Search Results

Indications for the LactoScrew™ Screw Anchors include use in soft tissue reattachment procedures in the shoulder, wrist/hand, ankle/foot, elbow, and knee. Specific indications are as follows:

Shoulder: Bankart repair, SLAP lesion repair, acromio-clavicular separation, rotator cuff repair, capsule repair or capsulolabral reconstruction, biceps tendodesis, deltoid repair. Wrist/Hand: Scapholunate ligament reconstruction, ulnar/radial collateral ligament reconstruction.

Ankle/Foot: Lateral stabilization, medial stabilization, Achilles tendon repair/reconstruction, halluxvalgus reconstruction, mid- and forefoot reconstruction.

Elbow: Tennis elbow repair, ulnar or radial collateral ligament reconstruction, biceps tendon reconstruction.

Knee: Medial collateral ligament repair, lateral collateral ligament repair, posterior oblique ligament repair, joint capsule closure, iliotibial band tendodesis, and patellar ligament/ tendon repair.

This device is a screw anchor used to provide a means for attaching soft tissue to bone during healing. The device consists of a screw portion and a head portion. The screw portion engages the bone while the head portion provides a means to drive the anchor in and a means to attach the suture to the anchor. These anchors are comprised of 85% L-Lactide/15% Glycolide and are available in 3.5 mm and 5.5 mm diameter sizes.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Biomet LactoScrew™ Screw Anchor, which is a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than proving clinical effectiveness through a new study with acceptance criteria and performance metrics.

Therefore, the document explicitly states:

• Non-Clinical Testing: "Mechanical testing was performed to establish substantial equivalence to the predicate devices."
• Clinical Testing: "Clinical testing was not used to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices."

Due to this, the questions regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training sets, and ground truth establishment for a study proving acceptance criteria cannot be answered directly from the provided text.

The 510(k) process for this device relies on demonstrating that its technological characteristics (material and design) are similar to existing, legally marketed predicate devices, and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. The "acceptance criteria" here would relate to the successful demonstration of substantial equivalence, primarily through non-clinical mechanical testing, rather than performance against pre-defined clinical metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device