Search Results

The Newclip Patient-matched instrumentation non sterile PSI is indicated to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in pre-operative planning and/or in guiding surgical instruments in High Tibial Medial Opening Wedge Osteotomy and Distal Femoral Lateral Opening Wedge Osteotomy, when the anatomic landmarks necessary for pre-operative planning can be clearly identified on the patient's radiographic images (i.e., computed tomography (CT)). Each PSI is designed to be compatible with implants from the Newclip High Tibial Osteotomy System or the Newclip Activmotion Range.

The Newclip Patient-matched instrumentation non sterile PSI are patient-matched devices. The subject devices are surgical drilling/cutting quides that are additively manufactured (3D printed) and are designed to match the patient's anatomy. They are intended to assist in pre-operative planning and/or guiding surgical instruments in orthopaedic surgery (High Tibial Medial Opening Wedge Osteotomy and Distal Femoral Lateral Opening Wedge Osteotomy). They are single-use devices provided non sterile for sterilization by health care professionals before use. The Newclip Patient-matched instrumentation non sterile PSI can be used to facilitate implantation of Newclip High Tibial Osteotomy System or the Newclip Activmotion Range devices.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Newclip Patient-matched instrumentation non sterile PSI. It does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or details of a study structured to prove the device meets said criteria as requested.

The document states that "Verification and validation (V&V) activities included... Surgeon evaluation of precision and accuracy based on human clinical cases." It further mentions that "Precision and accuracy of the subject device was demonstrated in published human clinical studies by surgeon-users on patients in Europe using Newclip Patient-matched instrumentation non sterile PSI guides." However, it does not provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample size for the test set or data provenance. (It refers to "human clinical cases" and "published human clinical studies" but gives no numbers or details on whether the data was retrospective or prospective, or from which specific countries beyond "Europe.")
• Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication method.
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, or any effect size for human readers improving with/without AI assistance. (This device is a patient-matched surgical guide, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool, so an MRMC study is unlikely to be relevant in the traditional sense, but the question was asked.)
• If a standalone performance (algorithm only) was done. (Again, not directly applicable as this is a physical surgical guide.)
• The type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (SurgiCase Orthopaedics, SurgiCase Connect, SurgiCase Guides). It lists verification and validation activities conducted, but these are described in broad terms rather than as a detailed study report with specific metrics and results.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot fulfill the request for detailed information about acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria were met.

If this were a medical imaging AI device, the lack of such details in an FDA 510(k) summary would be a red flag. However, for a patient-matched surgical instrument, the V&V activities mentioned (surgeon evaluation, precision/accuracy in design/manufacturing, wear testing, cleanliness/sterilization, dimensional verification) are typical, though the specific data from these activities is not included in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device