Search Results

The indications for use of the Retrograde Pediatric Nail include: use in fractures of the femur, tibia and humerus with retrograde applications. Applications would be available in any patients where the growth plate would not be compromised.

The Retrograde Femoral Nail is made of wrought Ti-6Al-4V conforming to ASTM F136. The diameter of the nail tapers from 4.0 mm to 3.6mm with 6 lengths ranging from 19 to 29 cm. Both the proximal and distal ends are bent to provide 3 point fixation. The entire nail is fluted for rotational stability. One end of the nail is threaded to allow for an axial end screw or smooth attachment cap.

This document describes the Retrograde Pediatric Nail, a femoral nail made of wrought Ti-6Al-4V. The information provided is primarily related to its regulatory submission (510(k)) and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a detailed study proving its performance against specific acceptance criteria in a clinical setting.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for a comprehensive study description are not available in the provided text. The document focuses on the design specifications and mechanical test results as evidence for substantial equivalence, rather than clinical performance data.

Here's an attempt to extract and infer information based on the provided text, highlighting what is present and what is missing:

Description of Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Acceptance Criteria for the Retrograde Pediatric Nail

The provided document, a 510(k) summary for the Retrograde Pediatric Nail (K980854), focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. This regulatory pathway typically relies on comparing design, materials, indications for use, and mechanical performance to legally marketed devices, rather than requiring extensive clinical trials with pre-defined acceptance criteria for efficacy and safety against a defined ground truth.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the document, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the performance of the predicate devices and the physical properties required for functional intramedullary nails. The reported device performance is based on mechanical testing.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a "sample size" for a clinical test set. The reported performance relates to mechanical testing of the device itself.
• Data Provenance: The document does not provide information on the country of origin or whether the data for mechanical testing was retrospective or prospective. It is standard for mechanical testing to be conducted in a laboratory setting. There is no patient data involved in the provided "Test Results" section.

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

This question is not applicable to the provided information. The "ground truth" here is based on engineering standards and mechanical properties of the device, not clinical outcomes evaluated by medical experts. The FDA review process involves internal experts (e.g., engineers, medical officers) determining substantial equivalence, but they are not establishing a "ground truth" for a test set in the sense of clinical data interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This question is not applicable as there is no human-adjudicated clinical test set 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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an AI software. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI-related comparative effectiveness was performed or is relevant to this submission.

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

This question is not applicable as the device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an algorithm or AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the reported performance (bending stiffness and torsional stiffness) is based on mechanical engineering principles and testing standards relevant to orthopedic implants. For the substantial equivalence determination, the ground truth is the established safety and effectiveness of the identified predicate devices, as determined by the FDA prior to May 28, 1976, or subsequent reclassifications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" in the context of this 510(k) submission for a physical medical device. Device design and manufacturing parameters guide the creation of the product.

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

This question is not applicable as there is no training set described.

Ask a specific question about this device