Search Results

The TRIGEN INTERTAN Nails are indicated for fractures of the femur including:

• Fractures of the femur including simple shaft fractures, comminuted shaft fractures, spiral shaft fractures, and segmental shaft fractures; subtrochanteric fractures; intertrochanteric fractures; ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures: and intracapsular fractures
• · Polytrauma and multiple fractures
• · Prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures
• · Reconstruction following tumor resection and grafting

The TRIGEN INTERTAN 10S Nail System consists of metallic implants including femur nails, leg screw, compression screw, Subtrochanteric lag screw, locking screw, Set Screw, and nail caps.

TRIGEN INTERTAN 10S nail is designed to have a slightly different neck taper from the existing neck design of the predicate TRIGEN INTERTAN 10mm Nail (K040212, SE 02/20/2004). The neck taper of the subject devices has been modified to accommodate the different patient population.

The TRIGEN INTERTAN 10S system is intended to provide a solution for treatment of proximal femoral fractures with one nail product. The INTERTAN nail includes two interlocking screws near the proximal end that form a worm gear, which is designed to provide stability for hip fracture cases.

The subject TRIGEN INTERTAN 10S nails are made of Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium (Ti-6Al-4V). The 10S nails are available in both long and short nails. The "S" stands for shey are the smallest diameter nails offered. Design wise, the small diameter and a change to the subject INTERTAN 10S Nail implants are avallable in the 10mm diameter size, with lengths from 18cm to 46cm in 2cm increments, in both 125° or 130° neck angle versions. The INTERTAN 10S nails are single-use and are Gamma sterilized.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification FDA clearance letter for a medical device called the "TRIGEN INTERTAN 10S Nail System." This documentation focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study or an AI algorithm's standalone performance.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details (sample size, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication, MRMC, standalone performance), or training set information for an AI/algorithm-driven device.

The document states:

• "No clinical tests were performed to support safety and effectiveness of the subject devices."
• "The performance bench tests were used as a basis for the determination of substantial equivalence."

The "acceptance criteria" referred to in the document relate to a pre-market clearance process demonstrating that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, primarily through bench testing to show similar performance characteristics.

In the context of the provided document, the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to non-clinical bench tests. These tests assess the mechanical and physical properties of the device, rather than its clinical performance or the performance of an AI algorithm.

Here's what can be extracted from the document, though it won't fulfill all aspects of your request:

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

The document mentions "performance bench tests" but does not provide a table of specific acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum tensile strength, fatigue cycles) or the exact reported device performance values. It generalistically states: "The results of these tests show that the substantially equivalent to the predicate device."

• Mentioned Bench Tests:
  • Proximal Shaft Fracture Construct Fatigue Testing
  • MR Compatibility per ASTM F2182-19e2, ASTM F2052-15, ASTM F2213-2017, and ASTM F2119-07(2013)

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for the bench tests.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for a 510(k) of this nature. The "data" would be the results of mechanical and material tests conducted on the device components, typically in a lab setting.

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

• Not applicable. Ground truth in the context of mechanical bench testing refers to the physical measurements and standards of the materials and device. Expert consensus as you might see in image interpretation for AI is not relevant here.

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

• Not applicable. No human interpretation or adjudication method is described for generating "ground truth" for the bench tests.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

• No. The document explicitly states: "No clinical tests were performed to support safety and effectiveness of the subject devices." MRMC studies are clinical studies involving human readers, which were not conducted.

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

• No. This device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an AI/algorithm. No algorithm performance was assessed.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Bench Test Results/Standard Specifications: The "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for an orthopedic implant through bench testing is typically based on established industry standards (e.g., ASTM standards for mechanical properties) and comparison to the performance of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. No training set was used.

Ask a specific question about this device

The indications for the I.T.S. Intramedullary Nailing System (INS) - Proximal Femur include intramedullary treatment of fractures and stabilization after tumor resection in the area of the proximal femur, as well as combinations that additionally affect the shaft area using the long nails.

