Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(90 days)
ENDOBUTTON DIRECT
The Smith & Nephew ENDOBUTTON DIRECT Fixation Device is used for fixation of tendons and ligaments during orthopedic reconstruction procedures such as Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL).
The ENDOBUTTON DIRECT is a machined titanium implant designed to provide cortical fixation in the repair of tendons and ligaments. The design of the ENDOBUTTON DIRECT allows for the device to be endoscopically delivered from a single access point. The harvested graft is looped through the closed portion of the ENDOBUTTON DIRECT and by pulling on a lead suture attached to the top of the ENDOBUTTON DIRECT the construct is moved through the tunnel. The trailing suture located distal to the graft is then used to flip the device into position, lying flat across the tunnel opening on top of the femoral cortex.
The provided text is for a 510(k) Summary for a medical device called the "Smith & Nephew ENDOBUTTON DIRECT." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not on demonstrating performance against specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study involving human readers or AI.
Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training data is not applicable or available in this type of regulatory submission.
Here's an analysis based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Not Applicable. The 510(k) Summary for the ENDOBUTTON DIRECT does not present acceptance criteria for device performance in the way described (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device (Smith & Nephew Endobutton CL, K980155) in terms of design, materials, function, and intended use.
The "performance" described is limited to:
| Acceptance Criteria Type | Reported Device Performance | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bench Top Testing (Tensile Testing) | Differences in the new device and the predicate device do not raise any new issues of safety and efficacy. | No specific numerical acceptance criteria or performance values (e.g., tensile strength in Newtons) are provided. The statement indicates a qualitative assessment of equivalence. |
| Material Equivalence | Button material is the same as the predicate device. | Demonstrates equivalence, not specific performance metrics against an acceptance criterion. |
| Design Equivalence | Similar design to the predicate device, allowing for endoscopic delivery and flipping into position. | Focuses on functional similarity to the predicate, not performance against pre-defined acceptance criteria. |
| Function Equivalence | Provides cortical fixation in the repair of tendons and ligaments, similar to the predicate. | Equivalence in intended functional outcome. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
Not Applicable. No "test set" in the context of imaging or AI performance is mentioned. The performance testing was bench-top tensile testing. The sample size for this testing is not specified, nor is the provenance of any "data" as it pertains to human or AI performance.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications
Not Applicable. Ground truth, in the context of expert consensus, is not relevant for this device's regulatory submission, which relies on bench-top mechanical testing and comparison to a predicate device.
4. Adjudication Method
Not Applicable. No adjudication method is mentioned as there is no "test set" requiring expert review or consensus.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
No. The document explicitly states: "The performance testing conducted demonstrates substantial equivalence to the Smith & Nephew Endobutton CL, cleared in K980155. The bench top testing included tensile testing..." There is no mention of an MRMC study, human readers, or AI assistance.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study
No. This is a mechanical fixation device, not an algorithm or AI system. Therefore, standalone algorithm performance is not applicable.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
Not Applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's regulatory submission is based on the performance of the predicate device and engineering principles demonstrated through bench-top testing (e.g., tensile strength, material properties). It's not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the way these terms are typically used for diagnostic or AI devices.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI system. There is no concept of a "training set" in this submission.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not Applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.
Ask a specific question about this device
(84 days)
ENDOBUTTON DIRECT
The Smith & Nephew EndoButton Direct Fixation Device is used for fixation of tendons and ligaments during orthopedic reconstruction procedures such as Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) or Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PCL) Reconstruction.
The EndoButton Direct is a machined titanium implant designed to provide cortical fixation in the repair of tendons and ligaments. The design of the EndoButton Direct allows for the device to be endoscopically delivered from a single access point. The device is available in 5-10mm lengths to accommodate different graft sizes.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Smith & Nephew EndoButton Direct, a fixation device for tendons and ligaments. It establishes substantial equivalence to a predicate device, but it does not contain any information about specific acceptance criteria or performance data beyond a general statement of equivalency. Therefore, I cannot construct a table of acceptance criteria or describe a study that proves the device meets them from this document.
The document states:
- "The performance testing conducted demonstrates substantial equivalence to the Smith & Nephew EndoButton CL, cleared in K980155. The testing also demonstrates that the differences in the new device and the predicate device do not raise any new issues of safety and efficacy."
This indicates that performance testing was done, but the details of that testing, including acceptance criteria, results, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement, are not provided in this 510(k) summary.
Therefore, I cannot answer the specific questions regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth, experts, adjudication, or MRMC studies based solely on the provided text.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1