Search Results

The OrthoGlide Lateral Knee Implant is intended for use in the osteoarthritic knee, where substantial amounts of cartilage have been lost as a result of the disease. The device is indicated for uncemented use in the treatment of moderate degeneration of the lateral compartment of the knee (grade II-IV chondromalacia) with no more than minimal degeneration (grade I-II chondromalacia, no loss of joint space) in the medial and patellofemoral compartments in patients with osteoarthritis.

The OrthoGlide Lateral Knee Implant is placed in the lateral compartment of the knee between the tibial plateau and femoral condyle by means of minimally invasive surgery. The instruments are intended to aid in the surgical preparation of the implant site and implant placement. The OrthoGlide is made of a Cobalt-Chrome-Molybdenum Alloy. Device geometry and ligament tension combine to keep the implant in place. The implant covers the lateral tibial plateau. The device is designed to improve the alignment of the knee, returning the joint to a less valgus position. Realignment of the knee distributes the weight-bearing forces across the joint and helps restore the normal relationships of the articular surfaces and the surrounding capsular, ligamentous and muscular structures. The device is designed to help relieve pain by providing an articulating surface with a low coefficient of friction and high durability. Device geometry improves knee alignment and joint spacing. The device surface is smooth and when wet, is intended to mimic the lubricious surface previously provided by the articular cartilage.

The advanced Bio-Surfaces, Inc. OrthoGlide® Lateral Knee Implant did not undergo clinical studies with acceptance criteria and measured performance in the traditional sense as this was a 510(k) premarket notification for a Class II medical device. The device was found substantially equivalent to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing.

Here's a breakdown of the information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this was a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, there isn't a direct "acceptance criteria" table with measured performance like in a clinical trial. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" revolved around demonstrating that the device performed similarly to the predicates and met established standards through bench and cadaver testing.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • Bench Testing: Not specified in terms of number of samples, but implied to be sufficient to demonstrate the listed physical attributes and durability.
  • Cadaver Testing: Not specified in terms of the number of cadavers used.
• Data Provenance: The data is from non-clinical testing (bench and cadaver studies) conducted by Advanced Bio-Surfaces, Inc. The document does not specify the country of origin for the cadavers or the exact location of the bench testing facilities, but the manufacturer is based in Minnetonka, MN, USA. The studies are by nature prospective for the device's design verification and validation.

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

This type of information is generally not applicable to non-clinical bench and cadaver testing for medical devices, particularly for a 510(k) submission not involving clinical data. The "ground truth" for bench testing would be defined by the specifications and standards (e.g., ISO, EN) the device is tested against. For cadaver testing, the "ground truth" would be the successful execution of the surgical technique and observation of desired physiological effects by medical professionals/surgeons involved in the cadaver labs.

The document does not mention the number or qualifications of experts involved in the cadaver evaluations.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable, as this was not a clinical study requiring adjudication of expert opinions on patient outcomes. The evaluation of bench and cadaver tests would be based on objective measurements and observations against pre-defined criteria.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not used to determine substantial equivalence." and "The OrthoGlide as well as the predicates are submitted without clinical information."
• Effect Size: Not applicable, as no MRMC study was conducted.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

Not applicable. The OrthoGlide® Lateral Knee Implant is a physical implant, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" performance in the context of AI is not relevant. The performance of the implant itself is assessed through the bench and cadaver testing described.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Bench Testing: Engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., tensile strength, fatigue limits), and international voluntary standards (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, EN550 for sterility).
• Cadaver Testing: Direct observation and measurement of surgical technique execution, instrument fit, knee stability, and range of motion on cadaveric specimens, likely by surgical experts or engineers.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. As a physical implant, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. The design and manufacturing processes are refined through engineering development and testing.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Orthoglide Medial Knee Implant is intended for use in the osteoarthritic knee, where substantial amounts of cartilage have been lost as a result of the disease. The device is indicated for uncemented use in the treatment of moderate degeneration of the medial compartment of the knee (grade II-IV chondromalacia) with no more than minimal degencration (grade I-II chondromalacia, no loss of joint space) in the lateral and patellofemoral compartments in patients with ostcoarthritis.

