Search Results

StageOne™ Knee Cement Spacer Molds are indicated for use to mold a temporary total knee replacement (TKR) for skeletally mature patients undergoing a two-stage revision procedure due to a septic process. The temporary prosthesis is molded using Refobacin® Bone Cement R and inserted into the joint space following removal of the existing total knee replacement implants and debridement. The device is intended for use in conjunction with systemic antimicrobial antibiotic therapy (standard treatment approach to an infection).

The knee prosthesis made from the StageOne™ Knee Cement Spacer Molds is not intended for use more than 180 days, at which time it must be explanted and permanent devices implanted or another appropriate treatment (e.g. resection arthroplasty, fusion, etc.).

Due to the inherent mechanical limitations of the knee prosthesis material (Refobacin® Bone Cement R), the temporary knee prosthesis is only indicated for patients who will consistently use traditional mobility devices (e.g. crutches, walkers) throughout the implant period.

The subject device is a sterile, single use device made of silicone and is used to create temporary tibial and femoral implant components made from antibiotic bone cement, Refobacin® Bone Cement R. After removal of the initial implant the prepared cement spacers are placed into the tibiofemoral joint space using Refobacin® Bone Cement R as the first stage of a two-stage revision surgical procedure. The temporary spacers remain in place (180 days or less) until the second stage of the two-stage revision procedure is performed to implant a conventional knee joint prosthesis.

This document describes the StageOne™ Knee Cement Spacer Molds, a device used to mold temporary total knee replacements in a two-stage revision procedure due to a septic process.

Here's an analysis based on your request:

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

The provided text does not contain a specific table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results. Instead, it lists various non-clinical performance tests conducted to support the modifications and establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The underlying assumption is that the device met the acceptance criteria for these tests, as the FDA concluded substantial equivalence.

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

The document focuses on non-clinical performance testing. Therefore, there is no patient-specific test set sample size or provenance information (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for clinical data provided. The testing relates to the physical and chemical properties of the device and its molded cement.

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)

Since this is a non-clinical device, there were no clinical experts used to establish ground truth for a test set in the traditional sense (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would have been based on established standards, protocols, and scientific principles followed by engineers, material scientists, and microbiologists involved in the testing. The document does not specify the number or specific qualifications of these individuals, but it's understood that qualified personnel would conduct such tests.

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

No adjudication method was used for a test set because this was entirely non-clinical testing. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for clinical studies involving human interpretation or decision-making.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is a cement spacer mold, not an AI or imaging-related device that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

No standalone algorithm performance study was done. This device is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" was established by recognized industry standards, scientific principles, and internal specifications for biocompatibility, packaging, sterilization, wear, and antibiotic elution. For example, biocompatibility testing would adhere to ISO 10993 standards, and sterilization validation would follow established guidelines to ensure a certain sterility assurance level (SAL).

8. The sample size for the training set

There is no "training set" as this is a physical medical device and not a machine learning model.

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

As there is no training set, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device