Search Results

The Avanti Orthopaedics Ulnar Shortening System is intended for ulnar shortening osteotomy.

The Avanti Orthopaedics Ulnar Shortening System implants are designed for wrist and forearm conditions in which the ulna is, either statically or dynamically, longer than the radius and causing pain and/or dysfunction due to derangement of the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) and/or impaction of the carpus. The Avanti Orthopaedics Ulnar Shortening System plates and screws are manufactured from 316LS medical grade implant quality stainless steel. The Avanti Orthopaedics Ulnar Shortening System plate should only be used with the appropriately sized Avanti Orthopaedics screws. The lag screw hole in the ulnar shortening plate provides for orthogonal, compressive fixation of the osteotomy.

This document refers to a medical device, the Avanti Orthopaedics Ulnar Shortening System, not an AI/ML-driven device. Therefore, the questions regarding acceptance criteria, study details, ground truth establishment, and training/test set data are not applicable in the context of an AI/ML device approval.

The 510(k) summary provided in the input focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through technological characteristics, material composition, and intended use.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant information provided:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: This section is not applicable in the context of AI/ML performance metrics. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "Non-Clinical Performance Testing Conclusion" states: "Although non-clinical testing was not necessary, an engineering analysis was provided to show the subject system did not create a new worst case as compared to the reference device K191118 Avanti Distal Radius and Forearm System." This implies that the device's mechanical properties and safety profile are considered acceptable based on comparison to an existing device, rather than specific performance metrics against pre-defined acceptance criteria.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance: Not applicable for an AI/ML study. The approval is for a physical medical implant.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications: Not applicable for an AI/ML study.

4. Adjudication Method: Not applicable for an AI/ML study.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable for a physical medical implant.

6. Standalone Performance: Not applicable for a physical medical implant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used: Not applicable for an AI/ML study. For a physical implant, the "ground truth" would be established through engineering analysis, material testing, and clinical outcomes in predicate devices.

8. Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable for a physical medical implant.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established: Not applicable for a physical medical implant.

In summary: The provided document is for the regulatory clearance of a physical orthopedic implant, not an AI/ML software device. Therefore, the detailed questions about acceptance criteria, study design, and ground truth for AI/ML performance are not relevant to this specific regulatory submission. The clearance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices, which focuses on aspects like material, design, and intended use.

Ask a specific question about this device