The indications for use of the I.T.S. INS Proximal Femur include:

All Nails:

• · Stable and unstable pertrochanteric fractures
• · Intertrochanteric fractures
• · Combinations of fractures listed above

Additionally for Long Nails:

• Subtrochanteric fractures
• · Proximal fractures as listed above associated with shaft fractures
• · Pathological fractures in regions as listed above
• · Nonunions and malunions in regions as listed above

The I.T.S. INS Proximal Femur Nail consists of the following implants:

1. Nails:
   The Proximal Femur Nails are designed for the treatment of femoral fractures. The Femur Nails are available in distal diameters ranging from 9 to 14mm and lengths of 180mm (short nail), 240mm (intermediate nail), and 260 to 480mm in 20mm increments (long nail). 180mm and 240mm nails have a single, oblong hole distally, while all nails with a length over 260 have a round hole, an oblong hole and another round hole for distal fixation. The oblong hole allows for both static and dynamic locking configurations. All Trochanteric Nails are locked proximally with a Lag Screw. The set screw engages with the lag screw and allows translation while preventing rotation. Endcaps close the top of the nail and are available in 0mm, 5mm, 10mm, 15mm and 20mm lengths.

2. Lag Screw
   Lag screws are cannulated with a major diameter of 10.5mm and lengths ranging from 70mm to 130mm in 5mm increments. They are available in titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ASTM F136.

3. Set Screw
   There are two types of set screws available. Inferior short and standard with a diameter of 6.6mm. The Length of the inferior short version is 45mm and the standard lengths are 70 to 130mm in 5mm increments. They are available in titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ASTM F136.

4. Distal Cortical Locking Screw
   Distal locking screws are fully threaded, with a diameter of 5.0mm and lengths ranging from 25mm to 120mm in 5mm increments (2.5mm increments available from 25-70mm). Thev are available in titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ASTM F136.

5. Instrumentation
   I.T.S. INS Proximal Femoral Nail Instrumentation consists of implant-specific targeting devices which help facilitate insertion of the nails, lag screws, and distal locking screws. Targeting devices are manufactured from stainless steel and carbon fibre reinforced PEEK. Other instrumentation includes drills, drill guides, k-wires and screwdrivers.

All nails and screws are provided Sterile for single-use.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the I.T.S. INS Proximal Femur Nail. This is a medical device for intramedullary fixation, and the FDA has determined it to be substantially equivalent to previously marketed predicate devices.

However, the text does not include information about AI/ML device performance, acceptance criteria normally associated with diagnostic algorithms (like sensitivity, specificity), or details about studies involving human readers or ground truth establishment relevant to AI. The nature of this submission is for a physical medical device (an intramedullary nail), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) are not applicable to the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted from the text, focusing on the mechanical evaluation of the physical device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in the format typically used for AI/ML performance (e.g., minimum sensitivity). Instead, the performance is evaluated against consensus standards and compared to predicate devices for substantial equivalence.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, and the testing involved mechanical performance, not a test set of data for an AI algorithm.

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

Not applicable. Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant to AI/ML diagnostic performance, not the mechanical testing of an intramedullary nail.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant to expert consensus for AI/ML ground truth, not mechanical device 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

Not applicable. This device is a physical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. There is no AI algorithm being evaluated.

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

For the mechanical testing, the "ground truth" or standard for comparison was defined by consensus standards (ASTM F543 & ASTM F1264) and the mechanical performance of predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no AI algorithm with a training set.

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

Not applicable. There is no AI algorithm with a training set or ground truth in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

Indications for interlocking intramedullary nails include simple long bone fractures; severely comminuted, spiral, large oblique and segmental fractures; nonunions and malunions; polytrauma and multiple fractures; prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures; reconstruction following tumor resection and grafting; supracondylar fractures; bone lengthening. Interlocking intramedullary nails are indicated for fixation of fractures that occur in and between the proximal and distal third of the long bones being treated.

In addition to the indications for interlocking intramedullary nails, devices that contain holes/slots proximally to accept screws that thread into the femoral head for compression and rotational stability (e.g. Femoral Antegrade Nail, Trochanteric Antegrade Nail and Femoral/Recon Antegrade Nail) are indicated for the following: subtrochanteric fractures, intertrochanteric fractures, and ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures.

In addition to the indications for interlocking intramedullary nails, devices that use a retrograde femoral surgical approach (e.g. Knee Nail, Retrograde and Supracondylar Nails) are indicated for the following: comminuted supracondylar fractures with or without intra-articular extension; fractures that require opening the knee joint to stabilize the femoral condylar segment; fractures above total knee implants (periprosthetic fractures).

Indications for the TRIGEN Hindfoot Fusion Nail (HFN) include the following: degeneration, deformity, or trauma of both the tibiotalar and talocalcaneal articulations of the hindfoot; tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis; combined arthrodesis of the ankle and sub-talar joints; avascular necrosis of the ankle and sub-talar joints; failed total ankle replacement with sub-talar intrusion; failed ankle arthrodesis with insufficient talar body; rheumatoid arthritis; severe deformity secondary to untreated talipes equinovarus or neuromuscular disease; and severe pilon fractures with trauma to the sub-talar joint.

