Search Results

Disposable cement spacer molds are indicated for use to mold a temporary total knee replacement (TKR) for skeletally mature patients undergoing a two-stage procedure due to a septic process. The molded temporary knee prosthesis is indicated for an implantation period of 180 days or less. Because of inherent mechanical limitations of the device material (PALACOS® R+G Bone Cement and Refobacin® Bone Cement R), the molded temporary prosthesis is only indicated for patients who will consistently use traditional mobility assist devices (e.g. crutches, walkers) throughout the implant period.

The disposable cement spacer molds (femoral and tibial) are sterile disposables made of medical grade silicone. They are intended to be filled with PALACOS® R+G Bone Cement or Refobacin® Bone Cement R*, either by injecting with a dispenser/gun, or by pouring the prepared cement into the mold. After the cement cures, the temporary spacers are to be removed from the molds and placed into the joint space. The spacers remain in place (180 days or less) until the second stage of the two-stage procedure is performed to implant a conventional knee joint prosthesis.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (StageOne™ Disposable Cement Spacer Molds for Temporary Knee Prosthesis). It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance metrics in the way a clinical trial or algorithm validation study would.

This FDA letter and the associated 510(k) summary primarily focus on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously legally marketed predicate device. This regulatory pathway generally relies on demonstrating that the new device has the same intended use, technological characteristics, and performs as safely and effectively as a predicate device, rather than requiring extensive clinical trials to prove efficacy against "acceptance criteria" in the sense of an AI/ML or diagnostic study.

Here's why the requested information cannot be extracted from this document:

• Type of Device: The device is a "Disposable Cement Spacer Mold" used to create temporary knee prostheses from bone cement. It's a manufacturing aid, not a diagnostic tool or an AI/ML algorithm.
• Regulatory Pathway: The document clearly states it's a 510(k) submission, specifically demonstrating "substantial equivalence." This means the manufacturer is arguing their device is similar enough to an existing one that it doesn't need a full Premarket Approval (PMA), which would typically involve extensive clinical trials and pre-defined acceptance criteria for performance.
• Performance Data: The "Summary of Performance Data (Nonclinical and/or Clinical)" section explicitly states:
  • Non-Clinical Tests: "Mechanical performance testing and Gentamicin Elution testing... was conducted. The results demonstrated that StageOne® Knee Spacers fabricated with PALACOS® R+G Bone Cement and Refobacin® Bone Cement R possess mechanical and elution characteristics equivalent to those of the predicate device." This is about equivalence to a predicate, not meeting a new set of performance thresholds.
  • Clinical Tests: "Clinical data was not required to establish substantial equivalence between the subject StageOne™ Knee Spacer Molds and the predicate device." This is the most crucial point – no clinical study (and therefore no acceptance criteria or human reader studies) was required or conducted for this 510(k) clearance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and study details because the provided document does not contain them. The 510(k) process for this type of device (a Class II device based on the regulation number) typically emphasizes bench testing, material compatibility, and comparison to a predicate, rather than human performance studies with specific accuracy/sensitivity/specificity targets or MRMC studies.

Ask a specific question about this device