LogoFDA 510(k) Search
Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K232515
    Device Name
    Valkyrie Thoracic Fixation System
    Manufacturer
    JM Longyear Manufacturing, LLC d/b/a Able Medical Devices
    Date Cleared
    2023-12-08

    (112 days)

    Product Code
    HRS,HWC
    Regulation Number
    888.3030
    Type
    Traditional
    Panel
    Orthopedic
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    K202889,K221412
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Valkyrie Thoracic Fixation System is indicated for use in the stabilization of fractures in the chest wall including sternal reconstructive surgical procedures, trauma, or planned osteotomies. The system is intended for use in patients with normal and/or poor bone quality.

    Device Description

    The Valkyrie Thoracic Fixation System consists of a variety of screws and plates intended for use in the stabilization and fixation of fractures in the chest wall including sternal reconstructive surgical procedures, trauma, or planned osteotomies. The system is intended for use in patients with normal and/or poor bone quality.

    To accommodate varying patient anatomy and surgeon preference, the Valkyrie Thoracic Fixation System includes screws in diameters from 2.5mm to 3.5mm diameters and lengths from 7-20mm. The system also includes various styles of plates. The Valkyrie Thoracic Fixation System plates are made from PEEK per ASTM F2026, and the screws are made from Ti-6Al-4V per ASTM F136.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Valkyrie Thoracic Fixation System, which is a medical device for stabilizing chest wall fractures. It is not a software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) or AI product. Therefore, the questions regarding acceptance criteria and studies typical for AI/SaMD are not applicable to this document.

    The document discusses the mechanical and material aspects of the device and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not the performance of an algorithm.

    However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and related information for the device's physical attributes as described in the summary:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

    Acceptance Criteria CategorySpecific TestAcceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance
    MR Conditional LabelingMagnetically induced displacement forceNot explicitly stated, but implies compliance with ASTM F2052."All testing has met the documented acceptance criteria."
    Magnetically induced torqueNot explicitly stated, but implies compliance with ASTM F2213."All testing has met the documented acceptance criteria."
    MR Image artifactNot explicitly stated, but implies compliance with ASTM F2119."All testing has met the documented acceptance criteria."
    Radio frequency induced heatingNot explicitly stated, but implies compliance with ASTM F2182."All testing has met the documented acceptance criteria."
    Additional Screw SizesScrew torsional strength testingNot explicitly stated, but implies compliance with ASTM F543."All testing has met the documented acceptance criteria."
    Screw axial pullout strength testingNot explicitly stated, but implies compliance with ASTM F543."All testing has met the documented acceptance criteria."
    Screw driving torque testingNot explicitly stated, but implies compliance with ASTM F543."All testing has met the documented acceptance criteria."
    GeneralMaterial composition, manufacturing process, sterilization, and packagingSubstantially equivalent to predicate device (K202889).Substantially Equivalent to the predicate device (K202889) in these aspects.

    Regarding the other points, as this is a physical medical device and not an AI/SaMD, the following information is not present or applicable in the provided text:

    • Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The "test set" here refers to physical components of the device, and the testing is laboratory-based mechanical and MR compatibility testing, not data-driven performance evaluation.
    • 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" in this context would refer to established engineering standards (ASTM standards in this case), not expert interpretation of data.
    • Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication is not a concept used for mechanical and material testing of a physical device.
    • 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 for an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, which this device is not.
    • If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.
    • The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For the physical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the requirements of the ASTM standards (F2052, F2213, F2119, F2182, F543). The ultimate "ground truth" for regulatory approval is demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.
    • The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no training set for a physical device.
    • How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1