Search Results

The iNSitu Total Hip System is indicated for use in skeletally mature individuals undergoing surgery for total hip replacement due to:

· A severely painful and or disabled joint from osteoarthritis, theumator arthritis, avascular necrosis, or congenital hip dysplasia;

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck;

· Failed previous hip surgery including joint reconstruction, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty or total hip replacement

The iNSitu Total Hip System femoral stem is intended for cementless fixation. The iNSitu Total Hip System acetabular cup is intended for cementless fixation. The porous structured surfaces provide biological fixation in a cementless application.

The subject device of this 510(k) notification is the Blade Femoral Stem, which is a line extension to the iNSitu Total Hip System. The Blade Femoral Stem is a collarless dual-tapered for biologic fixation. The neck is polished and narrowed in the anterior-posterior dimension to reduce the potential for impingement with the liner and to increase the range of motion (ROM), while maintaining flexural rigidity. The proximal portion of the stem possesses a porous structured commercially pure (CP) titanium coating for biologic fixation with bone. The hip stem has a smooth satin finish. There is a range of sizes that proportionally increase in diameter, stem length, and neck offset to accommodate a range of human hip anatomy. The range of stem sizes is offered in both standard and lateralized neck configurations. The Blade Femoral Stem is made from titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136.

The iNSitu Total Hip System includes a family of femoral stems (including the predicate iNSitu Femoral Stems and the subject Blade Femoral Stems), femoral head components, UHMWPE acetabular cups, acetabular hole covers, optional acetabular screws, instruments, and sterilization cases. With the extension Blade Femoral Stem, all other components of the subject device are identical to the predicate devices cleared in K161184 and K172501. The implants are packaged in single use, sterile packages with a 5-year shelf life and the re-usable instruments are contained in sterilization cases intended for steam sterilization.

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, not an AI/ML device. Therefore, the provided document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or studies related to AI/ML device performance. The information requested in the prompt, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, or ground truth establishment methods, is not applicable to this submission.

The document describes a line extension (Blade Femoral Stem) to an already cleared total hip system. The acceptance criteria and the study for this type of device focus on mechanical and material performance, as well as substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicates.

Here's the relevant performance information from the document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not explicitly stated in the document. For mechanical testing, samples typically refer to manufactured devices (or components) subjected to specific test conditions, not data sets in the AI/ML context.

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, as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable, as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

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, as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable, as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for this device would be its ability to withstand mechanical stresses and fatigue as per established engineering standards for orthopedic implants, and to demonstrate substantial equivalence to its predicate devices. This is typically verified through laboratory-based mechanical testing, not clinical "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable, as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable, as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device