Search Results

Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis:
The Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis is indicated as a total ankle replacement in primary or revision surgery for patients with ankle joints damaged by severe rheumatoid, posttraumatic, or degenerative arthritis.
Components are intended for cemented use only.

RHS:
The RHS is intended for:
l) Replacement of the radial head for degenerative or post-traumatic disabilities presenting pain, crepitation and decreased motion at the radiohumeral and/or proximal radio-ulnar joint with:
Joint destruction and/or subluxation visible on x-ray a.
b. Resistance to conservative treatment
2) Primary replacement after fracture of the radial head
3) Symptomatic sequelae after radial head resection
4) Revision following failed radial head arthroplasty
The long stem is for single cemented use only. The short stem coated with titanium plasma-spray is for single use with or without cement.

For the Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis:
The goal of total ankle replacement is to restore function and relieve pain. The Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis is intended to accomplish these goals. The Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis is a semi-constrained anatomical design, which reproduces the kinematics of the ankle joint.
The Tornier Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis consists of two mating components: a metal tibial base in association with a conforming polyethylene articulating insert, and a metal talar resurfacing component.

For the RHS:
The RHS has been designed in order to provide surgeons and patients with a joint prosthesis to restore function and relieve pain of the radial part of the elbow joint. The RHS has an anatomical design, which reproduces the kinematics of the radial joint. The RHS consists of two components: a metal radial stem and a metal-polyethylene radial head.

The present submission corresponds to the following modification:

• Addition of a new coating subcontractor (titanium coating): Eurocoating S.p.A on cobalt chromium components.
  All the prostheses of this application are strictly identical to the previously cleared devices except for the coating supplier. The indications for use of each device are not modified.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis and RHS, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies.

Important Note: The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a modification to an existing device (specifically, a change in coating subcontractor). Therefore, the "study" described is not a clinical trial demonstrating efficacy of the entire device, but rather a non-clinical assessment to prove that the modification does not alter safety or effectiveness compared to the predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a number of specific "samples" in a traditional sense. The testing was conducted on samples of the coating material and/or coated components. The extent of testing is implied by the mention of "characterization" and various mechanical tests.
• Data Provenance: The data is based on non-clinical testing of the coating and coated components. The specific origin country for the testing laboratory is not mentioned, but the submitting company (Tornier SAS) is based in France. The data is prospective in the sense that the tests were performed to evaluate the new subcontractor's coating.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the context of this non-clinical submission. "Ground truth" for this submission would be defined by established engineering and materials standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM).
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable. The "experts" involved would be materials scientists and engineers performing the tests and comparing the results to established standards and the predicate device's performance.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This was a non-clinical comparative analysis against a predicate's performance and established standards, rather than expert adjudication of clinical outcomes or images.

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

• Was it done?: No. This submission describes a non-clinical evaluation of a manufacturing change (coating subcontractor) for existing orthopedic implants. It is not a clinical study involving human readers or cases.

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

• Was it done?: No. This is not an AI or algorithm-based device. It's a physical orthopedic implant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth used for this submission is based on established engineering and materials standards (ISO standard 5834-2, ISO standard 5832-7 or ISO 5832-12, ASTM standard F1580), and the performance characteristics of the predicate device's coating (BioCoat Company). The goal was to prove the new coating was "substantially equivalent" and introduced no new risks.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. The "training" for such a device would be the extensive research, development, and testing that led to the original design and material choices, which is outside the scope of this specific 510(k) modification.

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

• How Ground Truth for Training Set Established: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SBI Radio-Capitellar implant is indicated for use in the elbow for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved elbow function in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions: 1) non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteo-arthritis or traumatic arthritis; 2) inflammatory degenerative joint disease including rheumatoid arthritis; 3) correction of functional deformity; 4) revision procedures where other treatments and devices have failed; and 5) treatment of fractures that are unmanageable using other techniques. The SBI Lateral Assembly Radio-Capitellar implant is intended for cemented use only.

The SBI Lateral Radio Capitellar Implant provides an alternative to hemi-arthroplasty of the proximal radial head. The implant is used for the treatment of degenerative joint disorders of the radio-capitellar joint allowing activities of daily living to be performed with no or significantly reduced pain. The radio-capitellar implant is designed to be used with the radial stem components of the rHead and rHead Recon stem implants cleared for market under 510(k) K011819 and K023604 respectively.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the SBI Lateral Radio Capitellum, an elbow joint prosthesis. It outlines the device's description, intended use, materials, and its substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices. However, it does not contain the information required to answer the questions about acceptance criteria and study details.

The provided text does not include any information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, or comparative effectiveness studies (MRMC or standalone). This document is a regulatory submission for premarket notification (510(k)), which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed performance study results against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and study details based solely on the input given.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SBI Radio-Capitellar implant is indicated for use in the elbow for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved elbow function in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions: 1) non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteo-arthritis or traumatic arthritis: 2) inflammatory degenerative joint disease including rheumatoid arthritis; 3) correction of functional deformity; 4) revision procedures where other treatments and devices have failed; and 5) treatment of fractures that are unmanageable using other techniques. The Avanta Radio-Capitellar implant is intended for cemented use only.

The SBI Radio-Capitellar Implant provides an alternative to hemi-arthroplasty of the proximal radial head. The implant is used for the treatment of degenerative joint disorders of the radio-capitellar joint allowing activities of daily living to be performed with no or significantly reduced pain. The radio-capitellar implant is designed to be used with the radial stem components of the rHead and rHead Recon stem implants cleared for market under 510(k) K011819 and K023604 respectively.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the SBI Radio-Capitellar Implant. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices rather than presenting a study of its performance against specific acceptance criteria. Therefore, the information required for this request is largely not available in the provided text.

Here is what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

This information is not available in the provided text. The 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence, not on pre-defined performance acceptance criteria for a new study.

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

This information is not available in the provided text. The document refers to "Documentation is provided which demonstrated the SBI Radio-Capitellar Implant to be substantially equivalent to other legally marketed devices," but does not describe a new study with a test set.

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. No new study requiring expert ground truth establishment is described.

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

This information is not available in the provided text. No new study is described.

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 available in the provided text. The device is an implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, so an MRMC study related to human readers is not applicable.

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

This information is not available in the provided text. The device is a physical implant, not an algorithm.

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

This information is not available in the provided text. No new study requiring ground truth is described.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not available in the provided text. As this is a 510(k) for a physical implant, there is no "training set" in the context of device performance in the document.

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

This information is not available in the provided text. As there is no training set mentioned, there is no information on its ground truth.

In summary, the provided 510(k) document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical implant (SBI Radio-Capitellar Implant) seeking clearance based on substantial equivalence to existing devices. It does not describe a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria, test sets, or performance metrics in the way one would for a diagnostic or AI-powered device.

Ask a specific question about this device