Search Results

The Smith & Nephew ULTRA FAST-FIX, ULTRA FAST-FIX AB, and FAST-FIX 360 meniscal repair systems are intended for use as suture retention devices to facilitate percutaneous or endoscopic soft tissue procedures. The ULTRA FAST-FIX, ULTRA FAST-FIX AB, AND FAST FIX 360 are indicated for use in meniscal repairs and allograft transplant procedures. The ULTRA FAST-FIX, ULTRA FAST-FIX AB AND FAST-FIX 360 devices are intended to be used for anchoring the . allograft to the meniscal rim during allograft transplant procedures.

The Smith & Nephew ULTRA FAST-FIX, ULTRA FAST-FIX AB, and FAST-FIX 360 Meniscal Repair Systems are all-inside meniscal repair device includes two polymer implants, pretied with non-absorbable suture pre-loaded into a stainless steel needle delivery system with an adjustable length depth penetration limiter. Product variants are offered with either a straight, curved or reverse curved delivery needle, and are provided sterile for single use only.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the ULTRA FAST-FIX Meniscal Repair System, ULTRA FAST-FIX AB Meniscal Repair System, and FAST-FIX 360 Meniscal Repair System, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The 510(k) summary does not specify numerical sample sizes for the performance testing (cyclic load and ultimate tensile strength). It only refers to "performance testing."
The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not specified in the provided text.

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

This information is not applicable to this submission. The device is a physical medical device (suture retention system), and the performance evaluation is based on mechanical testing (cyclic load, ultimate tensile strength), not on expert assessment of images or clinical data for diagnostic purposes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and its effect size

An MRMC study was not done and is not applicable. This device is not an AI/imaging device requiring human reader analysis. The study focused on the physical performance of the device.

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

A standalone performance evaluation was done, in the context of mechanical testing. The device's fixation properties were tested independently to demonstrate equivalence to predicate devices, without human intervention in the device's operational performance during testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was the mechanical performance characteristics (cyclic load and ultimate tensile strength) of legally marketed predicate devices. The new devices were compared against these established benchmarks.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" is not applicable to this type of device and study. This is a medical device submission based on showing substantial equivalence through mechanical performance, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device