Search Results

This device is indicated in hip arthroplasty for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions:

1. Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, ankylosis, protrusio acetabuli, and painful hip dysplasia;
2. Inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis;
3. Correction of function deformity;
4. Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed;
5. Treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that is unmanageable using other techniques.

This device is a single use implant and intended for cementless use only except cemented stem which is designed for cemented use only.

There are two purposes in current submission, the fist one is to expand the Indications for Use of two cleared products: U2 Hip System (K111546) and Femoral Heads, +2.5 & +7.5 mm Offset (K122504), which have been expanded to a population with similar demographic, diagnosis and prognosis as the original. The second purpose of this submission is to reword the statement of Indications for Use of six cleared "UNITED" hip products including U1 Hip System (K994078), U2 Hip Stem, Ti porous coated (K003237), U2 Acetabular Cup and Femoral Head (K022520), U2 Acetabular Component (K050262), U2 Hip Stem and Ti Plasma Spray (K062978) and U2 Acetabular Cup, Plasma Spray (K121777). Through this submission, the Indications for Use of above listed devices are unified as one version, and the components, materials, design, processing methods, sterilization methods, biocompatibility, safety and effectiveness of above listed devices are unchanged by this submission.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the "U2 Hip System, Expanded Indications for Use". This document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices for the indications for use of a hip implant system, rather than proving the performance of a newly designed device through explicit acceptance criteria and a detailed study.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, and how ground truth was established is not applicable in this context.

Here's why and what the document does provide:

• Type of Device: This is a hip prosthesis (total hip replacement system).
• Regulatory Pathway: This is a 510(k) premarket notification. The core of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This typically involves comparing technological characteristics (design, materials, packaging, sterilization) and intended use, rather than conducting new clinical performance studies against specific acceptance criteria for a novel device.
• Purpose of the Submission:
  1. Expand Indications for Use: For two existing products (U2 Hip System K111546 and Femoral Heads K122504) to include a similar patient demographic, diagnosis, and prognosis.
  2. Reword/Unify Indications for Use: For six other cleared "UNITED" hip products to a single, unified version.
• Basis for Substantial Equivalence: The submission states that the components, design, materials, packaging, and sterilization method of the "U2 Hip System - Expanded Indications for Use" are identical to cleared predicate devices. The only difference is the integration of indications for use.
• Non-Clinical and Clinical Testing: The document explicitly states:
  • "Non-clinical laboratory testing is not provided as a basis for substantial equivalence."
  • "Clinical Testing None provided as a basis for substantial equivalence."

Conclusion:

This submission does not contain information about a study designed to prove the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the manner requested because it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to pre-existing, legally marketed devices. The performance and safety of the device are implicitly linked to the predicate devices it is compared against, not to new performance data generated for this specific submission.

Ask a specific question about this device