Search Results

The indications for the Trinity Acetabular System as a total hip arthroplasty include:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Correction of functional deformity
• Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) or congenital dysplasia of the hip (CDH)
  The Trinity Acetabular System is intended for cementless, single use only.

The Trinity Acetabular System is a modular acetabular cup system consisting of a press fit, titanium alloy shell; acetabular liners in neutral offset, +4mm offset, +4mm oblique, neutral 4mm EPW; and BIOL.OX delta™ ceramic and CoCrMo modular heads. The ceramic and CoCrMo modular heads are compatible with Corin utanium femoral stems.
The purpose of this submission is to add 28mm (-5mm offset), 32mm (-6mm offset), 36mm (-8mm offset), and 40mm (-8mm offset) CoCrMo extra short femoral heads to the Trinity Acetabular System, and complete the line of extra long heads with the addition of a 28mm (+7mm offset) CoCrMo heads.

This document describes the Corin Trinity Acetabular System with Extra short Heads and 28mm Extra long Head (K131647).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not contain explicit acceptance criteria in the traditional sense of performance metrics with specific thresholds (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy for an AI device). Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for new components being added to an existing system.

The "performance" demonstrated for these new components is primarily through non-clinical testing.

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

This submission pertains to the addition of new components (extra short and extra long femoral heads) to an existing hip prosthesis system. The evaluation relies on non-clinical testing (mechanical tests) rather than human clinical data. Therefore, the concepts of "test set" and "data provenance" as typically applied to AI/software performance studies are not directly applicable here. The "sample size" would refer to the number of physical components tested in the lab, but this detail is not provided in the summary.

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

Not applicable. As this is a medical device (hip prosthesis components) and the evaluation relies on non-clinical mechanical testing, there is no "ground truth" established by human experts in the context of diagnostic or interpretive performance. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing would be derived from engineering standards and test protocols.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Since the evaluation is based on non-clinical mechanical testing, an adjudication method for human interpretation is not relevant.

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. This submission is for physical medical device components, not an AI or software device that assists human readers.

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

Not applicable. This submission is for physical medical device components, not an AI or software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" would be established by engineering specifications, established test methods, and industry standards for mechanical performance of hip prosthesis components. For example, fatigue tests would have pre-defined failure criteria based on regulatory guidance or consensus standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" in this type of physical medical device submission, as it does not involve machine learning or data-driven model development.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set involved.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Trinity Acetabular System is intended for use in total hip arthroplasty in skeletally mature patients, to provide increased mobility and reduce pain by replacing the damaged hip joint articulation where there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components.

The indications for the Trinity Acetabular System as a total hip arthroplasty include:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Correction of functional deformity
• Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) or congenital dysplasia of the hip (CDH)

The Trinity Acetabular System is indicated for cementless, single use only.

The Trinity Acetabular System is a modular acetabular cup system consisting of a press fit, titanium alloy shell with, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) and vitamin E highly cross-linked polyethylene (ECiMa) acetabular liners in neutral offset, +4mm offset, +4mm oblique, neutral 4mm EPW. The Trinity system also includes, BIOLOX delta™ ceramic and CoCr modular heads which are intended for use with Corin titanium femoral stems. The acetabular shell comes in two variants, a standard Trinity (K093472 and K110087) and a Trinity-i (K122305) shell, both coated with a rough titanium plasma spray with an additional top layer of electrochemically deposited calcium phosphate (BONIT™). The Trinity and Trinity-i acetabular shells are provided with screw holes and come assembled with titanium occluders in place. Dedicated titanium screws are also provided for additional fixation if required.

The purpose of this submission is to add two more acetabular shell variants to the Trinity Acetabular System, the standard Trinity No Hole acetabular shell and the Trinityi No Hole acetabular shell. Both of these variants, subject of this submission, are similar to the standard Trinity Acetabular shells previously cleared (K093472, K110087 and K122305) with the only difference being the shells subject of this submission do not have screw holes in them.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting study for the Corin Trinity Acetabular System (K130128):

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance & 6. Standalone Performance:

No explicit acceptance criteria in terms of numerical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision) or a standalone performance study of the device's diagnostic or therapeutic efficacy are presented in this 510(k) summary.