The TRIGEN Humeral Nail System is indicated for proximal and/or diaphyseal fractures of the humerus, non-unions, malalignments, pathological humeral fractures, and impending pathological fractures.

The TRIGEN InterTAN nails are indicated for simple long bone fractures; severely comminuted, spiral, long oblique and segmental fractures; nonunions and malunions; polytrauma and multiple fractures; prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures; reconstruction, following tumor resection and grafting; bone lengthening; subtrochanteric fractures; ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures; intertrochanteric fractures; and intracapsular fractures.

Knee Fusion Nails are intended for intramedullary knee arthrodesis.

The purpose of this Traditional 510(k) is to add the MR safety information to the labeling and update the information within the package insert for the Smith & Nephew Intramedullary Nail Systems. The Smith & Nephew Intramedullary Nail Systems consist of the following previously cleared devices:

• Trigen Antegrade Tibial/Retrograde Femoral Nailing System (K981529 S.E. . 7/9/1998, K051557 S.E. 6/30/2005 and K061019 S.E. 6/6/2006)
• Trigen Tan/Fan Nailing System (K981529 S.E. 7/9/1998, , K040929 S.E. 5/25/2004, ● and K111025 S.E. 7/1/2011)
• Trigen Hindfoot Fusion Nail System (K043052 S.E. 11/24/2004) .
• . Trigen Humeral Nail System (K032722 S.E. 10/1/2003)
• Trigen Intertan Intertrochanteric Antegrade Nail System (K040212 S.E. 2/20/2004) ●
• . Trigen Knee Fusion Nail System (K050938 S.E. 5/4/2005)
  The technological characteristics, function of the devices, packaging and sterilization remain unchanged. No modifications have been made to the device design, material, sterilization and the manufacturing processes of the previously cleared devices as a part of this subject 510(k).

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for Smith & Nephew Intramedullary Nail Systems. The primary purpose of this submission is to add MR safety information to the labeling and update the information within the package insert for existing, previously cleared devices. This means the device itself has not changed in design, material, sterilization, or manufacturing processes. Therefore, the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is focused on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) compatibility testing.

Here's the breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a tabular format with specific performance metrics for the device itself (e.g., fracture healing rates, strength). Instead, the acceptance criteria relate to MRI compatibility, which is assessed against established standards and guidance documents. The "reported device performance" in this context refers to the successful completion of these tests.

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

The document does not detail the specific sample size of devices tested for MRI compatibility. The testing information is generic, referring to "MRI compatibility testing was conducted." Given the nature of medical device MR safety testing, it typically involves a representative sample of device configurations (e.g., different sizes, materials, locking mechanisms) rather than a large "dataset" of patient data.

The data provenance is implied to be laboratory testing conducted according to the listed ASTM and IEC standards. There is no mention of patient data (retrospective or prospective) from any specific country of origin, as the submission is about changes to labeling based on technical testing, not clinical performance.

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

This question is not applicable to this submission. The "ground truth" for MRI compatibility testing is established by the scientific principles and methodologies outlined in the referenced international standards (ASTM, IEC, ISO/TS) and FDA guidance documents, not by expert consensus on clinical cases. Testing engineers and MR safety specialists would be involved in conducting and interpreting these tests, but they are not "experts establishing ground truth" in the way radiologists might for diagnostic imaging.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in clinical studies where multiple human reviewers assess the same case and discrepancies need to be resolved. This submission is about technical testing of device properties, not clinical assessment by human readers.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

No. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study involves human readers (e.g., radiologists) assessing cases, often with and without AI assistance, to measure the impact of AI on their performance. This submission does not involve an AI component or the assessment of human reader performance.

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

No. This submission is for physical intramedullary nail systems, not a software algorithm or AI device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The "ground truth" for this submission is derived from the established physical and electromagnetic principles and measurement standards for MRI compatibility. The tests measure physical parameters like temperature rise, displacement force, torque, and artifact generation under defined MR conditions, with the standards themselves defining acceptable limits and testing methodologies.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This submission does not involve a training set as it pertains to physical devices and their MRI compatibility testing, not machine learning algorithms.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Smith & Nephew IM Nail Systems Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew IM Nail Systems and their cleared Indications for Use.

