Search Results

MASTERGRAFT® Strip is to be combined with autogenous bone marrow and is indicated for bony voids or gaps that are not intrinsic to the stability of the bony structure; MASTERGRAFT® Strip can also be used with autograft as a bone graft extender.

The device is to be gently packed into bony voids or gaps of the skeletal system (i.e.,the posterolateral spine, pelvis, ilium, and/or extremities). These defects may be surgically created osseous defects or osseous defects created from traumatic injury to the bone. The device resorbs and is replaced with bone during the healing process.

MASTERGRAFT® Putty combined with either autogenous bone marrow, and/or sterile water, and/or autograft is indicated as a bone void filler for bony voids or gaps that are not intrinsic to the stability of the bony structure. Additionally, MASTERGRAFT® Putty can be used with autograft as a bone graft extender. MASTERGRAFT® Putty is to be gently packed into bony voids or gaps of the skeletal system (e.g., the posterolateral spine, pelvis, ilium, and/or extremities). These defects may be surgically created osseous defects or osseous defects created from traumatic injury to the bone. MASTERGRAFT® Putty resorbs and is replaced with bone during the healing process.

MASTERGRAFT® Strip is made from a combination of medical grade purified collagen and biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic. In the MASTERGRAFT® Strip device, the collagen is a highly purified (>95%) Type I bioresorbable Iyophilized collagen. The biphasic ceramic portion of all devices is provided in a 15% hydroxyapatite and 85% ß-tricalcium phosphate formulation. MASTERGRAFT® Strip is supplied sterile in a premixed strip form for single patient use.

MASTERGRAFT® Strip is a biocompatible, osteoconductive, porous implant that allows for bony ingrowth across the graft site while resorbing at a rate consistent with bone healing. The device readily absorbs bone marrow aspirate and has been shown to heal bone defects.

MASTERGRAFT® Putty is made from a combination of medical grade purified collagen of bovine origin and biphasic calcium phosphate ceramic. The collagen component in the MASTERGRAFT® Putty device is Type I bovine collagen. The biphasic ceramic portion of MASTERGRAFT® Putty is provided in a 15 percent hydroxyapatite and 85 percent ß-tricalcium phosphate formulation. MASTERGRAFT® Putty is supplied as a sterile, dry, solid, construct hydrated for single patient use and is a moldable form of bone void filler. MASTERGRAFT® Putty is a osteoconductive, porous implant that allows for bony ingrowth across the graft site while resorbing at a rate consistent with bone healing. MASTERGRAFT® Putty is biocompatible. MASTERGRAFT® Putty readily absorbs bone marrow aspirate and has been shown to heal bone defects.

The purpose of this Change Being Effected 510(k) is the addition of a new contraindication to the Instructions for Use (IFU) for the MASTERGRAFT® Strip and MASTERGRAFT® Putty devices.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called MASTERGRAFT® (Strip and Putty). The purpose of this 510(k) is to add a new contraindication to the Instructions for Use (IFU).

Therefore, the submission demonstrates substantial equivalence by showing that the subject devices are identical to previously cleared predicate devices in several categories, rather than proving a new performance against acceptance criteria for a novel device. As such, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study design elements requested (like sample size for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) are not applicable in this context.

Here's the information that can be extracted based on the provided text, and an explanation of why other requested information is not available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" are based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on the identity of technological characteristics.

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

• Not applicable. This 510(k) is a "Change Being Effected" for adding a new contraindication. No new clinical performance data from a "test set" was generated or reported for the purpose of demonstrating substantial equivalence for this specific submission. The established performance of the predicate device (which is deemed identical to the subject device) would have been based on prior studies. The document states: "No new non-clinical testing was performed or submitted in support of this 510(k)." The referenced animal studies for the original predicate devices are documented, but these are not "test sets" in the context of an AI/human performance study.

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

• Not applicable. No new "ground truth" was established for a test set in this submission. This is not a study involving expert assessment of a new device's output.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. There was no "test set" or adjudication process described as part of this 510(k) submission for demonstrating new performance.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a bone void filler, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical bone void filler, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Not applicable. As established, this submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicates, not on generating new performance data against a "ground truth" for a novel device or algorithm. The performance of the predicate devices would have been established through methods like animal models (as referenced in Table 4: Ovine Femoral Defect Model, Rabbit Lumbar Intertransverse Process Fusion Model, Ovine Cortico-cancellous Defect Model for "in-vivo performance comparison" and "fusion results").

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device is a physical implant, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical implant, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

HEALOS Bone Graft Material ("HEALOS") is intended to fill, augment, or reconstruct periodontal and or bony defects of the upper or lower jaw. The product provides a bone void filler that is resorbed and remodeled into new bone as part of the natural process.

HEALOS is a mineralized collagen matrix processed into lyophilized strips or pads for surgical implantation. The principal components of the HEALOS Bone Graft Substitute are Type I bovine collagen and hydroxyapatite. HEALOS is approximately 30% mineral by weight.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the HEALOS Bone Graft Substitute:

Based on the provided text for K081432, there is no specific performance data or a study described that establishes and meets acceptance criteria in the traditional sense of a clinical or analytical performance study with metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy. This submission falls under the category of a 510(k) "Substantial Equivalence" determination, which focuses on demonstrating that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device.

