Search Results

The Restoris® Porous Partial Knee System components are intended for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to treat one or more of the following conditions:

· Moderately disabling joint disease of the knee resulting from painful osteo- or post traumatic arthritis.

· Revision of previous unsuccessful surgical procedures, either involving, or not involving, previous use of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis.

· As an alternative to tibial osteotomy in patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis.

The RESTORIS ® Porous Femoral Component and PST® Tibial Baseplate are intended for cementless or cemented fixation. The Tibial Baseplate may be used in conjunction with ancillary screw fixation. The porous surfaces of both the femoral and tibial tray components provide biological fixation when used in a cementless application. The implants are single-use devices.

The RESTORIS® Porous Partial Knee System is a knee joint femorotibial (unicompartmental) prosthesis. The RESTORIS® Porous Partial Knee System consists of femoral components and tibial baseplate components that are compatible with and intended for use with MAKO's predicate RESTORIS MCK Tibial Onlay Insert Components (K090763 or K133039).

The RESTORIS® Porous Femoral Component and PST® Tibial Baseplate are intended for cementless or cemented fixation. The Tibial Baseplate may be used in conjunction with ancillary screw fixation. The porous surfaces of both the femoral and tibial tray components provide biological fixation when used in a cementless application. The implants are single-use devices.

The Porous Femur components: sizes 1 through 8, CoCr with a CoCr porous coating for cementless fixation, asymmetric design (meaning that left medial implants can be used on the right lateral compartment and right medial implants can be used on the left lateral compartment; abbreviated hereafter as LM/RL and RM/LL)

PST® Tibial Baseplate components: sizes 1 through 8. Ti6Al4V allov with MAKO's predicate porous surface (porous structured technology, referred to as "PST®"), asymmetric (LM/RL-RM/LL).

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the RESTORIS® Porous Partial Knee System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on manufacturing materials, design, technological characteristics, and performance data.

However, this document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and the study proving a device meets them in the context of AI/ML performance. The device described is a physical knee implant, not an AI-powered diagnostic or therapeutic tool.

Therefore, I cannot extract the following information from this document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document reports on non-clinical performance testing for a physical implant (e.g., snaplock strength, micromotion, wear), not AI model metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable to this type of device submission.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable, as this is a physical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable to physical implant performance testing in this context.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (no AI model).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable (no AI model).

The "Performance Data" section lists non-clinical performance testing related to the physical characteristics and function of the knee implant, such as:

• Insert Snaplock Strength
• Tibial Insert / Baseplate Micromotion
• Tibio-Femoral Range of Motion
• Tibio-Femoral Instability
• Tibio-Femoral Contact Area and Stress
• Tibial Insert Fatigue
• Tibial Insert Wear

The conclusion states that "The results of performance testing indicated the device performed within the intended use and did not raise any new safety and efficacy issues. The device was found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." This is the general "acceptance" for a 510(k) submission for this type of device, demonstrating it functions as intended and is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate. However, detailed, quantitative acceptance criteria for each test (e.g., "snaplock strength > X N") are not provided in this summary, nor are the specific results for each test.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Restoris® Porous Partial Knee System components are intended for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to treat one or more of the following conditions:

• . Moderately disabling joint disease of the knee resulting from painful osteo- or post traumatic arthritis.
• . Revision of previous unsuccessful surgical procedures, either involving, or not involving, previous use of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis.
• . As an alternative to tibial osteotomy in patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis.

The Restoris® Porous Femoral Component and PST Tibial Baseplate are intended for cementless or cemented fixation. The Tibial Baseplate may be used in conjunction with ancillary screw fixation. The porous surfaces of both the femoral and tibial tray components provide biological fixation when used in a cementless application.

The Restoris® Porous Partial Knee System is a unicompartmental knee system that includes porous coated, cast CoCr, asymmetric femoral components in sizes 1 – 8; and Ti6Al4V, asymmetric, porous tibial baseplate components in sizes 1 - 8. The subject femoral and tibial baseplate components are compatible and are intended for use with predicate MAKO Restoris MCK Tibial Onlay Inserts in standard UHMWPE or highly crosslinked vitamin E UHMWPE (K090763, K133039). The sagittal articular surface of the femoral condyle has an extended posterior radius that accommodates flexion up to 155%.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Restoris® Porous Partial Knee System, which is a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than conducting a de novo study to establish new performance criteria. Therefore, the information you're requesting regarding "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of AI device evaluation metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, etc.) is not present in this document.

This document describes a traditional medical device (a knee implant), not an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device. The "performance testing" mentioned refers to mechanical and material testing to ensure structural integrity and functional similarity to existing devices.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance testing and how it relates to demonstrating substantial equivalence, which is the regulatory standard for this type of device.

Here's a breakdown of what is available in the document, framed as closely as possible to your request, but acknowledging the difference in device type:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

For a traditional medical device like a knee implant, "acceptance criteria" are not reported as statistical metrics like sensitivity or specificity. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by demonstrating that the device performs equivalently or acceptably in terms of mechanical strength, material compatibility, and design features compared to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" refers to the results of these engineering tests.

Explanation of "Acceptance Criteria" for this device: The primary "acceptance criterion" for a 510(k) submission is Substantial Equivalence (SE) to a legally marketed predicate device. This means the new device must have the same intended use and the same technological characteristics as the predicate, or, if it has different technological characteristics, these differences must not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness, and the device must be as safe and effective as the predicate. The performance testing outlined above is designed to demonstrate this substantial equivalence, primarily through mechanical testing and material characterization.

The following points are typically relevant for AI/ML device evaluations and are not applicable to this 510(k) summary for a traditional knee implant. I will explicitly state "Not Applicable" where the information is not provided because it pertains to a different type of device or study.

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

• Not Applicable. This document does not describe a clinical study with a "test set" in the context of AI/ML data. The "testing" refers to benchtop mechanical and material characterization. "Data provenance" such as country of origin or retrospective/prospective is not relevant for this type of engineering performance testing.

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. There is no "ground truth" establishment by medical experts for a "test set" described in this submission. The "truth" for engineering tests is based on established standards, mechanical properties, and comparison to predicate device performance.

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

• Not Applicable. No expert adjudication method is described.

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. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical orthopedic implant, not an algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable. "Ground truth" in the AI/ML sense is not relevant here. The "truth" for the engineering performance tests is adherence to engineering standards and demonstration of comparable mechanical performance to predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set.

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

• Not Applicable. No training set is involved.

In summary: The provided document is a regulatory submission (510(k)) for a traditional medical device (a knee implant), focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to already marketed devices. It details engineering performance testing (fatigue, material characterization) to ensure the device's physical and mechanical properties are comparable to its predicates, thereby establishing its safety and effectiveness. The questions you've posed are highly specific to the evaluation of AI/ML medical devices, which operate under a different set of performance and validation criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device