Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K072322
    Date Cleared
    2007-09-18

    (29 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.5000
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K002261, K020480

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Smith & Nephew ULTRA FAST-FIX Meniscal Repair Systems and ULTRA FAST-FIX AB Meniscal Repair Systems are intended for use as suture retention devices to facilitate percutaneous or endoscopic soft tissue procedures such as shoulder stabilization (Bankart Repair), rotator cuff repair, meniscal repair and gastrostomy.

    Device Description

    The Smith & Nephew ULTRA FAST-FIX and ULTRA FAST-FIX AB Meniscal Repair Systems are all-inside meniscal repair devices. Each device includes two implants, pre-tied with #0 nonabsorbable suture pre-loaded into a needle delivery system. The FAST-FIX Meniscal Repair System is provided sterile for single use only.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the ULTRA FAST-FIX Meniscal Repair System and ULTRA FAST-FIX AB Meniscal Repair System. It does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria.

    Instead, it states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices (Smith & Nephew FAST-FIX and FAST-FIX AB Meniscal Repair Systems) in terms of intended use, fundamental scientific technology, and performance. The summary mentions "Performance testing demonstrates that the soft tissue repair achieved using ULTRA FAST-FIX and ULTRA FAST-FIX AB is substantially equivalent to repair achieved with currently marketed meniscal repair devices. Performance testing also affirms that ULTRA FAST-FIX and ULTRA FAST-FIX AB offer substantially equivalent suture sliding characteristics compared to the predicate FAST-FIX and FAST-FIX AB devices."

    However, it does not provide:

    1. A table of specific acceptance criteria and reported device performance values.
    2. Sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, or details about the study design.
    3. Information about expert involvement for ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies.
    4. Details about standalone algorithm performance if relevant (this is a medical device, not an AI/algorithm).
    5. The type of ground truth used, or sample sizes and ground truth establishment for a training set.

    The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than presenting detailed performance data against pre-defined acceptance criteria for a new type of study.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K020480
    Device Name
    RBM
    Date Cleared
    2002-03-12

    (27 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.4930
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K002261

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The RBM is intended for use as a suture retention device to facilitate percutaneous or endoscopic soft tissue repair. The indications for the RBM are for use as a suture retention device to facilitate percuraneous or endoscopic soft tissue procedures such as shoulder stabilization (Bankart Repar), rotator cuff repair, meniscal repair, and gastrostomy.

    Device Description

    The RBM is a suture retention device manufactured from polyester suture, poly(L-lactide) bar, stainless steel needle and a plastic handle.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the RBM suture retention device. It describes the device, its intended use, and compares it to a predicate device (MR-III). However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document focuses on regulatory submission for substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and intended use alignment with a predicate device, rather than performance testing against specific acceptance criteria.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1