Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K080070
    Date Cleared
    2008-04-17

    (98 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    874.3450
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    K-HELIX PISTON AND PORP PARTIAL OSSICULAR REPLACEMENT PROSTHESES

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    An ossicular replacement prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted for the functional reconstruction of segments of the ossicular chain and facilitates the conduction of sound wave from the tympanic membrane to the inner ear. Ossicular replacement prostheses are indicated for the functional restoration of the ossicular chain when a conductive hearing loss is present. Indications for use include:
    (a) Chronic middle ear disease,
    (b) Otosclerosis.
    (c) Congenital fixation of the stapes,
    (d) Secondary surgical intervention to correct for a significant and persistent conductive hearing loss from prior otologic surgery, and
    (e) Surgically correctible injury to the middle ear from trauma.

    Device Description

    The family of K-Helix Partial Ossicular Replacement Prostheses consists of:

    • K-Helix Piston
    • K-Helix PORP
      The Grace Medical Partial Ossicular Replacement Prostheses are manufactured from the same materials as the predicate devices:
      (i) Nitinol (ASTM F2063-05)
      (ii) Unalloyed titanium (ASTM F67)
      (iii) Titanium alloy (ASTM F136)
    AI/ML Overview

    This 510(k) summary describes a medical device, not an AI/ML powered device. As such, the typical acceptance criteria and study designs applicable to AI/ML devices (e.g., performance metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies) are not relevant here.

    The K-Helix Partial Ossicular Replacement Prostheses (K-Helix Piston and K-Helix PORP) gained clearance through a substantial equivalence pathway, meaning the manufacturer demonstrated that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device.

    Here's the information derived from the provided text, framed within the context of a traditional medical device submission:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    For this type of device, "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" are based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than statistical performance metrics as seen with AI.

    Feature / CriteriaK-Helix PORP Performance (Grace Medical, Inc.)K-Helix Piston Performance (Grace Medical, Inc.)
    Intended UseAn ossicular replacement prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted for the functional reconstruction of segments of the ossicular chain and facilitates the conduction of sound wave from the tympanic membrane to the inner ear. Indicated for conductive hearing loss due to chronic middle ear disease, otosclerosis, congenital fixation of stapes, secondary surgical intervention, and trauma.An ossicular replacement prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted for the functional reconstruction of segments of the ossicular chain and facilitates the conduction of sound wave from the tympanic membrane to the inner ear. Indicated for conductive hearing loss due to chronic middle ear disease, otosclerosis, congenital fixation of stapes, secondary surgical intervention, and trauma.
    Material(s)Nitinol (ASTM F2063-05) and/or Unalloyed titanium (ASTM F67), Titanium alloy (ASTM F136)Nitinol (ASTM F2063-05) and/or Unalloyed titanium (ASTM F67), Titanium alloy (ASTM F136)
    Method of AttachmentManual or Heat Crimp-AssistManual or Heat Crimp-Assist
    Lengths3.0mm to 18.0mm3.0mm to 18.0mm
    How SuppliedSterileSterile
    Acceptance Criteria BasisDemonstrated to have the same primary intended use and similar materials/design features as legally marketed predicate devices (SMart ISJ Prosthesis, SMart Piston, Angular Prosthesis (Plester), CliP Piston MVP). The differences do not affect safety or effectiveness.Demonstrated to have the same primary intended use and similar materials/design features as legally marketed predicate devices (SMart ISJ Prosthesis, SMart Piston, Angular Prosthesis (Plester), CliP Piston MVP). The differences do not affect safety or effectiveness.

    2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

    This submission does not discuss a "test set" or clinical data in the way an AI/ML device would. The equivalence is based on design, materials, intended use, and manufacturing processes compared to existing predicate devices. There is no mention of a clinical study with a specific sample size for demonstrating performance.

    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

    Not applicable. Ground truth, in the AI/ML sense, is not established for this type of device submission. The FDA's review relies on comparing the device's technical specifications and intended use against predicate devices.

    4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

    Not applicable.

    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 not an AI-assisted device.

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

    Not applicable. This is a physical medical implant.

    7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

    Not applicable in the AI/ML context. The "ground truth" for this submission is established by the safety and effectiveness profile of the predicate devices and the demonstration that the new device shares fundamental scientific technology and intended use.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. There is no AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.

    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

    Not applicable. There is no AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K060518
    Date Cleared
    2006-06-28

    (121 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    874.3450
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    PARTIAL OSSICULAR REPLACEMENT PROSTHESES

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    A partial ossicular replacement prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted for the functional reconstruction of segments of the ossicular chain and facilitates the conduction of sound wave from the tympanic membrane to the inner ear.

    Ossicular replacement prostheses are indicated for the functional restoration of the ossicular chain when a conductive hearing loss is present. Indications for use include:

    (a) Chronic middle ear disease,
    (b) Otosclerosis,
    (c) Congenital fixation of the stapes,
    (d) Secondary surgical intervention to correct for a significant and persistent conductive hearing loss from prior otologic surgery, and
    (e) Surgically correctible injury to the middle ear from trauma.

    Device Description

    The Grace Medical Stapes Prostheses are manufactured from the same or similar materials as the predicate devices. Various designs of Stapes Prostheses are available to meet physician preference. Materials include Titanium, Fluoroplastic, Stainless Steel, Platinum, Tantalum, Silicone, and Nitinol. Shaft diameters range from 0.3 to 0.8 mm and functional lengths range from 3.0 to 6.5 mm. The devices are supplied sterile.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided documents do not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study designed to prove that the Grace Medical Partial Ossicular Replacement Prostheses meet such criteria.

    The documents are a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Partial Ossicular Replacement Prostheses). In a 510(k) submission, the primary goal is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific performance criteria through a dedicated study with defined acceptance criteria and statistical analysis.

    Instead, the submission provides:

    • Comparison Charts (Tables in sections {1} and {2}): These tables compare the Grace Medical device with several predicate devices based on attributes like:
      • Intended Use
      • Material(s)
      • Shaft Diameter (mm)
      • Functional Length (mm)
      • Loop Dia (mm)
      • How Supplied (Sterile)

    The stated rationale for substantial equivalence is that "Differences between the Grace Medical Modified Partial Ossicular Replacement Prostheses and the predicate devices should not affect the safety or effectiveness."

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving their fulfillment as it is not present in the provided text.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1