Search Results

Indications for the Hitch™ LactoSorb® Suture Anchor include use in soft tissue reattachment procedures in the shoulder, wrist/hand, elbow, and knee. Specific indications are as follows:

Shoulder: Bankart repair, SLAP lesion repair, acromioclavicular separation repair, rotator cuff repair, capsule repair or capsulolabral reconstruction, biceps tenodesis, deltoid repair.

Wrist/Hand: Scapholunate ligament reconstruction

Elbow: Tennis elbow repair, Biceps tendon reconstruction, medial and lateral repairs, ulnar or radial collateral ligament reconstruction.

Knee: Extracapsular repair: Medial collateral ligament repair, lateral collateral ligament repair, posterior oblique ligament repair, joint capsule closure, iliotibial band tenodesis, patellar ligament/tendon repair, vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) muscle advancement.

The Hitch™ LactoSorb® Suture Anchor is made with an L-Lactide / Glycolide resorbable material, preloaded with #2 polyethylene surgical sutures. The design enables the user to insert the implantable anchor by pushing the tip into the bone either through a pre-drilled hole, or by screwing it in through a tapped pre-drilled hole.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the Hitch™ LactoSorb® Suture Anchor. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study where specific acceptance criteria are defined and a device's performance against those criteria is measured using a test set with corresponding ground truth.

Therefore, many of the requested points regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, and expert adjudication cannot be extracted from this document as it does not contain information about a clinical or standalone performance study.

Here's an attempt to address the points based on the provided text, heavily indicating when the information is not present:

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

Explanation: The document does not define specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria for the device's performance (e.g., a certain pull-out strength, a specific failure rate, or a particular clinical outcome threshold). Instead, the basis for approval is "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device. The performance is reported as meeting this substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing.

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

• Sample size used for the test set: Not applicable. No clinical or standalone device performance test set is described.
• Data provenance: Not applicable. The "Non-Clinical Testing" mentioned likely refers to bench-top or mechanical tests, not human data. No country of origin is specified for these non-clinical tests.

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)

• Not applicable. No ground truth was established for a test set as no such clinical or performance study involving human data or expert assessment is described.

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

• Not applicable. No adjudication method is mentioned as there is no human-involved test set requiring expert consensus.

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

• No. This device is a suture anchor, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human reader performance with or without AI assistance is entirely irrelevant and not mentioned.

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

• No. This device is an implantable medical device, not an algorithm. The "Non-Clinical Testing" could be considered a form of standalone performance assessment in a mechanical sense, but it's not "algorithm only" performance.

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

• Not applicable. For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" would likely be engineering specifications, material properties, and mechanical test standards, rather than clinical or expert-derived ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set mentioned, no ground truth for it was established.

Summary:

The provided 510(k) summary is for a traditional medical device (a suture anchor) and primarily relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device through non-clinical laboratory testing. It does not involve AI, clinical studies with human participants, expert adjudication, or the establishment of ground truth in the manner that would be relevant for a diagnostic or AI-powered medical device. The information requested regarding acceptance criteria and study methodology is largely absent because the regulatory pathway chosen (510(k) for a device like this) typically focuses on comparative technological characteristics and function rather than detailed clinical performance studies with defined acceptance criteria for novel outcomes.

Ask a specific question about this device

Indications for the MicroMax™ Suture Anchor include use in soft tissue reattachment procedures in the shoulder, wrist, elbow and knee. Specific indications are as follows:

Shoulder Indications:

• Bankart repair
• SLAP lesion repair
• Acromioclavicular (ACL) separation
• Rotator cuff repair
• Capsule repair or capsuloabral reconstruction
• Biceps tenodesis
• Deltoid repair

Wrist Indications:

• Scapholunate ligament reconstruction

Elbow Indications:

• Tennis elbow repair
• Ulnar or radial collateral ligament reconstruction
• Biceps tendon reattachment
• Medial and lateral repairs

Knee Indications (Extra-capsular repair):

• Medial collateral ligament repair
• Lateral collateral ligament repair
• Posterior oblique ligament repair
• Joint capsule closure
• Iliotibial band tenodesis reconstruction
• Patellar ligament/tendon repair
• Vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) muscle advancement

The device is pre-loaded with suture for use at the discretion of the physician.

This device is a resorbable suture anchor designed to attach soft tissue to bone. The resorbable fixation anchor is comprised of L-Lactide / Glycolide material. The poly L-Lactic/polyglycolic acid copolymer degrades by hydrolysis into L-lactic and glycolic acids. These hydrolytic products are then further degraded into carbon dioxide and water via the cellular Krebs cycle. The material and rarer degraged into carron anonial and o the predicate device, LactoSorb® L15 Soft Tissue Screw and Washer, K012572.

The suture anchor measures 3.0mm in diameter and 9.0mm in length. It is a two-piece assembly, consisting of a body and a head portion. The body portion engages the bone, which is enhanced by means of seven circumferential ribs. The ribs measure 3.25mm in diameter. In addition, the body has two wings, that when deployed will flange outward into the bone. Upon deployment, the diameter at the flanged wings is 4mm.

The head portion provides a means to drive the anchor in as well as to attach suture to the anchor. The anchor has an eyelet through the head portion to allow suture to pass through which will be used to fasten the tissue to bone. The device will be pre-loaded with any legally marketed, size 2 suture.

Instrumentation is provided for proper use and placement of the device.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the MicroMax™ Suture Anchor, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

It is important to note that the provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device seeking substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This type of submission relies on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a device already on the market, rather than proving efficacy from scratch with extensive clinical trials.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states: "Non-Clinical Testing: Mechanical testing was performed to establish substantial equivalence to the predicate devices." Implied acceptance criteria would revolve around these mechanical test results demonstrating equivalence.

Given the information, the specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum tensile strength, degradation rate, etc.) and the precise reported performance values for the MicroMax™ Suture Anchor are not explicitly detailed in this summary. The summary broadly indicates that the characteristics are "similar to predicate devices."

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details:

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified for mechanical testing.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified, but generally, mechanical testing data for a 510(k) submission is generated in a laboratory setting, typically in the country where the manufacturer is located (USA in this case). It would be considered prospective data collection for the purpose of the submission.

2. 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. Mechanical testing does not typically involve human experts in establishing "ground truth" in the same way clinical or image-based studies do. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing is derived from established engineering standards and test methodologies.

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

   • Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical studies or studies involving subjective human assessment. Mechanical testing results are objective measurements.

4. 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:

   • No. This is a medical device for surgical fixation, not an AI-based diagnostic or imaging device. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI assistance are not relevant to this submission.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • For the non-clinical mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by engineering standards and established test methods that evaluate properties like material degradation, dimensional conformity, and mechanical strength (e.g., pull-out strength, fatigue life, etc., although not explicitly listed in this summary). The comparison is against the performance of the legally marketed predicate device.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. This device did not use a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not Applicable. No training set was used.

Summary of what is present and absent:

• The document clearly states that non-clinical mechanical testing was performed.
• The purpose of this testing was to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device (LactoSorb® Soft Tissue Screw and Washer, K012572).
• The material (L-Lactide / Glycolide) and general design are explicitly stated to be similar to the predicate.
• No clinical testing was used for this submission to establish substantial equivalence.
• Detailed numerical results of the mechanical tests or the specific acceptance thresholds for those tests are not provided in this summary. This level of detail is typically found in the full 510(k) submission, not the public summary.
• This submission method (510(k)) focuses on equivalence to a previously cleared device, rather than new efficacy claims from a de novo study.

Ask a specific question about this device