Trigen Adolescent TAN Nail System and Trigen 130° TAN Nail System Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of the Smith & Nephew Trigen Adolescent TAN Nail System and the Smith & Nephew Trigen 130° TAN Nail System and their cleared indications for use. Indications for interlocking intramedullary nails include: Simple long bone fractures, Severely comminuted, spiral, large oblique and segmental fractures, Nonunions and malunions, Poly trauma and multiple fractures, Prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures, Reconstruction following tumor resection and grafting, Supracondylar fractures, Bone lengthening and shortening, Fractures that occur in and between the proximal and distal third of the long bones being treated. In addition to the indications for interlocking intramedullary nails, devices that contain holes/slots proximally to accept screws that thread into the femoral head for compression and rotational stability are indicated for the following: Subtrochanteric fractures with lesser trochanteric involvement, Ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures, Intertrochanteric fractures.

Trigen Humeral Nail System Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew Trigen System and its cleared indications for use. TRIGEN Humeral Nail System is indicated for: Proximal and/or diaphyseal fractures of the humerus, Nonunions, Malalignments, Pathological humeral fractures, Impending pathological fractures.

Trigen InterTAN Nail System Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew Trigen InterTAN Nail System and its cleared indications for use. TRIGEN InterTAN Nails are indicated for: Simple long bone fractures, Severely comminuted spiral, long oblique, and segmental shaft, Nonunions and malunions, Poly trauma and multiple fractures, Prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures, Reconstruction, following tumor resection and grafting, Bone lengthening and shortening, Subtrochanteric fractures, Ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures, Intertrochanteric fractures, Intracapsular fractures.

Intramedullary Nail Systems Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation.of Smith & Nephew Intramedullary Nail Systems and their cleared indications for use. The Short Knee Nail, REVISION Nail and Hindfoot Fusion Nail (HFN) are indicated for: Degeneration, deformity, or trauma of both the tibiotalar and talocalcaneal articulations of the hindfoot, Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis, Combined arthrodesis of the ankle and sub-talar joints, Avascular necrosis of the ankle and sub-talar joints, Failed total ankle replacement with sub-talar intrusion, Failed ankle arthrodesis with insufficient talar body, Rheumatoid arthritis, Severe deformity secondary to untreated talipes equinovarus or neuromuscular disease, Severe pilon fractures with trauma to the subtalar joint.

SURESHOT TAN Nail Systems Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew SURESHOT TAN Nail Systems and their cleared indications for use. SURESHOT TAN Nails are indicated for: Fractures of the femur including: simple long bone fractures, severely comminuted, spiral, large oblique and segmental fractures, Non unions and malunions, Poly trauma and multiple fractures, Prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures, Reconstruction, following tumor resection and grafting, Supracondylar fractures, Bone lengthening and shortening, Fixation of fractures that occur in and between the proximal third and distal fourth of the femur. In addition, SURESHOT TAN Nails contain holes/slots proximally to accept screws that thread into the femoral head for compression and rotational stability and are indicated for the following: Subtrochanteric fractures;, Intertrochanteric fractures;, Ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures;, Intracapsular fractures.

Intramedullary Hip Screw System Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew Intramedullary Hip Screw Systems and their cleared indications for use. Intramedullary Hip Screws are indicated for: Intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck;, Trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures;, Osteotomies for patients with diseases or deformities of the hip;, Hip arthrodesis;, Supracondylar fractures and distal femoral fractures using a supracondylar plate;, Ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures;, Intertrochanteric fractures;, Femoral neck fractures;, Subcapital fractures;, Comminuted neck and shaft fractures;, Femur reconstruction following tumor resection;, Leg length discrepancies secondary to femoral inequality;, Prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures.

Ender Nail System Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew Ender Nail Systems and their cleared indications for use. ENDER Nails are indicated for: Fracture of the neck, trochanteric, and subtrochanteric region of the femur;, Distal femoral fractures with a distal fragment 10cm or longer, Tibial shaft fractures, Proximal humeral fractures.

TriMax Nail System Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew TriMax Nail Systems and their cleared indications for use. Femoral/Recon antegrade nails and retrograde nails are indicated for: Shaft fractures including severely comminuted, spiral, large oblique and segmental fractures, Non-unions and malunions, Bone lengthening/shortening, Severely comminuted shaft fractures, Pathologic fractures, pseudoarthrosis, failed osteosynthesis, Closed supracondylar fractures, Prophylactic nailing of impeding pathologic fractures. Additonal indications for the femoral/recon antegrade include: Subtrochanteric fractures with lesser trochanteric involvement, Ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures. Additonal indications for retrograde nails include: Severly comminuted supracondylar fractures with or without difficult intra-articular extension, Fractures that require opening the knee joint to stabilize the femoral condylar segmarnt, Fractures above total knee implants. The TriMax Nail System is intended to be removed upon fracture healing.

