Search Results

The OsteoPlan™ System is intended for use as a software system and image segmentation system for the transfer of imaging information from a medical scanner such as a CT based system. The input data file is processed by the OsteoPlan™ System and the result is an output data file that may then be provided as digital models or used as input to the additive manufacturing portion of the system that produces physical outputs including anatomic models and splints for use in maxillofacial surgery. The OsteoPlan System is also intended as a pre-operative software tool for simulating / evaluating surgical treatment options.

OsteoMed uses computer aided modeling to assist the physician with planning complex maxillofacial surgeries. Specifically, the OsteoPlan™ System provides patient-specific anatomical models, splints, and patient-specific surgical plans and digital files of the surgical plan to assist physicians with maxillofacial surgeries. Outputs of the OsteoPlan™ System are designed with physician input and reviewed by the physician prior to finalization and distribution. All outputs are manufactured by OsteoMed using additive manufacturing (SLS and SLA), only with direct physician involvement to reduce the criticality of the outputs.

The system uses electronic medical images of the patient anatomy (CT and CBCT) with input from the physician to create the plan and splints for executing surgery. Off-the-shelf (OTS) software is used for surgical planning.

The outputs of the system include Orthognathic Occlusal Splints, Case Reports, and Anatomic models. The splints are offered in commonly used forms, in both intermediate and final positioning, and some are available with ligature holes.

Case reports are digital and physical documents created to lay out the surgical plan, dictated by the surgeon, and show outputs of the OsteoPlan™ system that will be used to translate the plan during surgery.

Anatomic models are tools provided to physicians for complex anatomy visualization or to preplan surgery with an accurate physical representation of patient anatomy. Anatomic models may include maxilla, mandible, or skull models.

This Premarket Notification (510(k)) summary for the OsteoPlan System does not include specific details on acceptance criteria and device performance in the format requested. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices through a comparison of technological characteristics and a summary of non-clinical testing.

Here's what can be extracted and what information is not present based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not explicitly provided in the given text in a quantifiable table format for the OsteoPlan System's primary functions (e.g., accuracy of segmentation, precision of surgical planning). The document generally states that "All testing passed" or "all acceptance criteria being met" for various validations, but doesn't detail what those criteria were nor the specific performance metrics achieved.

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

This information is not explicitly provided for the software's core functionality (image segmentation, surgical planning).

• For the "Cadaver Study," a "simulated use" study was conducted, indicating a test set was used, but its size and specific provenance (e.g., number of cadavers, country of origin) are not mentioned. The study is prospective in nature as it verified the functionality of the design.

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

This information is not provided. The document states that "Outputs of the OsteoPlan™ System are designed with physician input and reviewed by the physician prior to finalization and distribution," implying expert involvement in the design and review process, but it doesn't specify how many experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth in a formal validation test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

This information is not mentioned. There is no indication of a comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance

The document mentions "Software Validation and documentation for software of moderate level of concern was provided per the FDA Guidance Document 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices' and 'Off-The-Shelf Software Use in Medical Devices.' All software verification/validation passed." This indicates that standalone testing of the software was performed, but the specific standalone performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision) are not detailed. It states "The OsteoPlan™ System is intended for use as a software system and image segmentation system for the transfer of imaging information from a medical scanner... The input data file is processed by the OsteoPlan™ System and the result is an output data file," implying standalone operation.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the software's core functions (segmentation, planning), the specific type of ground truth (e.g., expert consensus on anatomies, pathology reports) used for validation is not explicitly stated. Given the pre-operative planning nature, it would likely involve expert consensus or established anatomical landmarks.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided. The document doesn't mention a training set, which is typical for AI/ML models. However, the OsteoPlan System is described as using "Off-the-shelf (OTS) software used for surgical planning," suggesting it might be an adaptation or integration of existing tools rather than a completely novel AI model requiring extensive de novo training data for its core algorithms.

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

This information is not provided, as no training set is mentioned.

Summary of available information regarding acceptance criteria and performance:

The document broadly states that various non-clinical tests were conducted and "all acceptance criteria being met" or "All testing passed." These tests cover:

• Equipment/Process Qualification (IQ/OQ/PQ)
• Software Validation (for moderate level of concern)
• Cleaning Validations
• Steam Sterilization Validation
• Biocompatibility testing (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation, acute toxicity, pyrogenicity, subchronic toxicity, implantation) for worst-case splint and anatomical model
• Packaging Validation
• Shelf Life (functional testing)
• Cadaver Study (simulated use to verify design functionality)

Crucially, the document does not provide the specific quantifiable acceptance criteria or the numerical results of performance tests for the software's primary functions of image segmentation or surgical planning accuracy. Instead, it relies on a general statement of "all testing passed" and "performance equivalence was shown through the verification comparison to the predicate device" to establish substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device