Search Results

The Orthocon OrthoStat™ Hemostatic Bone Putty is indicated for use in the control of bleeding from cut or damaged bone by acting as a mechanical barrier or tamponade. The material may be used during surgical procedures and in treating traumatic injuries.

Orthocon OrthoStat™ Hemostatic Bone Putty is a sterile, soft, moldable, biocompatible, absorbable material of putty-like consistency intended for use in the management of bleeding from the cut surface of bone. The material is a mixture of calcium stearate (a wax-like tamponade), Vitamin E Acetate (for handling properties) and alkylene oxide copolymer (a dispersing agent). The material is virtually odorless, off-white in color and can be spread easily with minimal adhesion to surgical gloves. The bone putty requires no kneading prior to application and does not soften appreciably at body temperature. When applied manually to surgically incised or traumatically broken bone, OrthoStat Hemostatic Bone Putty achieves local control of bleeding by acting as a mechanical barrier (tamponade). The bone putty will be dispersed and absorbed within a period of 60 days.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria for a device's performance, nor does it describe a study proving the device meets said criteria in the way typically expected for a diagnostic AI/ML device.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "OrthoStat™ Hemostatic Bone Putty." It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for its intended use, rather than proving diagnostic performance against specific metrics with a test set, ground truth, or expert review.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be extracted from this document:

• Device Type: OrthoStat™ Hemostatic Bone Putty is a hemostatic agent (a physical barrier to stop bleeding), not an AI/ML diagnostic tool or a device that interprets data for diagnosis. Therefore, the concepts of "acceptance criteria for device performance" in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, etc., or "expert ground truth" as applied to diagnostic image interpretation, do not apply.
• Study Focus: The "studies" mentioned are typically engineering tests, biocompatibility assessments, and functionality/efficacy testing to show the device performs its intended mechanical function (stopping bleeding) and is safe. These are not comparative effectiveness studies with human readers or standalone algorithm performance studies.
• "Acceptance Criteria" in this Context: For a device like bone putty, "acceptance criteria" likely refer to successful outcomes in non-clinical tests (e.g., in vitro or animal models) showing it effectively stops bleeding, is absorbed within a specified timeframe, and is biocompatible. These are not explicitly detailed here with numerical targets as would be for a diagnostic tool.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and information because the document describes a different type of medical device and regulatory submission where those specific performance metrics, study designs, and ground truth methodologies are not applicable or detailed.

The document states:

• "The 510(k) Notice contains summaries of physical test results, functionality (efficacy testing) results, absorption testing and biocompatibility testing."
• "The data presented demonstrate that the device is biocompatible and is suitable for its indicated use."

This indicates that these tests were performed to support the "suitability for indicated use" and "biocompatibility," which are the operational criteria for this type of device. However, the specifics of these results and their acceptance criteria are not presented in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device