Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(63 days)
CONFORMIS IUNI UNICONDYLAR KNEE REPLACEMENT SYSTEM
The ConforMIS Unicondylar Knee Replacement System (iUni) is intended for use in one compartment of the osteoarthritic knee to replace the damaged area of the articular surface in patients with evidence of adequate healthy bone sufficient for support of the implanted components.
Candidates for unicondylar knee replacement include those with:
- joint impairment due to osteoarthritis or traumatic arthritis of the knee,
- previous femoral condyle or tibial plateau fracture, creating loss of function,
- valgus or varus deformity of the knee,
- revision procedures provided that anatomic landmarks necessary for alignment and positioning of the implant are identifiable on patient imaging scans.
This implant is intended for cemented use only.
ConforMIS iUni Unicondylar Knee Replacement System ("iUni KRS") is a patient-specific unicompartmental knee replacement system. The iUni is comprised of a set of implants designed from patient images. The implant system consist of:
- 1 Femoral Implant
- 1 Tibial Component (all-polyethylene or metal backed)
The implants of the iUni KRS will be composed of individually packaged femoral and tibial components and will be provided with ancillary instrumentation to assist in the implantation procedure.
The patient-specific femoral implant will be made of Cobalt Chrome Molybdenum alloy (CoCrMo) and will be personalized to match a patient's anatomy.
The all poly tibial component is made from UHMWPE. The metal backed tibial component will consist of a CoCrMo tibial tray and with an Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) tibial insert. Multiple inserts of varying thicknesses may be provided to accommodate surgeon preferences.
The outline bone contacting and articular surfaces of the femoral component as well as the outline of both tibial components are personalized to match the patient's femoral and tibial anatomy. The design of the implant is derived from an analysis, using proprietary software, of images obtained by MRI or CT scan.
Disposable, patient-specific instrumentation is provided to assist in the implantation of the iUni Unicondylar Knee Replacement System.
The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the ConforMIS iUni Unicondylar Knee Replacement System. This submission is for clarifying the indications for use statement and does not involve any changes to the device itself. Therefore, a study to prove device performance relative to acceptance criteria as if it were a new AI/software device is not relevant in this context.
The document explicitly states:
- "Non-clinical laboratory testing was not performed as there is no change to the device."
- "Clinical data is not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence."
- "The determination of substantial equivalence for this device was based on the indications for use statements and the device design. The design of the iUni KRS was previously determined to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices. A comparison of the designs and the indications for use statements confirmed that the modification to the indications for use does not affect device performance and is, therefore, also substantially equivalent."
This 510(k) is essentially an administrative update to align the indications for use with previous clearances and FDA guidance. There are no performance metrics or detailed studies presented for this particular submission. The "device performance" in question here is the device's substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on its design and intended use, not on specific quantitative performance metrics tested in a study for this submission.
Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies cannot be extracted from this document, as such studies were not part of this specific 510(k) submission.
However, I can provide information based on the premise of the submission, which is about substantial equivalence, not new performance data.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Criterion Type | Acceptance Criterion | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial Equivalence | The updated Indications for Use statement and device design must not affect device performance compared to predicate devices, maintaining substantial equivalence. | The ConforMIS iUni Unicondylar Knee Replacement System with the updated indications for use statement is concluded to be substantially equivalent to the iUni Unicondylar Knee Replacement System (K111916, K092441, K072586, K072368, K063432, K043570); Smith & Nephew Journey Unicondylar (K102069); and Zimmer Unicompartmental Knee System (K033363) based on detailed device description and indications for use statement comparisons. |
| Device Design Comparison | The device design must be consistent with previously cleared devices. | The design of the iUni KRS was previously determined to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices. (No changes in design for this submission). |
| Indications for Use Alignment | The updated indications for use statement must be consistent with predicate devices and FDA guidance. | The purpose of this submission is to clarify the indications for use statement and make it consistent with predicate devices and FDA guidance. (This was the primary goal and was achieved by comparing statements). |
| Clinical Data Requirement | Clinical data should be unnecessary if substantial equivalence is demonstrated without device change. | Clinical data is not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence as there is no change to the device, and the substantial equivalence is based on comparisons of descriptions and indications for use. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
Not applicable for this submission. No new test set data was generated or analyzed as there was no change to the device. The evaluation was based on a comparison of device descriptions and indications for use statements against existing predicate devices.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable for this submission. No new ground truth was established as there was no study for device performance.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable for this 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 for this submission. This device is a physical knee replacement system, not an AI/software device involving human readers or AI assistance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable for this submission. This device is a physical knee replacement system, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used
Not applicable for this submission. The "ground truth" for this 510(k) was the existing regulatory clearances and indication statements of the predicate devices.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable for this submission.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable for this submission.
