abrasion test, static tensile test, static shear test, pyrogenicity testing, biocompatibility assessment, and shelf-life evaluation. These tests are conducted according to various ASTM and ISO standards for intervertebral body fusion devices and implant materials.
• Clinical Studies: No clinical studies were conducted for this submission, as is often the case for 510(k) clearances when substantial equivalence can be demonstrated through non-clinical testing and comparison to predicates.

In summary, the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or performance studies related to AI/software, as it describes the 510(k) clearance for a physical orthopedic implant.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Mfinity femoral stems are indicated in patients requiring hip arthroplasty.

Total or partial hip arthroplasty is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, inflammatory arthritis or hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute fracture of the femoral head.
• Acute fracture of the proximal femur, suitable to be treated by means of hip arthroplasty.
• Non-union of proximal femur fracture, suitable to be treated by means of hip arthroplasty.
• Primary pathology involving the femoral head but with a non-deformed acetabulum.
• Failure of previous hip surgery:
  • Conservative hip surgery.
  • Internal fixation.
  • Arthrodesis.
  • Partial or total hip arthroplasty.
  • Hip resurfacing replacement.

The Mfinity Femoral System includes implantable devices provided individually packed, sterile and single-use intended for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty to replace the native femoral neck for primary or revision surgery. The product range is composed of three different versions (Mfinity collarless, Mfinity collared and Mfinity L) available in standard and lateral offset.

The Mfinity femoral stem can be combined with the CoCr ball head (K072857, K080885 and K103721), Endo Head (K111145), the MectaCer BIOLOX® forte (K073337), MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Option Heads (K131518).

The subject devices are made of titanium alloy according to ISO 5832-11 and coated with Titanium plasma spray according to ASTM F1580 and Hydroxyapatite according with ASTM F1185.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Mfinity Femoral System, which is a hip prosthesis, not a diagnostic AI device. Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and studies that prove a device meets those criteria, specifically concerning AI performance metrics, expert adjudication, training set, and test set details, is not applicable to this document.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the Mfinity Femoral System to predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data (fatigue tests, ROM evaluation, surface analyses, biocompatibility, shelf-life, pyrogenicity) and states that no clinical studies were conducted.

The acceptance criteria for this type of medical device (hip prosthesis) would typically involve demonstrating mechanical strength, durability, biocompatibility, and sterilization effectiveness based on recognized standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, European Pharmacopoeia, USP). The "reported device performance" would consist of the results of these non-clinical tests meeting the specified limits of those standards.

Below is a general interpretation of what "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" would entail for a hip prosthesis based on the provided document, acknowledging that specific numerical details of these criteria and results are not explicitly stated in this letter but would be in the full 510(k) submission.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the Mfinity Femoral System:

This document describes the clearance of a hip prosthesis, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. Therefore, the typical elements of acceptance criteria and study designs relevant to AI (such as sensitivity, specificity, AUC, expert consensus, training/test set sizes, etc.) are not applicable to this submission.

The "acceptance criteria" for this device would generally refer to meeting established mechanical, material, and biological performance standards for medical implants. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical performance testing conducted.

Here's an attempt to populate the requested table and answer the questions based on the information available, while highlighting the irrelevance of AI-specific questions:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in the FDA letter. For non-clinical tests (like fatigue or material analysis), sample sizes would be determined by the specific ISO/ASTM standards referenced, but these are not diagnostic "test sets" in the AI context.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from the "Non-Clinical Studies" and "Performance Testing" conducted by Medacta International S.A. No country of origin is explicitly stated for the testing labs or data generation, but the company is based in Switzerland. The studies are by nature prospective in that they are conducted specifically to test the device's performance against standards.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a hip prosthesis, not an AI diagnostic device. There is no concept of "ground truth" established by experts in the context of interpreting images or medical conditions for this device. The "ground truth" for the performance tests would be the established scientific and engineering principles and the limits defined by the relevant ISO/ASTM standards.

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

• Not Applicable. As this is not an AI diagnostic device, no adjudication method was used. Performance is assessed directly against objective engineering and material 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 is a hip prosthesis, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No MRMC study was performed, and there is no AI assistance involved. The letter explicitly states: "No clinical studies were conducted."

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an algorithm or AI device. The device (a physical implant) is evaluated standalone based on its inherent properties and performance against physical and material standards.

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

• The "ground truth" for the non-clinical performance tests is based on established engineering and material science standards and specifications (e.g., ISO 7206, ISO 21535, ASTM F1580, ASTM F1185, European Pharmacopoeia, USP). The device's performance is compared against the requirements and acceptance limits set forth in these standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This device did not involve machine learning or a "training set."

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

• Not Applicable. This device did not involve machine learning or a "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device