Instead, the acceptance criteria are met through demonstrating:

The study underpinning this submission focuses on non-clinical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a standalone clinical performance study verifying new performance metrics for the modified device.

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

No specific "test set" in the context of clinical trials or data analysis is mentioned because this submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. The testing conducted was "non-clinical testing" including comparisons of designs, materials, intended use, indications, and dimensions. Therefore, there is no sample size for a test set or data provenance from a patient population.

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

Not applicable. As described above, there was no clinical test set or ground truth established by experts in the context of diagnosing or categorizing patient data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. There was no clinical test set or adjudication process for diagnostic outcomes.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

No. An MRMC study was not performed. The submission relies on establishing substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing and comparison to predicate devices, not on proving improved human reader performance with AI assistance. The device in question is a physical medical device (hip prosthesis components), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the purpose of this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" is effectively the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices (Corin Trinity Acetabular System K093472, K110087, K122305, and DePuy Pinnacle 100 Acetabular Shell K001534). The current device's "no hole" variants are considered substantially equivalent if they match the predicates in key aspects.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This device is a modified physical implant, not an algorithm that requires a training set of data.

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

Not applicable. As stated above, there is no training set for an algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The indications for the Trinity Acetabular System as a total hip arthroplasty include:

• o Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis
• Rheumatoid arthritis o
• o Correction of functional deformity
• Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) or congenital dysplasia of the hip (CDH) o

The Trinity Acetabular System is intended for cementless use only.

The Trinity Acetabular System is a modular acetabular cup system consisting of a press fit, titanium alloy shell (48mm through 68mm in 2mm increments) for use with ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) liners (28mm and 32mm inner diameters in neutral, +4mm offset, EPW and 10° hooded designs) and a dedicated range of 28mm and 32mm modular 12/14 taper femoral heads providing ceramic (i.e., zirconia and Biolox delta in the USA) or metal on UHMWPE articulation for use in total hip replacement procedures using Corin titanium femoral stems with a 12/14 taper connection. The acetabular shell is coated with a rough titanium plasma spray with an additional top layer of electrochemically deposited calcium phosphate (Bonit™). The acetabular shell is provided with screw holes permitting the use of dedicated titanium bone screws to provide additional fixation if required. Titanium occluders are provided to occlude unused screw holes and an apical introducer hole.

The purpose of this submission is to modify the labeling for the Trinity Acetabular System to include additional Corin titanium femoral stems with a 12/14 taper connection as compatible components, intended for use with the Trinity Acetabular Cup and Liner and the Trinity CoCr Femoral Heads.

The Trinity Acetabular System is intended for use in total hip arthroplasty in skeletally mature patients, to provide increased mobility and reduce pain by replacing the damaged hip joint articulation where there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Trinity Acetabular System, which proposes to modify the labeling to include additional Corin titanium femoral stems as compatible components. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria in the way typically required for AI/ML device evaluations. This submission is for a medical device (hip prosthesis) and its expanded compatibility, not a diagnostic or prognostic AI system.

However, based on the provided text, I can infer the acceptance criteria and the study in the context of demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device modification.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for K103518: Trinity Acetabular System

Given that this is a 510(k) submission primarily focused on modifying the labeling of an existing device to include additional compatible components, the "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating that the modified device (Trinity Acetabular System with new femoral stems) is substantially equivalent to the previously cleared Trinity Acetabular System.

Here's an interpretation based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of a traditional "test set" for AI. The "test" for this device was a combination of direct comparisons of specifications and specific non-clinical evaluations. The document does not specify a "sample size" for the range of motion study, but it would involve a limited number of test configurations or specimens rather than a large patient dataset.
• Data Provenance: The studies mentioned ("comparison of materials, designs and taper characteristics" and "range of motion study") are non-clinical tests. This means they were likely conducted in a laboratory setting (e.g., in vitro, cadaveric, or simulation) rather than using patient data. The country of origin for the data is not explicitly stated but would presumably be associated with the manufacturer's R&D facilities.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Experts: Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this submission is established through engineering specifications, material science principles, and biomechanical testing standards, rather than expert clinical consensus on patient data.
• Qualifications: N/A

