Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(126 days)
iNSitu Bipolar Hip System
The iNSitu Bipolar Hip System is intended for use in combination with the iNSitu Total Hip System Femoral Stems for uncemented primary or revision hemiarthroplasty of the hip. This prosthesis may be used for the following conditions, as appropriate:
- Femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur;
- . Osteonecrosis of the femoral head;
- . Revisions procedures where other devices or treatments for these indications have failed
The iNSitu Bipolar Hip System consists of a factory assembled UHMWPE (ASTM F648) liner in a cobalt chrome (ASTM F75) outer shell, and UHMWPE (ASTM F648) retention ring with a Ti-6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136) spring. These Bipolar Heads include outer diameters ranging from 38 to 60 mm, in 1 mm increments, to properly fit the patient anatomy. The smaller Bipolar Heads (38 to 43 mm) have an inner diameter that mates with the subject 22mm diameter Femoral Head; the larger Bipolar Heads (44 to 60 mm) have an inner diameter that mates with the previously cleared 28 mm diameter Femoral Head. The iNSitu Bipolar Hip System may be used in conjunction with an iNSitu Total Hip System Femoral Stem (K161184/K172501) for hemiarthroplasty.
This document describes the regulatory clearance of a medical device, specifically the iNSitu Bipolar Hip System. It refers to performance testing done for a predicate device to establish substantial equivalence. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered device.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a traditional medical device (a hip prosthesis), not an AI/ML device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML device performance (like sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) are not applicable to this document.
The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (the BioPro Bipolar Head) based on identical design, materials, indications for use, and manufacturing methods.
Here's a breakdown of the relevant information provided, adapted to the context of a traditional device:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the way one would for an AI/ML algorithm's performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, it relies on the mechanical and functional equivalence to a predicate device.
| Test Performed (using predicate device, identical to subject device) | Reported Performance / Conclusion |
|---|---|
| Push-Out and Lever-Out Strength | Demonstrates appropriate mechanical characteristics for hip hemi-arthroplasty; Substantially equivalent to predicate. |
| Assembly Forces | Demonstrates appropriate mechanical characteristics for hip hemi-arthroplasty; Substantially equivalent to predicate. |
| Range of motion testing (using subject device components) | Confirms appropriate mechanical characteristics for hip hemi-arthroplasty; Substantially equivalent to predicate. |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Test set sample size: Not specified. The "testing" refers to mechanical and functional tests of the physical device components, not a "test set" of data as in AI/ML.
- Data provenance: Not applicable in the context of mechanical device testing.
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)
Not applicable. Ground truth as typically defined for AI/ML (e.g., expert consensus on medical images) is not relevant for the mechanical testing of a hip prosthesis. The "ground truth" here is adherence to mechanical and material standards and performance comparable to a predicate device.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. This concept is for resolving disagreements in expert labeling of data, which is not part of this device's evaluation.
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 is not an AI/ML device, so no MRMC study would be conducted for human reader improvement with AI assistance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
The "ground truth" for this medical device's performance is adherence to established material specifications (e.g., ASTM F75 for cobalt chromium, ASTM F648 for UHMWPE, ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V) and demonstrated mechanical performance comparable to a legally marketed predicate device as determined through physical testing.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. There is no training set for this type of device.
In summary: The provided document is for a traditional hip implant, not an AI/ML powered device. The "acceptance criteria" are implied to be the successful demonstration of mechanical and material properties that are substantially equivalent to a cleared predicate device, as confirmed by physical performance testing. The questions regarding AI/ML specific aspects (sample sizes, experts, adjudication, MRMC, standalone performance, training sets, etc.) do not apply to this submission.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1