Search Results

The Synthes LCP Modular Foot Plates are intended for use in selective trauma, fractures, osteotomies, reconstructive procedures and replantations of small bones including the foot and ankle.

Synthes LCP Modular Foot Plates consist of locking cuboid, navicular and talus plates used to treat small bone fractures. The plates are attached to bone via 2.4 and 2.7 mm cortex and locking screws.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Synthes (USA) LCP Modular Foot Plates. This type of regulatory submission in the United States is focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving novel efficacy or performance against explicit acceptance criteria with detailed statistical studies.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific study designs, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details are not applicable (N/A) in the context of this 510(k) summary. The primary "proof" of the device's acceptability is its substantial equivalence to an existing device.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Study Details

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

• N/A. The 510(k) summary does not describe a clinical study with a "test set" in the traditional sense to prove device performance against specific metrics. The focus is on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which typically involves comparing design principles, materials, intended use, and performance claims. This usually doesn't involve new clinical data demonstrating efficacy, but rather engineering tests or comparisons to existing data for the predicate.

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)

• N/A. No "ground truth" establishment by experts for a test set is mentioned or required for this type of 510(k) submission.

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

• N/A. No adjudication method is mentioned as there's no described test set or expert review process for performance data.

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

• N/A. This device is a bone plate, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is irrelevant.

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

• N/A. This device is a bone plate, it does not involve algorithms or AI.

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

• N/A. No specific "ground truth" in the context of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy is detailed. The "ground truth" for a 510(k) would be the established performance and safety of the predicate device, against which the new device is compared.

8. The sample size for the training set

• N/A. This device is a bone plate, not an AI model. Therefore, no training set is applicable.

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

• N/A. Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device