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable in the traditional sense for AI/ML performance. The "adjudication" for substantial equivalence would be performed by the FDA based on the submitted non-clinical test reports and comparisons.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• MRMC Study: No. This is not an AI/ML diagnostic or image analysis device, so a MRMC study is irrelevant to this submission.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Standalone Performance: No. This is a physical medical device (hip prosthesis components), not a software algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground Truth: The "ground truth" for this submission is based on:
  • Engineering specifications and material properties for component comparisons (materials, design, taper characteristics).
  • Biomechanical performance standards and measurements from the range of motion study.
  • The predicate device's established safety and effectiveness as the benchmark for substantial equivalence.

8. Sample Size for Training Set

• Sample Size: Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device. The development of the components would involve engineering design and iterative testing, but not machine learning training.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established

• Ground Truth Establishment: Not applicable. There is no "training set" for ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device

The indications for the Trinity Acetabular System as a total hip arthroplasty include:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Correction of functional deformity
• Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and congenital dysplasia of the hip (CDH)
  The Trinity Acetabular System is intended for cementless use only.

The Trinity Acetabular System is a modular acetabular cup system consisting of a press fit, titanium alloy shell (48mm through 68mm in 2mm increments) for use with ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) liners (28mm and 32mm inner diameters in neutral, +4mm offset and 10° hooded designs) and a dedicated range of 28mm and 32mm zirconia and cast cobalt chrome alloy modular 12/14 taper femoral heads providing ceramic or metal on UHMWPE articulation for use in total hip replacement procedures using Corin Tri-fit femoral stems with a 12/14 taper connection. The UHMWPE is previously cleared. The acetabular shell is coated with a rough titanium plasma spray with an additional top layer of electrochemically deposited calcium phosphate (Bonit™). The acetabular shell is provided with screw holes permitting the use of dedicated titanium bone screws to provide additional fixation if required. Titanium occluders are provided to occlude unused screw holes and an apical introducer hole. The Trinity Acetabular System is intended for use in total hip arthroplasty in skeletally mature patients, to provide increased mobility and reduce pain by replacing the damaged hip joint articulation where there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Trinity Acetabular System Hip Prosthesis. It does not describe an AI medical device or a study proving its performance against specific acceptance criteria in the way you've outlined for AI/software-based devices.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, which is the primary pathway for 510(k) clearances. The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly tied to the performance characteristics of the predicate devices.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and answer the questions related to AI/software performance studies as this is a traditional orthopedic implant device submission.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information isn't present in the document provided:

• Type of Device: The Trinity Acetabular System is a physical medical device (a hip prosthesis), not an AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD).
• Regulatory Pathway: It's a 510(k) premarket notification for a Class II device. This pathway relies heavily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing de novo performance acceptance criteria through clinical trials for novel technology.
• "Study" type: The "study" described is entirely non-clinical (bench testing and coating characterization), not a clinical trial or performance study against a ground truth.

Key takeaways from the document that relate to its "acceptance":

• Substantial Equivalence: The primary "acceptance criteria" is that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices. This means it performs at least as safely and effectively as those predicates.
• Non-Clinical Testing: A range of bench tests were performed to support substantial equivalence, including:
  • Retention mechanism testing (push-out, lever-out, torque-out)
  • Range of motion analysis
  • Bone screw testing (torque-out, pull-out, range of motion)
  • Oxidative index testing (for UHMWPE)
  • Impingement testing (for UHMWPE)
  • Wear testing (for UHMWPE)
  • Coating characterization: porosity, pore size, surface roughness, mechanical strength (static tensile, static shear, shear fatigue), taper abrasion for CPTi coating.
  • Calcium phosphate coating characterization as per FDA guidance.
  • Shell stiffness, shell occluder locking strength, fretting/corrosion testing, and pull-off testing of the femoral head.
• No Clinical Testing: The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not necessary to determine substantial equivalence between the Trinity Acetabular System and the predicate devices."

In summary, the provided text describes a traditional orthopedic device's regulatory submission, not an AI or software device. The acceptance is based on substantial equivalence demonstrated through non-clinical bench testing, not an AI performance study with ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device