Search Results

The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System is indicated for the fixation of fractures, mal-unions, nonunions or osteotomies for the clavicle, humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpal, tibia, fibula, malleolus and metatarsal.

The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System consists of titanium plates for the Distal Radius, Clavicle, Proximal Humerus, Tibia, Distal Fibula, a Low Profile 1/3 Tubular and Hook plate, bone screws and instruments for implantation. The plates come in a variety of sizes and accept 2.5mm, 3.5mm and 4.0mm bone screws. The bone screws are available in two diameters of cortex screws (2.5mm and a 4.0mm cancellous screw. They range in length from 6mm to 130mm. The cortex screws are available with both threaded (locking) and non-threaded (non-locking) heads. The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System is made of titanium alloy in compliance with ASTM F136, ASTM F1472 or ASTM F67. The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System is provided non-sterile and is steam-sterilized by the medical facility prior to implantation.

This document describes the OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System and its 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the manner of an AI/ML device.

Therefore, the requested information elements related to AI/ML device studies (such as sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment) are not applicable to this submission.

The acceptance criteria here refer to the mechanical properties required for a bone plate system to be considered safe and effective, and the "study" is the performance testing conducted to confirm those properties.

Here's the breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

Not applicable in the context of an AI/ML device study. For mechanical testing, samples were likely taken to represent each type of plate and screw for destructive testing. The data provenance is from in vitro mechanical testing performed by the manufacturer, not from patient data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

Not applicable. "Ground truth" for mechanical testing is established by the physical properties measured against industry standards (ASTM). No human experts are involved in establishing this type of ground truth beyond standard laboratory practices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Mechanical testing results are objective measurements.

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 a medical device (bone plate system), not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive tool.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical implantable device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Mechanical Property Standards: The ground truth for this device's performance is adherence to established ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for metallic bone plates (ASTM F382) and metallic medical bone screws (ASTM F543-07), and material composition (ASTM F136, ASTM F1472, ASTM F67). These standards define the acceptable range of mechanical properties for such devices to ensure safety and effectiveness.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of mechanical medical device testing.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable. There is no "training set" for this type of medical device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System is indicated for the fixation of fractures, mal-unions, nonunions or osteolomies for the clavicle, humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpal, tibia, fibula, malleolus and metatarsal.

The OIC Variable Ande Small Fragment Locking Plate System consists of titanium plates for the Distal Radius. Clavice. Proximal Humerus, Tibia and Distal Fibula, bone screws and instruments for implantation. The platety of sizes and are pre-contoured to match the anatomy of the patient and 3.5mm bone screws. The bone screws are available in two diameters (2.5mm) and range in length from 6mm to 130mm. The bone screws are available with both threaded (locking) and non-threaded (non-locking) heads.

The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System implants are made of titanium alloy or cp titanium in compliance with ASTM F136 or ASTM F67.

The provided text describes a medical device submission (K140357) for the OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System. However, it does not contain information regarding traditional acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria in the context of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, primarily through engineering and material testing, rather than clinical trials with patient outcomes or AI-driven performance studies.

Therefore, many of the requested categories cannot be filled as the information is not present in the provided text.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the available information, with clear indications where the information is not present:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for K140357: OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System

The provided 510(k) summary for the OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System does not detail specific acceptance criteria or clinical performance studies related to diagnostic accuracy or human-in-the-loop improvements for an AI device. Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through mechanical testing and material compliance.

The "acceptance criteria" can be inferred from the standards the device conforms to and the evaluation methods used to demonstrate substantial equivalence, which are primarily related to mechanical properties and materials.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: Not applicable/not provided. The evaluation was primarily based on engineering analyses (FEA) and literature review, not a test set of data in the context of AI or clinical outcomes.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable/not provided. The document refers to "literature review" for comparative mechanical performance, but does not specify the origin of this literature.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• Not applicable. The ground truth for mechanical performance was established via engineering analyses and comparisons to published standards and literature, not expert consensus on a test set of cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. No test set requiring expert adjudication is described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for diagnostic devices or AI-assisted interpretation, which is not the nature of this orthopedic implant submission.

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

• No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The 'ground truth' for this 510(k) submission relates to engineering standards, material specifications, and documented mechanical performance characteristics established through finite element analysis and literature review. It is not clinical pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus on patient cases.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is an orthopedic implant, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set. The "training" for its design and evaluation would come from established engineering principles, material science, and the design of predicate devices.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of this orthopedic implant. The benchmarks for performance (comparable mechanical properties, material compliance, etc.) were established through recognized ASTM standards, the performance of predicate devices, and engineering analyses (FEA).

Ask a specific question about this device