Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K971070
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1997-07-09

    (107 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3040
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    SCARF THREAD-HEAD (TM) HEAD SCREW

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

    Fixation of fracture, fusion of a joint or bone reconstruction (osteotomy) of the phalanges, metacarpals and carpals of the hand.

    Device Description

    The SCARF Thread-Head Screw is a threaded bone fixation screw that is 3.0mm in diameter and 10 to 34mm in length (in 2mm increments). It is made of titanium alloy and is cannulated with a threaded head.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the SCARF Thread-Head Screw. This type of submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through clinical trials with defined acceptance criteria and device performance.

    Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding:

    • Acceptance criteria and reported device performance
    • Sample sizes for test sets or training sets
    • Data provenance
    • Number of experts or their qualifications
    • Adjudication method
    • Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study
    • Standalone algorithm performance
    • Type of ground truth used or how it was established

    The document primarily focuses on:

    • Device Description: A threaded bone fixation screw, 3.0mm in diameter, 10-34mm in length, made of titanium alloy, cannulated with a threaded head.
    • Intended Use/Indications: Fixation of fractures, fusion of a joint, or bone reconstruction of the mid-foot, metatarsals, and phalanges of the foot. (Note: The "Indications for Use" enclosure on Page 3 lists "phalanges, metacarpals and carpals of the hand," which appears to be a discrepancy or an initial proposed indication that was then changed or clarified in the main document. For this response, I'll use the main document's stated indications).
    • Predicate Devices: Landos SCARF Thread-Head Screw, Zimmer Herbert-Whipple Bone Screw, and Osteomed M3 Screw.
    • Regulatory Classification: Class II, product code 87HWC.
    • Substantial Equivalence Determination: The FDA determined the device is substantially equivalent to predicate devices.

    Summary of what can be extracted from the document:

    The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device (SCARF Thread-Head Screw). In a 510(k) pathway, the primary goal is to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to conduct studies that prove specific performance metrics against pre-defined acceptance criteria as would be typical for a novel high-risk device or an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) study.

    Therefore, the document does not contain a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance because the submission method relies on demonstrating equivalence to existing devices rather than meeting new, explicit performance thresholds based on a study of the device itself.

    The document does not contain the following requested information:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not relevant for a 510(k) submission focused on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, where performance is implicitly similar to predicates.
    2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: No test sets or associated data are described.
    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no ground truth for a test set is described.
    4. Adjudication method 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, as this is a physical implant device, not an AI or software device.
    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.
    8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1