Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K053588
    Date Cleared
    2006-01-13

    (21 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3330
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    PROFEMUR LX HIP STEM

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

    The PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem is indicated for use in total hip arthroplasty for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions:

    • non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, ankylosis, protrusio acetabuli, and painful hip dysplasia;
    • inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis;
    • correction of functional deformity; and,
    • revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed
    Device Description

    The design features of the PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem are summarized below:

    • Manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti6A14V) .
    • Offered in one medial flare option .
    • Tri-planar proximal geometry with plasma sprayed surface .
    • Cylindrical, splined, and slotted distal stem with glassbead surface .
    • Threaded hole with slot impaction mechanism .
    • Polished distal tip and collar .
    AI/ML Overview
    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
    Feature/CriterionReported Device Performance
    Substantial EquivalenceThe PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices.
    Indications for UseIdentical to predicate devices.
    Design FeaturesSubstantially equivalent to predicate devices.
    Fundamental Scientific TechnologyUnchanged relative to predicate devices.
    Safety and EffectivenessAdequately supported by substantial equivalence information, materials information, and analysis data.

    Note: This 510(k) summary primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than defining and meeting specific, quantitative acceptance criteria for a novel device.

    1. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance:

      • Sample Size: Not applicable. The submission does not describe a clinical study with a "test set" in the traditional sense for evaluating device performance against pre-defined metrics. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing, legally marketed devices.
      • Data Provenance: Not applicable. The submission does not refer to data from a clinical trial or observational study for a test set.
    2. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

      • Not applicable. No "ground truth" was established for a test set as there was no independent evaluation of the device's clinical performance in the manner of a new device requiring such a study. The evaluation focused on equivalence to predicate devices already on the market.
    3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

      • Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication was described.
    4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

      • No. This type of study is not mentioned or implied in the provided document. The submission is for a hip stem, a medical implant, and does not involve AI or image reading.
    5. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only without Human-in-the-Loop Performance):

      • Not applicable. This device is a hip stem and does not involve an algorithm or AI.
    6. Type of Ground Truth Used:

      • Not applicable in the context of a new device performance study. The "ground truth" for the submission is the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices based on their prior regulatory clearance.
    7. Sample Size for the Training Set:

      • Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/algorithm-based device.
    8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

      • Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment.

    Study Proving the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

    The "study" that proves the PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem meets its "acceptance criteria" is the Premarket Notification (510(k)) process itself, which demonstrates Substantial Equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

    The key aspects of this "study" are:

    • Comparison to Predicate Devices: The submission explicitly states:
      • "The indications for use of the PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem are identical to the predicate devices."
      • "The design features of the PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem are substantially equivalent to those of the predicate devices."
      • "The fundamental scientific technology of the modified device has not changed relative to the predicate devices."
    • Supporting Information: "The safety and effectiveness of the PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem are adequately supported by the substantial equivalence information, materials information, and analysis data provided within this Premarket Notification." While the specific "materials information and analysis data" are not detailed in this summary, they would typically include engineering analyses, material testing, mechanical testing (e.g., fatigue strength, static strength), and biocompatibility assessments to show that the new device performs as safely and effectively as the predicate devices.
    • FDA Review: The FDA's letter (K053588) confirms that "[We] have determined the devices are substantially equivalent... to legally marketed predicate devices."

    Therefore, the "study" is a regulatory review of comparative data and evidence demonstrating that the PROFEMUR® LX Hip Stem is as safe and effective as predicate devices already on the market, rather than a clinical trial or performance study against pre-defined quantitative metrics for a novel technology.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1