Search Results

The Biocore9 Femoral Resurfacing Head Component, is indicated for the treatment of painful hip arthritis due to post-traumatic arthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis, as well as painful hip arthroplasty when sufficient femoral head and neck stock exist to stabilize a resurfacing femoral head. The Biocore9 Femoral Resurfacing Head Component is intended for cemented use only. This device is intended for hemi-arthroplasty only.

The Biocore9 Femoral Resurfacing Head component is a non-constrained orthopedic implant intended to replace the articular surface of the existing femoral head in the patient's hip joint. The Biocore9 Femoral Resurfacing Head Component is intended for in the reconstruction of painful and/or severely disabled hip joints resulting from osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, traumatic arthritis, avascular necrosis, or previously failed prosthesis. Sufficient bone stock on the femoral head and neck is necessary to stabilize a resurfacing femoral component. This device is intended for cemented use only. Components are available in thirteen sizes with available outside diameters 39.5, 41, 42.5, 47, 49, 51, and 52.5 mm.

The Biocore9 Femoral Resurfacing Head Component is manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V alloy (ASTM F136-13) with a Titanium Nitride (TiN) thin film ceramic coating. The titanium nitride coating is an inert, highly adherent, near diamond-hard surface coating.

The Femoral Resurfacing component is axisymmetric with a truncated spherical shell and a tapered central alignment stem. The component consists of a thin-walled spherical shell. The internal surface of the spherical shell is covered with a porous coating consisting of titanium beads. The stem is not porous coated.

This document describes a medical device, the Biocore9 Femoral Resurfacing Head Component, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered device.

The information provided pertains to the regulatory clearance of a physical medical implant, specifically a hip joint femoral resurfacing prosthesis. The performance testing mentioned (TiN coating characterization, porous coating characterization, wear testing, abrasion resistance, and fatigue testing) are typical for mechanical implants to demonstrate material properties and durability, not for evaluating the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot answer your request regarding:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for an AI/ML device).
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications.
4. Adjudication method for the test set.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done.
6. If a standalone (algorithm only) performance was done.
7. The type of ground truth used.
8. The sample size for the training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established.

This document is about a Class II medical device (orthopedic implant) that is cleared based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through material and mechanical testing, not through clinical or AI/ML performance evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device