Search Results

EXULT Knee Replacement System is intended for the treatment of diseases as follows:

• Painful, disabling joint disease of the knee resulting from non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (including osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis or avascular necrosis) or rheumatoid arthritis.
• Post-traumatic loss of knee joint configuration and function.
• . Moderate varus, valgus, or flexion deformity in which the ligamentous structures can be returned to adequate function and stability.
• . Correction or revision of unsuccessful osteotomy, arthrodesis, or failure of previous arthroplasty procedure

EXULT Knee Replacement System is intended for cemented application only.

The purpose of the submission is a line extension of the EXULT Tibial Insert (CPS-type) to the EXULT Knee Replacement System (K192507). The CPS-type Tibial Inserts are designed based on the design of the other previously cleared Tibial Inserts of the EXULT Knee Replacement System (PS-type, CR-type and UC-type). The CPS-type, which is constrained posterior stabilized, has a thicker and wider post which provides additional constraint as compared to the PS-type insert. The CPS-type Tibial Insert matches with Femoral Components of one-size up and down. The CPS-type Tibial Insert is symmetrical and used in both the right and left knee. It is only used in combination with the Femoral component/Tibial baseplate of the predicate device (K192507).

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study that proves a device meets those criteria for software or AI/ML-driven medical device performance.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the EXULT Knee Replacement System, a physical orthopedic device. It discusses the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices (other knee replacement systems).

The "Non-Clinical Testing" section lists various engineering tests (wear testing, fatigue testing, constraint testing, range of motion, surface roughness, disassembly) and references ISO and ASTM standards. These are traditional mechanical engineering tests for orthopedic implants, not performance studies for AI/ML algorithms.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (for AI/ML).
• Sample size for the test set and data provenance.
• Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication method.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone performance study.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device