Indications for interlocking intramedullary nails include: Simple long bone fractures, Severely comminuted, spiral, large oblique and segmental fractures, Nonunions and malunions, Poly trauma and multiple fractures, Prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures, Reconstruction following tumor resection and grafting, Supracondylar fractures, Bone lengthening and shortening, Fractures that occur in and between the proximal and distal third of the long bones being treated. In addition to the indications for interlocking intramedullary nails, devices that contain holes/slots proximally to accept screws that thread into the femoral head for compression and rotational stability (e.g. Femoral Antegrade Nail, Trochanteric Antegrade Nail and Femoral/Recon Antegrade Nail) are indicated for the following: Subtrochanteric fractures, Intertrochanteric fractures, Ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures. In addition to the indications for interlocking intramedullary nails, devices that use a retrograde femoral surgical approach (e.g. Knee Nail, Retrograde and Supracondylar Nails) are indicated for: Comminuted supracondylar fractures with or without intra-articular extension, Fractures that require opening the knee joint to stabilize the femoral condylar segment, Fractures above total knee implants (peri-prosthetic fractures).

Knee Fusion Nail Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew Knee Fusion Nails and their cleared indications for use. Knee Fusion Nails are indicated for: Intramedullary Knee Arthrodesis.

IP-XS Compression Nail System Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of the Smith & Nephew IP-XS Compression Nail System and its cleared indications for use. The IP-XS Compression Nail System is inserted into the medullary canal of long bones for the : Alignment, stabilization, and fixation of fractures caused by disease or trauma, The fixation of long bones that have been surgically prepared {osteotomy) for correction of deformity, Arthrodesis.

SLIM (Friedl) Gliding Nail Systems Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew SLIM (Fried), Gliding Nails and their cleared indications for use. The SLIM (Friedl) Gliding Nail System is an all-purpose locking nail system for ensuring primary load stability in: Petrochanteric femoral fractures, Subtrochanteric femoral fractures, Lateral femoral neck fractures. Internal fixation with the SLIM (Friedl) Gliding Nail System is indicated in all combination injuries involving the lateral femoral neck or trochanter region and femoral shaft fractures. Thanks to its biomechanical characteristics, the SLM (Friedl) Gliding Nail System is also suitable for medical femoral neck fractures with retention of the head and simple femoral shaft factures down to the distal metaphysis. Gliding nail fixation can also be used to secure pathological fractures or to provide weight-bearing stability after varus and valgus revision osteotomies of the proximal femur.

TriGen Low Profile Bone Screw Instruments are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew TriGen Low Profile Bone Screws and their cleared indications for use. The TRIGEN Low Profile Bone Screw can be used with several types of nails in Smith & Nephew's (TRIGEN) Titanium Nail System. The TRIGEN Low Profile Bone Screw therefore has the following indications: Indications for interlocking intramedullary nails include simple long bone fractures; severely comminuted, spiral, large oblique and segmental fractures; nonunions and malunions; polytrauma and multiple fractures; prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures; reconstruction following tumor resection and grafting; supracondylar fractures; bone lengthening and shortening. Interlocking intramedullary nails are indicated for fixation of fractures that occur in and between the proximal and distal third of the long bones being treated. In addition to the indications for interlocking intramedullary nails, devices that contain holes/slots proximally to accept screws that thread into the femoral head for compression and rotational stability (e.g. Femoral Antegrade Nail, Trochanteric Antegrade Nail and Femoral/Recon Antegrade Nail) are indicated for the following: subtrochanteric fractures, intertrochanteric fractures, and ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures. In addition to the indications for interlocking intramedullary nails, devices that use a retrograde femoral surgical approach (e.g. Knee Nail, Retrograde and Supracondylar Nails) are indicated for the following: comminuted supracondylar fractures with or without intra-articular extension; fractures that require opening the knee joint to stabilize the femoral condylar segment; fractures above total knee implants (peri-prosthetic fractures). The TRIGEN InterTAN nails are indicated for fractures of the femur including: simple shaft fractures, comminuted shaft fractures, spiral shaft fractures, long oblique shaft fractures and segmental shaft fractures; subtrochanteric fractures; intertrochanteric fractures; ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures; intracapsular fractures; nonunions and malunions; polytrauma and multiple fractures; prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures; reconstruction, following tumor resection and grafting; bone lengthening and shortening. SURESHOT TAN Nails are indicated for fractures of the femur including simple long bone fractures, severely comminuted, spiral, large oblique and segmental fractures; nonunions and malunions; polytrauma and multiple fractures; prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures; reconstruction, following tumor resection and grafting; supracondylar fractures; bone lengthening and shortening; and for fixation of fractures that occur in and between the proximal third and distal fourth of the femur. In addition, SURESHOT TAN Nails contain holes/slots proximally to accept screws that thread into the femoral head for compression and rotational stability and are indicated for the following: subtrochanteric fractures; intertrochanteric fractures; ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures; and intracapsular fractures.

