Search Results

The Arthrex Knotless Mini TightRopes are intended as an adjunct in fracture repair involving metaphyseal and periarticular small bone fragments where screws are not indicated, and as an adjunct to external and intramedullary fixation systems involving plates and rods, with fracture braces and casting.

Specifically, the Arthrex Knotless Mini TightRopes are intended to provide fixation during the healing process following:

1. Syndesmotic trauma, such as fixation of dorsal distal radioulnar ligament (DRUL) disruptions;

2. Tarasometatarsal (TMT) injury, such as fixation of foot soft tissue separations due to a Lisfranc injury (Midfoot Reconstruction); and

3. Hallux Valgus reconstruction (correction) by providing for the reduction of 1st metatarsal intermetatarsal angle.

The Arthrex Knotless Mini TightRopes, when used for fixation of bone-to-bone or soft-tissue-to-bone, are intended as fixation posts, distribution bridges, or for distributing suture tension over areas of ligament or tendon repair.

Specifically, the Arthrex Knotless Mini TightRopes are indicated for Carpal (CMC) joint arthroplasty as an adjunct in the healing process of the thumb metacarpal by providing stabilization between the base of the first and second metacarpal when the trapezium has been excised due to osteoarthritis. The Arthrex Knotless Mini TightRopes are also indicated for use as adjuncts in the suspension of the thumb metacarpal during process of hematoma distraction arthroplasty by providing stabilization at the base of the first and second metacarpal when the trapezium has been excised due to osteoarthritis.

The Arthrex Knotless Mini TightRopes are suture and button constructs that consist of two buttons, one or more suture strands and various ancillary instruments to aid in insertion. The buttons are manufactured from titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 (Ti-6AL-4V ELI). The sutures are manufactured from UHMWPE, polyester and/or nylon. The devices are sold sterile and are single-use.

This document describes the Arthrex Knotless Mini TightRopes device. It appears to be a 510(k) Summary for a medical device cleared by the FDA, primarily focusing on proving substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study of its performance against specific acceptance criteria in a clinical context.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for describing an AI/device performance study and its acceptance criteria are not applicable to this document as it's a submission for a mechanical implant, not an AI or digital health device, and the "performance data" refers to mechanical testing.

However, I can extract the information that is present and indicate where information is not available or not relevant for this type of device submission.

Here's an attempt to answer your request based on the provided text, while noting the limitations:

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

For a mechanical implant, acceptance criteria are typically defined by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through mechanical testing. The document states that the new device must perform "statistically equivalent" to the predicate.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of devices tested) for the mechanical, MRI, endotoxin, or biocompatibility tests.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but these are typically laboratory tests performed by the manufacturer or contracted labs, not clinical data from a specific country or retrospective/prospective clinical 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)

This is not applicable. The ground truth for this device is based on established engineering standards (ASTM, ISO) and comparison to predicate device performance through objective material and mechanical testing, not expert interpretation of clinical data or images.

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

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical endpoints. The described tests are objective laboratory measurements.

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. This is a physical implant, not an AI or imaging device, and no MRMC study was conducted or is relevant to its clearance.

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

This is not applicable. This is a physical implant.

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

The "ground truth" for this device, in the context of its 510(k) clearance, is primarily defined by:

• Established engineering standards (e.g., ASTM for mechanical properties and MRI safety, ISO for biocompatibility).
• The performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate devices (K133275 and K061925), which serve as the benchmark for "substantial equivalence."

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this type of mechanical device submission.

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

This is not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device