Search Results

The Patient Specific Distal Femur is intended for the replacement of diseased or deficient bone in the distal femur. It is indicated for:
Limb salvage procedures where radical resection and replacement of the bone is required Painful and disabled joint resulting from avascular necrosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or traumatic arthritis Correction of varus, valgus or post traumatic deformity Correction of revision of unsuccessful osteotomy, arthrodesis, or previous joint replacement Ligament deficiencies Tumor resection Revision of previously failed total joint arthroplasty Trauma

The Patient Specific Distal Femur and its components are for single use only.

The Patient Specific Distal Femur and is components are for cemented use only.

The Patient Specific Distal Femur is a patient-specific system that is intended for the replacement of diseased or deficient bone in the distal femur. The Patient Specific Distal Femur and its components are intended for cemented use only. The system is comprised of a range of stems, collars coated with hydroxyappetite (HA) or without coating (stippled or smooth), a range of shafts, femoral components (including axle, bushes and circlip), bumpers and a femoral epiphysis component, (i.e. SMILES TKR).

The materials used in the manufacture of the Patient Specific Distal Femur include titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (Co-Cr-Mo) and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE).

The device is for single use only.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding a medical device called the "Patient Specific Distal Femur." It is a regulatory approval document and, as such, does not contain the detailed study information typically found in a scientific paper or clinical trial report.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

Explanation: The document states, "The Patient Specific Distal Femur has been evaluated through non-clinical performance testing for disassembly of the distal femur and fatigue and wearing testing of the knee. The Patient Specific Distal Femur met all of the acceptance criteria." However, it does not specify what those acceptance criteria were (e.g., specific load endurance limits, wear rates, etc.). It only confirms that the device passed them.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. This document only mentions "non-clinical performance testing," which implies mechanical or lab testing, not human subjects.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable for non-clinical testing in terms of geographic origin or retrospective/prospective human data. The testing was conducted on the device itself.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• This is not applicable as the document refers to "non-clinical performance testing" (mechanical/lab testing), not an assessment requiring expert clinical judgment for ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable for non-clinical performance testing. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 typically apply to human reader studies where there's a need to resolve discrepancies in expert opinions.

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:

• No, an MRMC study was not done. This device is a physical medical implant (a knee prosthesis), not an AI diagnostic or assistive technology. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with AI assistance is not relevant to this submission.

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:

• For the non-clinical performance tests mentioned (disassembly, fatigue, wearing), the "ground truth" would be established by engineering standards and specifications for mechanical integrity, durability, and biocompatibility. The document does not explicitly state these standards but implies their use by mentioning "acceptance criteria."

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is a physical implant, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable. As above, there is no training set for this type of device.

Summary of what the document focuses on:

The entire document pertains to a 510(k) submission, which aims to demonstrate that a new medical device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This is primarily established through comparisons of:

• Intended Use
• Technological Characteristics
• Materials
• Non-clinical performance data (as briefly summarized here)

The "Performance Data" section in this 510(k) is very concise and only states that the device "met all of the acceptance criteria" for the mentioned non-clinical tests. It doesn't provide the detailed methodology, specific acceptance values, or raw results of these tests, which would typically be found in a more comprehensive study report. This level of detail is usually reviewed by the FDA but not always included in the publicly available summary letter.

Ask a specific question about this device