Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K213214
    Device Name
    Xpert Wrist
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2021-11-24

    (56 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3030
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    Xpert Wrist

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The implants of the Xpert Wrist range are intended for the fixation of hand and forearm fractures, osteotomies and arthrodeses in adults.

    Device Description

    The Xpert Wrist range consists of plates and screws, designed for the fixation of hand and forearm fractures, osteotomies and arthrodeses in adults. The implants of the Xpert Wrist range will be provided non sterile for sterilization by health care professionals prior to use, or provided sterile by gamma sterilization. The instruments of the Xpert Wrist range will be provided non sterile for sterilization by health care professionals prior to use. Materials: CP Titanium (conform to ASTM F67 and ISO 5832-2) and Titanium alloy Ti-6AI-4V ELI (conform to ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3). Function: The implants of the Xpert Wrist range are intended for the fixation of hand and forearm fractures, osteotomies and arthrodeses in adults.

    AI/ML Overview

    This FDA 510(k) summary is for a medical device called "Xpert Wrist," which consists of plates and screws for fixing hand and forearm fractures, osteotomies, and arthrodeses in adults.

    The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed." This means that the device was not evaluated through a study to prove its acceptance criteria in the typical sense of measuring device performance against clinical outcomes or human reader performance.

    Instead, the substantial equivalence to predicate devices is based on non-clinical tests comparing the Xpert Wrist to previously cleared devices.

    Here's an breakdown of the information requested, based only on the provided document:


    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Since this is a GHTF Type A submission (based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices and no clinical studies), the acceptance criteria are based on mechanical properties being comparable or superior to the predicate devices. The document does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum bending strength in N-mm) or exact performance values from the tests in an easily digestible table format. It states that the analysis "showed that the Xpert Wrist range is substantially equivalent to cleared predicates."

    However, we can infer the types of performance assessed:

    Performance Metric (Type of Test)Acceptance Criteria (Inferred)Reported Device Performance
    Bending Strength (4-point-bending per ASTM F382)Comparable or superior to predicate devices."the analysis showed that the Xpert Wrist range is substantially equivalent to cleared predicates."
    Torsional Strength (ASTM F543)Comparable or superior to predicate device screws."the analysis showed that the Xpert Wrist range is substantially equivalent to cleared predicates."
    Axial Pull-out Strength (Chapman equation, FDA-Guidance)Comparable or superior to predicate device screws."the analysis showed that the Xpert Wrist range is substantially equivalent to cleared predicates."
    Endotoxin Levels (LAL quantitative kinetic chromogenic method)Acceptable levels for medical devices."Endotoxin testing is performed..." (Implied acceptable results for substantial equivalence)

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

    • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The non-clinical tests would involve a certain number of manufactured plates and screws (e.g., n=5 or n=10 per test for mechanical testing).
    • Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of human studies. For mechanical testing, the "data provenance" would refer to tests conducted in a laboratory setting, likely by the manufacturer or a contracted testing facility. No country of origin for the mechanical test data is specified. The tests are non-clinical and conducted to support substantial equivalence.

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

    Not applicable. No clinical studies were performed, and thus no expert ground truth for a clinical test set was established. The "ground truth" here is based on established engineering standards for mechanical performance.


    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. No clinical studies were performed, and thus no adjudication method for a clinical test set was used.


    5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

    No. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed."


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

    Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (plates and screws), not an AI algorithm.


    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" refers to established engineering standards (e.g., ASTM F382, ASTM F543) and comparative data from legally marketed predicate devices. The performance of the Xpert Wrist was compared against these benchmarks to demonstrate substantial equivalence.


    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device, so there is no "training set."


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

    Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device, so there is no "training set" or ground truth for it.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1