The Orthoglide Medial Knee Implant is placed in the medial compartment of the knee between the tibial plateau and femoral condyle by means of minimally invasive surgery. The instruments are intended to aid in the surgical preparation of the implant site and implant placement. The Orthoglide is made of a Cobalt-Chrome-Molybdenum Alloy. Device geometry and ligament tension combine to keep the implant in place. The implant covers the tibial plateau. The device is designed to improve the alignment of the knee, returning the joint to a more valgus position. Realignment of the knee distributes the weight-bearing forces across the joint and helps restore the normal relationships of the articular surfaces and the surrounding capsular, ligamentous and muscular structures.

The device is designed to help relieve pain by providing an articulating surface with a low coefficient of friction and high durability. Device geometry improves knee alignment and joint spacing. The device surface is smooth and when wet, is intended to mimic the lubricious surface previously provided by the articular cartilage.

This 510(k) submission for the Orthoglide® Medial Knee Implant does not contain a study demonstrating that the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the manner typically seen for AI/ML-based medical devices or diagnostics. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices through a combination of engineering bench testing and non-clinical evaluations.

The document states: "The Orthoglide as well as the predicates are submitted without clinical information." This explicitly indicates that no clinical studies, which would typically involve human subjects and outcome measures to establish specific acceptance criteria and performance against them, were conducted for this submission.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for AI/ML device studies are not applicable in this context. I will address the parts that are relevant based on the provided text.

Description of Acceptance Criteria and Study for Orthoglide® Medial Knee Implant

The Orthoglide® Medial Knee Implant's acceptance criteria are framed around demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than achieving specific performance metrics in a clinical study. The "study" in this context refers to a series of bench tests and cadaver evaluations designed to ensure the device's physical attributes, durability, material consistency, and surgical compatibility, mirroring what would be expected of the predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a substantial equivalence submission based on non-clinical data, the acceptance criteria are not in the form of diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, they relate to engineering and material properties, and the "reported performance" is that the device meets these criteria.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. The "test set" here refers to the samples used in bench testing and cadaver evaluations, not a clinical patient cohort. The document does not specify the number of individual components or cadavers used for these tests.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted internally by Advanced Bio-Surfaces, Inc. as part of their design verification and validation process. The origin of the raw materials (Cobalt-Chrome-Molybdenum Alloy) would typically be from suppliers, but specific "country of origin" for the test data itself is not stated beyond the manufacturer's location in Minnetonka, MN, USA. All data appears to be prospective in the sense that it was generated specifically for this device's development and submission.

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

This concept is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. "Ground truth" for an AI/ML device typically involves expert interpretation of medical images or clinical data. Here, the "truth" is established by adherence to engineering standards, material specifications, and observed physical behaviors in controlled lab and cadaveric settings. There's no mention of a panel of experts establishing ground truth for diagnostic or prognostic interpretations.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are used for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations to establish ground truth in clinical/diagnostic studies (typically AI/ML). The "truth" in this submission relies on objective measurements from bench testing and observations during cadaveric procedures, not on expert consensus that requires adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. Such studies are relevant for evaluating the impact of an AI algorithm on human reader performance, which is not pertinent to this implant device's submission.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study Was Done

Yes, in a sense. The "standalone" performance here refers to the inherent physical and mechanical properties of the device itself, as evaluated through bench testing and cadaver studies. This is the primary mechanism used to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than a clinical study with human patients. The device's performance (e.g., fatigue resistance, biocompatibility) was assessed independently of human interaction beyond the necessary execution of the tests themselves.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this submission consists of:

• Engineering Standards and Specifications: Adherence to established and voluntary standards (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, EN550 for sterility) and the manufacturer's own design specifications for mechanical properties, materials, and processing.
• Observed Physical Properties: Measurements from tensile strength tests, load deflection, and cyclic fatigue, compared against predetermined engineering requirements.
• Cadaveric Observations: Direct observation and measurement during cadaver testing to verify surgical technique, instrument function, and physiological effects like stability, angular correction, and range of motion preservation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant, not an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Imaging Therapeutics, Inc. Knee Interpositional Mini-Repair System (KIMRS) is intended for use in the osteoarthritic knee, where substantial amounts of articular cartilage have degenerated as a result of the disease, and in patients who are candidates for total and/or uni-compartmental arthroplasty procedures. The implant is indicated for the un-cemented treatment of the medial and/or lateral tibial articulating surfaces of the following:

Moderate degeneration of the medial or lateral compartment of the knee (grade II-IV chondromalacia) and minimal degeneration (grade I-II chondromalacia, no loss of joint space) in the patellofemoral compartments.

