Search Results

The Stryker Orthopaedics System 12® X3™ Acetabular insert and Series II™ X3™ Acetabular insert components are single use sterile components intended for the replacement of the bearing and/or articulating surfaces of the acetabulum to relieve pain, and the restriction of motion.

The System 12® X3™ Acetabular Inserts are single use sterile components, intended for use in conjunction with associated acetabular shells, femoral bearings, and femoral hip stems as part of a cemented or cementless total hip replacement procedure. Indications for use are as follows: noninflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis; rheumatoid arthritis; correction of functional deformity; revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed, and treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.

The Series II™ X3™ Acetabular Inserts are single use sterile components, intended for use in conjunction with an associated Howmedica Osteonics metal acetabular shell, femoral bearing, and femoral hip stem as part of a cemented or cementless total hip arthroplasty. Indications for use are as follows: painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or late stage avascular necrosis; revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure; clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results; and where bone stock is of poor quality or inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.

The device includes the acetabular inserts of a total hip system. These components are used for the replacement of the bearing surface of the acetabulum to relieve pain, instability and the restriction of motion due to degenerative bone disease, including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, failure of other devices or trauma.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the System 12® and Series II™ X3™ Acetabular Inserts:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics in a table format. Instead, it relies on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through various testing and analysis methods. The summary indicates that "A risk analysis and research and development testing have been performed to demonstrate equivalence of the subject products to the predicate devices."

The reported "performance" is implicitly that the device meets the safety and effectiveness standards for hip replacement implants due to its substantial equivalence to the predicate devices.

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

This information is not available in the provided text. The submission describes testing conducted (material properties, wear, disassembly, finite element modeling), but it does not specify the sample sizes for these tests or the provenance of any data used (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This is common for predicate device submissions, which often rely on laboratory testing rather than clinical trials with patient data.

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

This information is not applicable in the context of this submission. The "ground truth" for this medical device (an acetabular insert) is not established through expert clinical evaluation of images or patient outcomes in the same way an AI diagnostic device would be. Instead, the "truth" is established through engineering and material science testing against established standards and predicate device performance.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical studies or expert review processes, typically for diagnostic or prognostic devices where there's a need to reach consensus on uncertain cases. For an implantable device like this, the "truth" is determined by objective physical and mechanical testing.

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

This information is not applicable. This is an implantable medical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative system. Therefore, an MRMC study and analysis of human reader improvement with AI assistance are not relevant to this submission.

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

This information is not applicable. This device is a physical implant, not an algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" algorithm performance is not a concept related to this submission.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device is established primarily through engineering and material science testing against established performance specifications and comparison to predicate devices. This includes:

• Material properties characterization: Demonstrating the material (sequentially crosslinked and annealed polyethylene) meets expected mechanical, chemical, and biological properties.
• Wear testing: Simulating physiological loading and motion conditions to quantify wear rates, comparing them to predicate devices and industry standards.
• Disassembly force evaluation: Measuring the force required to dislodge the insert from its shell, ensuring adequate retention.
• Finite element modeling of contact stresses: Performing computational simulations to predict stress distribution under various loads, demonstrating acceptable stress levels and comparison to predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. Medical device submissions for physical implants, particularly those demonstrating substantial equivalence through laboratory testing, do not typically involve "training sets" in the sense of machine learning algorithms.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 8. The concept of a "training set" and establishing its "ground truth" pertains to machine learning and AI, which are not involved in the design or testing of this physical implant as described.

Ask a specific question about this device