Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(59 days)
ATTUNE Revision Hinge Knee
The ATTUNE Revision Hinge Knee is indicated in cases for cement use in patients who have reached skeletal maturity and for whom the surgeon has decided to resect both cruciate ligaments due to the following conditions:
- Severe instability, gross deformity and/or bone loss
- Failure of a previous knee reconstruction procedure.
- Trauma or tumor resection
- Absent or markedly insufficient collateral ligaments
The ATTUNE™ Revision Hinge Knee, comprised of a femoral, housing assembly, and tibial insert component, is compatible with devices of the ATTUNE Knee System and the ATTUNE Revision Knee System and is designed to replace the natural articulating surface of the knee joint in total knee arthroplasty. The femoral component is a metal/ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) implant intended for cemented use. The housing assembly component is composed of both metal and antioxidant (AOX) UHMWPE subcomponents. The tibial insert component is composed of AOX UHMWPE.
This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for the "ATTUNE™ Revision Hinge Knee" device. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study demonstrating the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/software device.
Therefore, many of the requested sections about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and MRMC studies are not applicable to this particular document as it is for a mechanical implant and not an AI/software product. The information provided relates to the non-clinical testing of the physical implant's mechanical and material properties.
However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the tests performed for the determination of substantial equivalence (analogous to proving the device meets certain performance standards for a mechanical device).
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria with reported performance values in a direct side-by-side comparison. Instead, it states that "The following tests were performed in support of the to demonstrate substantial equivalence of safety and efficacy with the predicate devices." This implies that the device performed equivalently to the predicate devices in these tests, satisfying the FDA's requirement for substantial equivalence.
| Test Type | Acceptance Criterion (Implicit) | Reported Device Performance (Implicit) |
|---|---|---|
| Shear Testing | Substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Performed in support of substantial equivalence and safety/efficacy. |
| Fatigue Testing | Substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Performed in support of substantial equivalence and safety/efficacy. |
| Wear Performance | Substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Performed in support of substantial equivalence and safety/efficacy. |
| Stability Testing | Substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Performed in support of substantial equivalence and safety/efficacy. |
| Contact Pressure Testing | Substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Performed in support of substantial equivalence and safety/efficacy. |
| Biocompatibility | Substantially equivalent to predicate devices. | Performed in support of substantial equivalence and safety/efficacy. |
| MRI Safety Evaluation Testing | Substantially equivalent to predicate devices (if applicable). | Performed in support of substantial equivalence and safety/efficacy. |
2. Sample sizes 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 specific sample sizes for these tests (e.g., how many specimens were shear-tested or fatigue-tested). It also does not mention data provenance as these are mechanical/materials tests, not human data studies.
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. This is a submission for a mechanical medical device, not an AI/Software device requiring expert-established ground truth from medical images or clinical data. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the established engineering and material science standards.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable for a mechanical device submission.
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 not an AI/software device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
For the mechanical tests listed (Shear, Fatigue, Wear, Stability, Contact Pressure, Biocompatibility, MRI Safety Evaluation), the "ground truth" would be established engineering standards, material science specifications, and regulatory requirements relevant to orthopedic implants.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This is not a machine learning/AI device, so there is no training set mentioned.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1