Search Results

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Arcus™ Staple System, which is a metallic bone fixation device. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study report as would be typical for a novel device requiring more comprehensive clinical or standalone performance studies.

Therefore, the requested information cannot be fully extracted in the format requested as the available text does not contain the specific details regarding quantitative acceptance criteria, a study that proves they are met, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, multi-reader multi-case studies, or detailed ground truth methodologies that are common for AI/imaging device submissions.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred and what is missing based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance & 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

The device is a physical bone staple system, not an AI or imaging algorithm. Therefore, "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" are related to mechanical properties and biocompatibility, not diagnostic accuracy or standalone performance of an algorithm.

The text states:
"Mechanical testing was performed as described in relevant recognized standards, including testing for 4 point bending (static and dynamic) and pull-out force for the Arcus™ Staple System as per ASTM F-564."

This indicates that mechanical tests were conducted, but the specific acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum bending strength, maximum deformation, minimum pull-out force) and the reported values for the device's performance against these criteria are not provided in the document.

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

As this is a mechanical device, not an AI/imaging device, there isn't a "test set" in the context of diagnostic data. The "test set" would refer to the number of staples subjected to mechanical testing. This information (sample size) is not provided. Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable here.

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

This is not applicable as the device is a mechanical implant, not an AI or diagnostic tool requiring expert ground truth in that sense. Mechanical testing typically follows standardized protocols and does not involve human expert adjudication of results in the same way an imaging study would.

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

This is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3.

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 as the device is a mechanical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" would be the universally accepted physical laws and engineering principles that govern material strength and performance, codified in standards like ASTM F-564. The measurements observed during these tests (e.g., actual force at failure) are compared against the requirements of the standard.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device.

Summary of what is available vs. missing:

Category	Information from Document	Missing Information (Not in Document)
1. Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance Table	Mechanical testing was performed for 4-point bending (static and dynamic) and pull-out force as per ASTM F-564. The device is a bone staple system.	Specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum ultimate tensile strength, maximum deformation, minimum pull-out force) derived from ASTM F-564. The actual quantitative "reported device performance" values for these mechanical tests.
2. Sample size and Data Provenance (Test Set)	N/A (Mechanical device, not a diagnostic test set)	The number of staples tested for each mechanical test (e.g., N=X staples for 4-point bending, N=Y staples for pull-out). Data provenance does not apply.
3. Number & Qualifications of Experts (Ground Truth - Test Set)	N/A (Not applicable for mechanical device testing)	Not applicable.
4. Adjudication Method (Test Set)	N/A (Not applicable for mechanical device testing)	Not applicable.
5. MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study (AI improvement)	N/A (Device is a mechanical implant, not AI)	Not applicable.
6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm only)	N/A (Device is a mechanical implant, not an algorithm)	Not applicable.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used	Standards and principles defined by ASTM F-564 for mechanical properties of metallic surgical implants.	(Implicitly, the ground truth is the requirement of the ASTM F-564 standard, and the device is intended to meet or exceed those requirements, but specific requirements and results are not stated).
8. Sample Size for Training Set	N/A (Not applicable for mechanical device)	Not applicable.
9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established	N/A (Not applicable for mechanical device)	Not applicable.

In conclusion, the provided FDA 510(k) document for the Arcus™ Staple System is for a mechanical device. The "study" mentioned is mechanical testing (4-point bending and pull-out force as per ASTM F-564) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not a clinical trial or AI performance study with detailed ground truth establishment and expert adjudication. Therefore, most of the specific questions geared towards AI/diagnostic device performance studies cannot be answered from this text.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1