Search Results

The ASCENSION Silicone PIP implant is intended for cementless replacement of the proximal interphalangeal joint in patients with advanced osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

The ASCENSION Silicone MCP implant is intended for cementless replacement of the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint of the finger where disabled by rheumatoid, degenerative or traumatic arthritis.

The ASCENSION Silicone MCP and PIP implants are anatomically designed, single-use, one-piece, flexible hinge prostheses designed to be implanted without bone cement across the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint. They are made from medical grade silicone elastomer. The proximal and distal stems of the prostheses are pre-flexed to match the approximate natural flexion position of the joint when the hand is relaxed. The MCP and PIP implants provide 90 degrees of flexion from full extension.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Ascension Silicone MCP and Ascension Silicone PIP devices. This document focuses on the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device (finger joint prostheses) based on a special 510(k) for adding "MR Safe" labeling.

The information you've requested (acceptance criteria and study details for an AI/software device) is not present in this document. The document explicitly states:

• "Non-clinical performance data is not required to support the addition of MR Safe labeling to the subject devices."
• The determination of "MR Safe" was established through a "scientific rationale that addressed information about the electrical conductivity and magnetic properties of the device material per the FDA guidance document 'Testing and Labeling Medical Devices for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment.'"

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested details because the device in question is not an AI/software medical device that underwent the type of performance study you're asking about.

Ask a specific question about this device

The indications for use of the Ascension Silicone PIP are for cementless replacement of the proximal interphalangeal joint in patients with advanced osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

The Ascension® Silicone PIP is a single component silicone spacer consisting of a proximal and distal intramedullary stem and a central flexible hinge. The central flexible hinge has a pre-flexed angle of 15 degrees. The Ascension Silicone PIP is available in 6 sizes for use in left or right applications. Device components are provided sterile in individual packaging.

This 510(k) summary (K082231) describes a medical device rather than a software algorithm or AI. Therefore, the concepts of "acceptance criteria," "study," "test set," "ground truth," "MRMC," and "standalone performance" as they relate to software performance evaluation are not applicable in this context.

The document discusses the Ascension® Silicone PIP, a finger joint prosthesis. For such devices, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" typically refer to bench testing, material characterization, biocompatibility testing, mechanical performance testing, and comparison to legally marketed predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's how the provided information relates to the typical evaluation of a medical device like this:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This document does not present a table of specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy thresholds) and reported device performance metrics in the way one would for a software algorithm. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" for a physical medical device are inherently met through the demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to relevant standards.

The "reported device performance" is inferred from its similarity to the predicate devices and the physical characteristics described.

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

This is irrelevant for a physical medical device. There isn't a "test set" of data in the sense of patient images or clinical records for an AI algorithm. The "test" for a physical device involves various forms of engineering and biocompatibility evaluations.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications:

This is irrelevant for a physical medical device. "Ground truth" for a device like this would involve:

• Material specifications: Established by material science experts and standards organizations.
• Design specifications: Established by biomedical engineers.
• Clinical effectiveness (long-term): Established by clinical trials and post-market surveillance (not part of initial 510k for substantial equivalence).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This is irrelevant for a physical medical device.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done:

This is irrelevant. MRMC studies are used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of imaging systems or AI algorithms with multiple readers and cases. The Ascension® Silicone PIP is a prosthetic implant, not a diagnostic tool.

6. If a Standalone Performance Study was Done:

This concept doesn't directly apply. The "standalone performance" of a physical device refers to its ability to perform its intended function (e.g., the flexibility and articulation of the joint, material durability). This is typically assessed through bench testing (mechanical, wear, fatigue) and biocompatibility testing, rather than a "standalone study" akin to an algorithm. The 510(k) summary implies that these tests were conducted or that the shared characteristics with predicate devices negate the need for novel extensive testing for this specific submission.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For a physical medical device submitted via a 510(k), the "ground truth" for substantial equivalence is primarily based on:

• Predicate Device Data: Evidence that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This includes comparing materials, design, intended use, and performance characteristics.
• Engineering Standards: Compliance with recognized national and international consensus standards for medical device design, manufacturing, and materials.
• Biocompatibility Standards: Evidence that the materials used are safe for implantation in the human body.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

This is irrelevant for a physical medical device. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI algorithm.

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

This is irrelevant for a physical medical device.

In summary, the provided 510(k) document is for a medical device (a joint prosthesis) and not a software algorithm. Therefore, the questions posed, which are designed for evaluating AI/software performance, are not directly applicable.

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" for a physical device in a 510(k) submission generally refers to:

• Non-clinical testing: Benchtop mechanical testing (fatigue, wear, tensile strength, etc.), material characterization, and biocompatibility testing.
• Comparison to predicate devices: Demonstrating that the new device is substantially equivalent in terms of materials, design, intended use, and performance to one or more legally marketed predicate devices.

The document states: "A comparison of the Ascension Silicone PIP and the DePuy NeuFlex PIP Finger Implant (K001922) and Ascension Silicone MCP (K022892) show similar material, design features, surgical technique and indications." This statement is the core of the "study" described, demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than presenting specific performance metrics from a clinical trial or algorithm test.

Ask a specific question about this device