The key statement is found under "Performance Data": "No performance standards have been established for this type of device." This indicates that the regulatory review for this product did not require a formal study with quantified acceptance criteria and measured device performance against those criteria. Instead, the focus was on the material composition and intended use of the device being comparable to existing, legally marketed predicate devices.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, sample sizes, experts, and ground truth are not applicable or extractable from this specific 510(k) summary.

Here's what can be inferred and explicitly stated from the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation: The lack of performance standards for this type of device means there weren't pre-defined, measurable acceptance criteria that the sponsor needed to meet through a dedicated performance study for this 510(k). The regulatory approval stemmed from its similarity to predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable/Not specified in this 510(k) summary. No specific "test set" for a performance study is mentioned.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable/Not specified.

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

• Not applicable. No "test set" and associated ground truth establishment by experts are described for this 510(k) submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. No "test set" and associated adjudication method are described for this 510(k) submission.

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

• Was an MRMC study done? No. This device is a bone graft substitute, not an AI software or imaging device that would involve human readers or AI assistance.
• Effect size of human readers with/without AI assistance: Not applicable.

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

• No. This device is a bone graft substitute, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Not applicable. No ground truth is described as having been established for a performance study within this 510(k) summary. The "ground truth" for marketing approval implicitly relies on the established safety and efficacy of the predicate devices and the biological understanding of the materials used (Type I bovine collagen and hydroxyapatite) in bone regeneration.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. No "training set" for an algorithm is described.

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

• Not applicable. No "training set" for an algorithm is described.

Summary of Device and Approval Basis:

The HEALOS Bone Graft Substitute (K081432) is approved based on its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices (e.g., HEALOS Bone Graft Substitute K012751, K043308, Novabone Putty K051617, etc.). The device's components (Type I bovine collagen and hydroxyapatite) are well-understood biomaterials for bone grafting. The 510(k) summary explicitly states that "No performance standards have been established for this type of device," meaning regulatory approval for this particular product did not rely on a novel performance study proving specific quantitative endpoints. Instead, it relied on the similarity of its materials and intended use to existing, approved devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

Formagraft" Collagen Bone Graft Matrix is indicated for use in bony voids or gaps that are not intrinsic to the stability of the bony structure. The product should be gently packed into bony voids or gaps of the skeletal system (i.e., the extremities, spine and pelvis). These defects may be surgically created osseous defects or osseous defects created from traumatic injury to the bone. The product provides a bone void filler that resorbs and is replaced by the growth of new bone during the healing process. The bone graft can be mixed with autogenous bone marrow prior to use at the physician's discretion. In weight bearing situations, Formagraft is to be used in conjunction with internal or external fixation devices. The fracture defect treated with Formagraft should not exceed 30 mL.

Formagraft is a bone graft substitute consisting of resorbable purified fibrillar collagen and partially resorbable hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate (HA / {}-TCP) ceramic. The bovine fibrillar collagen component is biocompatible and has low immunogenicity, making it a suitable material for providing a scaffold around which new bone can grow. Both hydroxyapatite (HA) and beta-tricalcium phosphate (B-TCP) ceramic are radiopaque and highly biocompatible. HA is a polycrystalline substance with a stoichiometry similar to bone mineral and is minimally resorbed as bone grows into the scaffold. The porous B-TCP ceramic has a stoichiometry similar to amorphous biologic precursors to bone. In addition, it is biodegradable and its biodegradation products can be reconstituted by the body to form new bone mineral, allowing for bone deposition to occur. The porous HA / B-TCP ceramic has been shown to possess an osteoconductive property for filling bone defects and it can evoke a biologic response similar to that of bone.

The provided text describes Formagraft™ Collagen Bone Graft Matrix, a bone void filler, and its 510(k) clearance. However, it does not include information about specific acceptance criteria or performance studies with reported metrics in the format requested. The document focuses on regulatory classification, substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and intended use.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, or details about sample size, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, or training set information.

The document states:

• Conformance with Performance Standards: "No performance standards have been established under Section 514."
• Voluntary Standards: It lists voluntary standards (ASTM F1185, ASTM F1088, ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11137, AAMI TIR 27) that the device complies with, relating to material composition and sterilization. These are not performance criteria in the sense of demonstrating clinical efficacy against specific numerical thresholds.
• Special Controls: It mentions the FDA CDRH guidance document Class II Special Controls Guidance: Resorbable Calcium Salt Bone Void Filler Device; Guidance for Industry & FDA, June 2, 2003, as a special control. This guidance would outline the specific data and information required for clearance, but the document does not detail the specific acceptance criteria derived from this guidance or the results of studies against them.
• Substantial Equivalence: The primary basis for clearance is demonstrating substantial equivalence to pre-amendment or previously cleared predicate devices (Orquest, Inc. Healos Bone Graft Material; NeuColl, Inc. Collagraft Strip Bone Graft Matrix; Berkeley Advanced Biomaterials Inc. Bi-Ostetic; Orthovita Vitoss Scaffold Foam). This typically means showing similar intended use, design, and functional characteristics, rather than conducting new clinical trials with predefined performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device