Search Results

The External Fixation Bone Distractor is intended for treatment of non-union or pseudoarthrosis of long bones and correction of bony or soft tissue defects or deformities.
The External Fixation Bone Distractor is indicated for adult and pediatric (greater than 2 through 21 years of age) patients.

The Paragon 28 External fixation Bone Distractor is a transverse bone transport system designed to assist in the controlled movement of a bone segment across a defect. The device can be used independently or in conjunction with the Monkey Rings External Fixation System (K232838) or Monkey Bars Pin to Bar External Fixation System (K242452) to form hybrid frames.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "External Fixation Bone Distractor" does NOT include information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria through clinical data, especially not in the context of an AI/ML-driven medical device.

This document describes a traditional medical device (an external fixation system) and its clearance is based on substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than on meeting specific performance metrics derived from a study like an MRMC or standalone AI performance evaluation. The "Performance Testing" section explicitly states: "No additional bench testing was performed for the subject device. Instead, a worst-case analysis was conducted using existing data from other components within the device system." This means the clearance is based on engineering design analysis and comparison to mechanically similar, already cleared components, not on a study with clinical performance acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text. The questions posed relate to the evaluation of AI/ML-driven medical devices, which operate under different regulatory and performance evaluation paradigms.

To answer your request thoroughly, I will indicate that the information is not present in the provided document for each point.

Here's the breakdown, indicating the information is not present based on the provided FDA 510(k) letter:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Information Not Present: The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for clinical performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) nor does it report performance metrics from a clinical study. The clearance is based on substantial equivalence and mechanical properties derived from "worst-case analysis" using existing data, not a specific performance study against defined clinical criteria.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Information Not Present: No test set is mentioned, as there was no clinical performance study conducted or reported for this 510(k) submission. The document relies on existing data from other components and worst-case analysis for mechanical performance.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Information Not Present: This is not applicable. There was no test set with clinical ground truth established by experts.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Information Not Present: This is not applicable. No test set involving human expert adjudication was used.

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

• Information Not Present: An MRMC study was not done. The device is a mechanical medical device, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or assistive tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Information Not Present: A standalone performance study was not done. The device is a mechanical bone distractor, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• Information Not Present: Ground truth, in the context of clinical performance evaluation for AI/ML devices, is not relevant here as it's a mechanical device. The "ground truth" for this device's clearance relates to its mechanical integrity and biocompatibility, established through engineering standards (ASTM F1541-17) and material properties.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Information Not Present: A training set is not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML system.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Information Not Present: This is not applicable. No training set or associated ground truth establishment method is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device