Subject of this Traditional 510(k) Premarket Notification are the Smith & Nephew, Inc. intramedullary (IM) Nail Systems Instruments. The subject devices are accessory devices and are intended to be used to assist in the implantation of Smith & Nephew IM Nails and their cleared Indications for Use. Smith & Nephew IM Nail Systems Instruments can be organized into instrument families which are categorized as follows: Torque/Tightening, trials, drills, extractors, impactors, replacements, alignment, other guides and gauges, and bone preparation.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for Intramedullary Nail Systems Instruments, which are accessory devices used to assist in the implantation of various Smith & Nephew IM Nails. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a study with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics for a novel device. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, performance, and detailed study methodologies for an AI/CADe device cannot be extracted directly.

This document describes the equivalence of the instruments used for implantation of nails, not the nails themselves or a diagnostic AI/CADe system.

However, I can extract the information that is present and highlight what is missing based on your request.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the document as it is a 510(k) for accessory instruments, relying on substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than demonstrating performance against specific clinical acceptance criteria. The "performance" described is the instruments' ability to assist in the implantation of already cleared nails, which is assessed through comparisons of materials, manufacturing, sterilization, and body contact.

• Share the same raw materials as predicate instruments.
• Be manufactured through the same processes as predicate instruments.
• Utilize the same sterilization procedures as predicate instruments.
• Have a similar nature of body contact as predicate instruments.
• Be similar in design and function to competing IM nail instrumentation on the market. |

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 applicable as there is no test set or clinical study conducted in the context of a new diagnostic algorithm or device requiring such data. The premarket notification relies on substantial equivalence.

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 applicable as there is no test set or ground truth to establish for this type of device (surgical instruments).

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

This information is not applicable.

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 as no MRMC study, or any study involving human readers and AI assistance, was conducted or described. The device consists of surgical instruments, not an AI/CADe system.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is surgical instrumentation, not an algorithm or AI system.

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

This information is not applicable as no ground truth is required for demonstrating substantial equivalence of surgical instruments. The equivalence is based on physical characteristics and intended use.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as there is no training set mentioned or relevant for this type of device.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set or ground truth mentioned or relevant for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intramedullary Hip Screws are indicated for intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck; trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures; osteotomies for patients with diseases or deformities of the hip; hip arthrodesis; supracondylar fractures and distal femoral fractures using a supracondylar plate; ipsilateral femoral shaft/neck fractures; intertrochanteric fractures; femoral neck fractures; subcapital fractures; comminuted neck and shaft fractures; femur reconstruction following tumor resection; leg length discrepancies secondary to femoral inequality; and prophylactic nailing of impending pathologic fractures. Smith & Nephew, Inc. Intramedullary Hip Screws are for single use only.

Intramedullary Hip Screw

The provided text does not describe a study to prove acceptance criteria for a device using an AI algorithm.

Instead, it is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for a medical device called an "Intramedullary Hip Screw" manufactured by Smith & Nephew, Inc. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through mechanical testing and comparison of design features, indications for use, and material composition.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and answer the study-related questions (2-9) because the information is not present in the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what the document does provide:

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

The document states:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): Mechanical test data showed the device is "capable of withstanding expected in vivo loading without failure."
• Reported Device Performance: "A review of the mechanical test data indicated that the Intramedullary Hip Screw is equivalent to predicate devices currently used clinically and is capable of withstanding expected in vivo loading without failure."

Missing Information (as per your request, because it's an AI-related prompt and this document is not AI-related):

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications.
4. Adjudication method for the test set.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance.
6. If a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
8. The sample size for the training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device