Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(89 days)
MULTITAK SPLINTER 3.0 MM RESORBABLE ANCHOR
The Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchor System consists of a single use bone soft tissue resorbable anchor implant and is intended for use as a load bearing or non-load bearing suture anchor in the attachment of soft tissue to bone in various arthroscopic and open orthopedic procedures.
The Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchors are indicated for use in the following orthopedic soft tissue to bone fixation applications:
- Shoulder: Bankart lesion repairs Acromio-clavicular repairs · Deltoid repairs Rotator cuff tear repairs Biceps tenodesis
- Elbow: Ulnar or radial collateral ligament reconstruction
- Knee: Extra-capsular repairs Medial collateral ligament repair Lateral collateral ligament repair Posterior oblique ligament repair Illiotibial band tenodesis Patellar tendon repair VMO advancement Joint capsule closure
- Foot/Ankle: Medial/Lateral repairs/reconstructions Achilles tendon repairs
The Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchors are cylindrical suture anchors with a conical tip on one end. The resorbable anchors are injection molded from a poly-L-lactic acid resin and have two transverse suture holes. The resorbable implant comes threaded with up to USP Size No. 2 polyester suture preloaded on the tip of a single use disposable introduction device. The resorbable implant and suture is delivered into a predrilled bone site. The suture ends are pulled to engage cancellous bone and to toggle and lock the anchor in bony tissue. A curved needle attached to the suture end is used to secure soft tissue to bone.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchor." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than establishing novel safety and effectiveness through clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria in the manner one might find for a new diagnostic device or drug.
Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study details, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment, which are typical for diagnostic device performance studies, does not directly apply in the same way to this 510(k) submission.
However, I can extract information related to the device's performance based on the predicate comparison:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criterion (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Mechanical strengths and failure modes comparable to predicate devices | "Performance testing comparing the mechanical strengths and failure modes of the Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchors to predicate devices demonstrated that the anchors are statistically equivalent." |
| Intended use comparable to predicate devices | "The Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchors are similar in intended use... to current commercially available poly-L-lactic acid resorbable implants..." |
| Materials comparable to predicate devices | "The Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchors are similar in... materials to current commercially available poly-L-lactic acid resorbable implants..." |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size: Not specified in the provided text. The term "performance testing" implies a laboratory-based study rather than a clinical one with human subjects.
- Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but given it's a 510(k) submission, the testing would have been conducted by the manufacturer, Bonutti Research, Inc. It's likely a retrospective comparison to existing data or concurrent in-house testing against predicate devices.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Not applicable in this context. The "ground truth" here is based on defined engineering standards for mechanical strength and failure modes, rather than expert interpretation of a diagnostic output.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Not applicable. This method is used for establishing ground truth in diagnostic studies, which is not the type of study described here.
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 device is a medical implant (suture anchor), not a diagnostic AI device requiring human reader improvement studies.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not applicable. This device is a physical implant, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- The "ground truth" for the performance claims would be defined engineering specifications and measured mechanical properties (e.g., tensile strength, pull-out strength, torque to failure) for both the Multitak Splinter and the predicate devices. The claim of "statistically equivalent" suggests quantitative comparisons.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable. This refers to machine learning models, which is not relevant to this device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable. This refers to machine learning models, which is not relevant to this device.
Summary based on the provided text:
The provided document describes a predicate comparison study for a medical implant device. The "study" involves performance testing focused on the mechanical strengths and failure modes of the Multitak Splinter 3.0 mm Resorbable Anchor. The primary finding is that the device is statistically equivalent to its predicate devices in these aspects. The "acceptance criteria" were implicitly met by demonstrating this statistical equivalence in the relevant mechanical properties. No clinical trial data, expert review, or AI-related information as typically requested was part of this 510(k) summary.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1