Search Results

The EVOLUTION® Revision CCK System is indicated for use in knee arthroplasty in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions:

1. Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease: including osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, or avascular necrosis
2. Inflammatory degenerative joint disease, including rheumatoid arthritis;
3. Correction of functional deformity
4. Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed; and treatment of fractures that are unmanageable using other techniques.
   The EVOLUTION® Medial-Pivot Total Knee System Nonporous implants are for cemented use only.

EVOLUTION® Revision CCK (Constrained Condylar Knee) is being introduced to supplement MicroPort Orthopedics' knee product lines to provide options in the case of revision or complex primary total knee replacements. The design features are summarized below:

• Components manufactured from cobalt chrome alloy, titanium alloy, and UHMWPE conforming to ASTM F75, F136, and F648, respectively
• . Available in 8 standard sizes, left and right
• Available in 2 plus sizes, left and right
• . System includes femoral component, augments, stem offset adapters, tibial insert and stem cap

The provided text describes the MicroPort Orthopedics EVOLUTION® Revision CCK System, a knee joint prosthesis. However, it does not contain a study that establishes acceptance criteria and then proves the device meets those criteria in the typical format of a diagnostic or AI/software device.

Instead, this 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices based on design features, materials, and non-clinical performance testing. The information provided is primarily related to mechanical and material performance rather than diagnostic accuracy or human performance with or without AI.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request as posed because the document is not an "acceptance criteria study" in the sense you are asking for. It is a regulatory submission demonstrating substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, I can extract information relevant to non-clinical performance testing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" for each test in a pass/fail format alongside numerical performance values. Instead, it describes comparative performance against a predicate device. The general "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as performing "as well as" or "greater than" the predicate device for various mechanical properties to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device