The Imaging Therapeutics, Inc. Knee Interpositional Mini-Repair System is intended to be implanted in the knee as a non-fixated, intra-articular support with minimal to no movement of the device after implantation.

Imaging Therapeutics, Inc. Knee Interpositional Mini-Repair System is a minimally invasive, bone preserving, approach for the treatment of the osteoarthritic knee. Developed from patient Magnetic Resonance (MR) scans a patient specific implant is designed.

The treatment allows for the placement of an un-cemented metallic device designed from the patient's natural cartilage and meniscal geometry that is implanted into the joint space either in the medial or lateral compartment above the affected tibial plateau. The femur then articulates against the smooth implant surface. The implant is manufactured from cobalt chromium molybdenum alloy.

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Knee Interpositional Mini-Repair System (KIMRS)" by Imaging Therapeutics, Inc. The primary purpose of this submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than to prove that the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study. The study conducted is a bench test on cadaveric knees comparing the mechanical movement of the KIMRS with a predicate device, the Centerpulse Unispacer.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note regarding Acceptance Criteria: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria. Instead, it relies on demonstrating comparability to a legally marketed predicate device (Centerpulse Unispacer). The "acceptance criteria" are thus implicitly that the KIMRS performs similarly or better than the predicate device in terms of movement within the cadaveric knee. The text concludes that "The ImaTx Knee Interpositional Mini-Repair System performed comparably to the Unispacer implant."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Two cadaveric knee specimens.
• Data Provenance: Retrospective (cadaveric specimens), location not specified.

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

• This study did not involve experts establishing ground truth in the traditional sense of clinical assessment. It was a biomechanical test comparing implant movement. No information is provided regarding human experts for this specific comparative testing.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. This was a biomechanical measurement study, not an assessment requiring adjudication of human observations or diagnoses.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study focuses on the mechanical performance of the device in cadavers, not on human reader performance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• Not applicable. This device is a physical knee implant, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" in this context refers to the direct physical measurement of implant excursion within the cadaveric knee using fluoroscopy. This is akin to direct measurement/physical observation rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data. The predicate device's performance serves as a comparative benchmark.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI or algorithm-based system that requires a "training set."

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

• Not applicable (as above).

Ask a specific question about this device

The OTI Unicondular Interpositional Spacer is intended for use in the Osteoarthritic knee, where substantial amounts of articular cartlige have been lost as a result of the disease.

The prostheses will be used in indications for uncemented treatment of the Tibia articulating surfaces (Medial and Lateral) of the following:

Moderate degeneration of the Medial and/or Lateral compartment of the knee (grade II-IV chondromalicia ) and minimal degeneration (grade I-II chondromalacia, no loss of joint space) in the patellofemoral components.

OTI Unicondular Interpositional Spacer System

This is an FDA Premarket Notification (510(k)) letter for a medical device called the "OTI Unicondular Interpositional Spacer System." This type of document primarily confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device and grants permission to market the device.

This document does not contain the detailed information required to answer your specific questions about acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria.

510(k) clearances typically do not include:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance from a specific study. The substantial equivalence determination is often based on design similarities, material properties, and sometimes limited bench or preclinical testing, rather than extensive clinical efficacy studies with predefined acceptance criteria as might be seen for a PMA (Premarket Approval) or De Novo pathway.
• Details about sample size, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance. These are more relevant to AI/ML-driven device evaluations or devices requiring clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy.
• Specifics on how ground truth was established for training or testing sets.

To reiterate, the provided text does not contain the information requested in your prompt. It solely outlines the FDA's decision to clear the device for marketing based on substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device