Search Results

RejuvaKnee is intended for use in surgical procedures for the reinforcement and repair of the medial meniscus. In repairing and reinforcing medial meniscal defects, the patient must have an intact meniscal rim and anterior and posterior horns for attachment of the mesh. In addition, the surgically prepared site for the RejuvaKnee must extend at least into the red/white zone of the meniscus to provide sufficient vascularization.

RejuvaKnee reinforces soft tissue and provides a reasonable scaffold that is replaced by the patient's own soft tissue. The RejuvaKnee is not a prosthetic device and is not intended to replace normal body structure.

The RejuvaKnee™ Collagen Meniscus Implant is comprised primarily of bovine Type I collagen (nominally 99%) derived from meniscus. The device is provided in a semi-lunar shape with a triangular cross section to be used to reinforce weakened soft tissue and provide a resorbable scaffold that is replaced by the patient's own tissue.

RejuvaKnee is supplied sterile and is intended for single use.

This is a 510(k) summary for the RejuvaKnee™ Collagen Meniscus Implant.
The device is a resorbable scaffold made of bovine Type I collagen intended for the reinforcement and repair of medial meniscal defects. It is compared to the Ivy Sports Medicine Collagen Meniscus Implant (K170364) as a predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document provides a comparison of features between the RejuvaKnee™ Collagen Meniscus Implant and its predicate. Acceptance criteria are implied by the reported values and the claim of substantial equivalence to the predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Ivy Sports Medicine Collagen Meniscus Implant (CMI) is intended for use in surgical procedures for the reinforcement and repair of soft tissue injuries of the medial meniscus. In repairing medial meniscal defects, the patient must have an intact meniscal rim and anterior and posterior horns for attachment of the mesh. In addition, the surgically prepared site for the CMI must extend at least into the red/white zone of the meniscus to provide sufficient vascularization.

The CMI reinforces soft tissue and provides a resorbable scaffold that is replaced by the patient's own soft tissue. The CMI is not a prosthetic device and is not intended to replace normal body structure.

The Ivy Sports Medicine Collagen Meniscus Implant XL (CMI XL) is a resorbable collagen matrix comprised primarily of bovine type I collagen. The CMI is provided in a semi-lunar shape with a triangular cross section to be used to reinforce weakened soft tissue and provide a resorbable scaffold that is replaced by the patient's own tissue. The surgeon trims the device to the size necessary for repair of the damaged or weakened soft tissue. The CMI XL is provided sterile for single use only.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the Ivy Sports Medicine Collagen Meniscus Implant XL (CMI XL). It asserts substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the ReGen Collagen Scaffold (K082079).

Based on the provided document, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document states: "Testing performed on the Collagen Meniscus Implant XL demonstrated that all of the predetermined acceptance criteria were met with passing results." However, it does not explicitly list the specific acceptance criteria or the numerical performance results against those criteria. It only makes a general statement about meeting them.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not provide details on the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance. It mentions "Design verification testing" and "Bench performance test data" but no specifics on how many devices were tested or where the components/data originated.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

This information is not applicable as the document indicates "Clinical evaluation is not required for this device." The testing performed appears to be bench testing rather than clinical studies requiring expert ground truth for interpretation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not applicable as the document indicates "Clinical evaluation is not required for this device" and the testing described is bench performance testing.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical collagen implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative tool.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical collagen implant, and there is no algorithm or human-in-the-loop component described.

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

Since clinical evaluation was not required and the testing was described as "Design verification testing" and "Bench performance test data," the ground truth would likely be established by engineering specifications, material science standards, and comparison to the predicate device's established performance. The document implicitly suggests that the ground truth for performance relied on the predicate device's characteristics.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical implant, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical implant, not an AI model that requires a training set.

In summary, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through bench testing, asserting that the new device meets predefined, unlisted, acceptance criteria based on the predicate device's performance, and explicitly stating that clinical evaluation was not required.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ReGen Collagen Scaffold (CS) is intended for use in surgical procedures for the reinforcement and repair of soft tissue injuries of the medial meniscus. In repairing and reinforcing medial meniscal defects, the patient must have an intact meniscal rim and anterior and posterior horns for attachment of the mesh. In addition, the surgically prepared site for the CS must extend at least into the red/white zone of the meniscus to provide sufficient vascularization.

The CS reinforces soft tissue and provides a resorbable scaffold that is replaced by the patient's own soft tissue. The CS is not a prosthetic device and is not intended to replace normal body structure.

The ReGen Collagen Scaffold (CS) is a resorbable collagen matrix comprised primarily of bovine type I collagen. The CS is provided in a semi-lunar shape with a triangular cross section to be used to reinforce weakened soft tissue and provide a resorbable scaffold that is replaced by the patient's own tissue. The surgeon trims the device to the size necessary for repair of the damaged or weakened soft tissue.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (ReGen Collagen Scaffold (CS)), not a study report detailing acceptance criteria and performance. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding study details, sample sizes, and expert qualifications cannot be extracted directly from this document. This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

However, based on the text provided, I can infer and state the following:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a direct table of reported device performance against such criteria. The "performance" is implicitly demonstrated through the claim of substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on biomechanical, biocompatibility, animal testing, and clinical studies.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document mentions a prospective, randomized multicenter clinical trial that had two separately controlled and randomized arms:
  • Acute arm: 157 patients with no prior surgery to the involved meniscus.
  • Chronic arm: 154 patients with one to three prior treatments to the involved meniscus.
  • Total patients: 311.
• Data Provenance: The study was a "multicenter clinical trial." The document does not explicitly state the country of origin, but given the submission to the FDA in the US, it is likely that the data originated from the US or included US sites. The trial was prospective and randomized.

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)

This information is not available in the provided text. The document refers to a clinical trial but does not detail how the "ground truth" (e.g., success or failure of the repair) was established by experts, nor does it specify the number or qualifications of such experts.

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

This information is not available in the provided text.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a "Collagen Scaffold" (surgical mesh), not an AI or imaging diagnostic device that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

This is not applicable for a physical surgical mesh device.

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

Given that it was a clinical trial for a surgical mesh, the "ground truth" would likely be based on clinical outcomes data related to the reinforcement and repair of soft tissue injuries of the medial meniscus. This would typically involve measures of healing, function, pain, and potentially re-injury rates over the follow-up period.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. For a physical medical device like a surgical mesh, there isn't typically a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The clinical trial data served as the primary evidence.

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

This is not applicable for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device