Search Results

The Intraosseous Fixation System is intended for reduction of arthrodeses, osteotomies, intra- and extra-articular fractures and nonunions of the small bones and joints of the hand, wrist, foot and ankle, appropriate for the size of the device.

The Extremity Medical Intraosseous Fixation System is intended for reduction and internal fixation of arthrodeses, osteotomies, intra- and extra-articular fractures and nonunion of the small bones and joints of the hand, wrist, foot, and ankle. The system consists of solid and cannulated screws, with the option of adding Washers; a standard/flat Washer, a Washer Post (referred to as an X-Post) for engaging the head of the Screw, and an X-Clip for engaging the threads of the screw. The X-Post/X-Clip come in varying sizes and lengths. Similarly, the lag screws come in varying diameters and lengths, and are also available in short and long thread configurations. The modified device is a product line extension and improvement to the Screw and Washer System, cleared under K121349, intended to provide modularity to the end user. New components to the system consist of cannulated 3.5 mm screws and implant accessories, X-Posts and X-Clips, to offer surgeons options for placement. Additionally, the system will offer additional thread length options for the 4.5mm screws cleared under K121349 and 6.5mm screws substantially equivalent to those cleared under K121349.

This document, K201556, pertains to a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Intraosseous Fixation System," manufactured by Extremity Medical, LLC. It is a Class II device (21 CFR 888.3040) classified as a smooth or threaded metallic bone fixation fastener.

The provided text does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria for software or an AI/ML algorithm. The document describes a traditional medical device (implants for bone fixation) and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design, materials, and mechanical properties. There is no mention of an AI/ML component, image analysis, or any performance metrics typically associated with such systems.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the specific information regarding acceptance criteria, test set details, ground truth establishment, or human reader studies related to an AI/ML device, as none of that information is present in the provided FDA 510(k) clearance document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Intraosseous Fixation System is indicated to stabilize and aid in fixation of fractures, fusions, and osteotomies of the phalanges.

The Intraosseous Fixation System consists of various size implants to stabilize and aid in the fixation of fracture, fusions, and osteotomies of the phalanges. The implants are offered in different lengths and diameters. All implants are manufactured from implant grade titanium alloy or PEEK.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the "Intraosseous Fixation System" by Tornier, OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc. It details the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices. However, it does not describe an acceptance criteria table, a study proving device performance against such criteria, or any of the other specific items requested in your prompt (sample size, expert qualifications, adjudication, MRMC study, standalone performance, ground truth types, training set details).

This type of submission primarily focuses on demonstrating that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, often relying on mechanical testing to show similar performance characteristics to the predicate, rather than clinical efficacy studies with specific acceptance criteria as you've outlined.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text. The document does not contain the details for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document reports mechanical testing (4-point bend, axial pull-out, insertion/removal torque, torque to failure) to establish substantial equivalence, but it doesn't present these as "acceptance criteria" for a specific study, nor does it provide the exact performance values against such criteria.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no clinical study with ground truth establishment is described.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
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, as this is a physical medical device, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Intraosseous Fixation System is intended to stabilize and aid in the fixation of fractures, fusions, and osteotomies of the phalanges.

The Intraosseous Fixation System consists of various size implants to stabilize and aid in the fixation of fracture, fusions, and osteotomies of the phalanges. The implants are offered in different lengths and diameters. All implants are manufactured from implant grade titanium alloy.

The provided text is related to a 510(k) summary for the OrthoHelix Surgical Designs, Inc. Intraosseous Fixation System. This document outlines the device description, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on mechanical testing. It does not describe a study involving a comparison of device performance against acceptance criteria using statistical measures on a test set, nor does it refer to human readers, experts, or ground truth as would be relevant for a medical imaging or diagnostic device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories of information are not applicable to this submission.

Here is the information that can be extracted from the provided text based on your prompt:

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

Regarding the other points, the provided text does not contain the information needed to answer them as they pertain to studies typically performed on diagnostic or AI-enabled devices.

• 2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The study was mechanical testing, not a diagnostic accuracy study.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No ground truth was established by experts for this type of mechanical testing.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
• 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. This is not an AI or diagnostic device.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. No training set was involved in this type of mechanical testing.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device