Ask a specific question about this device
(85 days)
CONFORMIS IUNI UNICONDYLAR KNEE REPLACEMENT SYSTEM
The ConforMIS Unicondylar Knee Replacement System (iUni KRS) with curved tibial insert is intended for use in one compartment of the osteoarthritic knee to replace the damaged area of the articular surface in patients with evidence of adequate healthy bone sufficient for support of the implanted components.
Candidates for unicondylar knee repair include those with:
• joint impairment due to osteoarthritis or traumatic arthritis of the knee
• previous femoral condyle or tibial plateau fracture, creating loss of function and
• valgus or varus deformity of the knee.
This implant is intended for cemented use only.
The ConforMIS iUni Implant System is comprised of a set of implants designed from patient images. The implants consist of
- 1 Femoral Implant .
- 1 Tibial Trav o
- 2 or 3 Tibial Inserts 0
The implants of the iUni Implant System will be composed of individually packaged femoral and tibial components.
The femoral implant will be made of Cobalt Chrome Molydenum (CoCrMo) and will be personalized to match a patient's anatomy, thus becoming patient specific.
The tibial implants will consist of a CoCrMo tibial tray and two or three Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) tibial inserts of varying thicknesses.
The outline bone contacting and articular surfaces of the femoral component as well as the outline of both tibial components are personalized to match the patient's femoral and tibial anatomy. The design of the implant is derived from an analysis, using proprietary software, of images obtained by MRI or CT Scan.
Disposable, patient- specific instrumentation is provided to assist in the implantation of the iUni Unicondylar Knee Replacement System
The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the ConforMIS® iUni Unicondylar Knee Replacement System. This submission is for a medical device (knee implant), not an AI/ML-driven device or study assessing algorithm performance. Therefore, many of the requested fields are not applicable.
Here's the information that can be extracted from the provided text, along with indications where the requested information is not available or relevant to this type of device submission:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criteria (if available) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Safety & Performance Equivalence | To demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices (K043570, K063432, K072368, K072586, K092441) and other marketed cemented unicondylar knee replacement systems. | Non-clinical laboratory testing (Femoral Fatigue, Femoral Implant fixation, Cadaveric testing, Software validation testing) demonstrated the device is safe and substantially equivalent for its proposed intended use. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size (Test Set): Not applicable for a non-clinical device submission. The "test set" here refers to components used in non-clinical lab testing. Specific numbers for units tested are not detailed in the summary.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for this type of submission. The tests performed are described as "Femoral Fatigue," "Femoral Implant fixation," "Cadaveric testing," and "Software validation testing." These are laboratory-based tests, not human data.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Number of Experts: Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of AI/ML, refers to human-labeled data. This submission describes physical device testing and software validation, not interpretation of data by experts to establish a "ground truth."
- Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This concept pertains to resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of data, which is not relevant to the non-clinical lab tests described.
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
- MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic devices, which this is not.
- Effect Size: Not applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Standalone Performance: Not applicable. This device is a physical knee implant. While it uses proprietary software for design based on patient images, "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm refers to its diagnostic or predictive capability without human intervention. The software here is a design tool, not a diagnostic algorithm. Software validation testing was performed to support changes, but this is validation of the software's ability to correctly design implants, not a "standalone performance" as in AI/ML.
7. The type of ground truth used
- Type of Ground Truth: For the non-clinical tests (femoral fatigue, fixation, cadaveric), the "ground truth" would be engineering specifications, biomechanical expectations, and potentially anatomical landmarks from cadaveric studies. For software validation, the "ground truth" would be the expected output or design parameters based on input images. This is not "expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data" as typically understood in AI/ML.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Sample Size (Training Set): Not applicable. This device is a physical implant designed using proprietary software, not an AI/ML model trained on a dataset. The software is used to design personalized implants from patient images, implying it's an image processing and design tool, not a learning algorithm that undergoes a training phase in the AI sense.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- How Ground Truth Established: Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the AI/ML sense. The software's accuracy in generating designs from patient images would typically be validated against known anatomical models or expert-reviewed designs, but this is part of software validation, not AI/ML training ground truth.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1