Search Filters

Search Results

Found 3 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K211303
    Date Cleared
    2021-06-04

    (36 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3540
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K041160, K020841, K010100

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

    The Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis is intended to be used in cemented patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with degenerative arthritis in the distal femur and patella, patients with a history of patellar dislocation or patella fracture, or patients with failed previous surgery (arthroscopy, tibial tubercle elevation, lateral release) where pain, deformity or dysfunction persists.

    These components are single use only and are intended for implantation with bone cement.

    Device Description

    This submission covers the Avon femoral and patellar components of the Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis. The femoral components are manufactured from Cobalt Chrome (CoCr) and the patellar components are manufactured from Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) materials.

    The purpose of this submission is to add Magnetic Resonance (MR) Conditional labeling to the labeling of the Avon femoral and patellar components of the Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis. Additionally, minor labeling and packaging updates, as detailed in the respective sections, are also included in this submission.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (Avon Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis) seeking clearance for minor labeling and packaging updates, specifically to add Magnetic Resonance (MR) Conditional labeling. This submission does not describe a study to prove the device meets acceptance criteria related to its clinical effectiveness or performance in a patient.

    Instead, it describes non-clinical testing to demonstrate that the device is "MR Conditional" as per relevant ASTM standards. Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to the information provided.

    Here's the breakdown of what can be extracted:

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

    Acceptance Criteria (Standard)Reported Device Performance
    Magnetically Induced Displacement Force:It was concluded that the subject Avon femoral and patellar components... do not present a new worst case with respect to magnetically induced displacement force... Therefore, the Avon components are qualified to be "MR Conditional" for MR-induced displacement.
    ASTM F2052-15: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Displacement Force on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment
    Magnetically Induced Torque:It was concluded that the subject Avon femoral and patellar components... do not present a new worst case with respect to... torque... Therefore, the Avon components are qualified to be "MR Conditional" for... torque.
    ASTM F2213-17: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Torque on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment
    Image Artifact:It was concluded that the subject Avon femoral and patellar components... do not present a new worst case with respect to... MR image artifacts... Therefore, the Avon components are qualified to be "MR Conditional" for... image artifacts.
    ASTM F2119-07 (Reapproved 2013): Standard Test Method for Evaluation of MR Image Artifacts from Passive Implants
    Heating by RF Fields:It was concluded that the subject Avon femoral and patellar components... do not present a new worst case with respect to... RF-induced heating. Therefore, the Avon components are qualified to be "MR Conditional" for... RF-induced heating. The labeling has been modified to include the MR Conditional symbol and to provide the parameters for safe scanning.
    ASTM F2182-19: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating On or Near Passive Implants During Magnetic Resonance Imaging

    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 provided. The testing was non-clinical (laboratory testing of the device components), not involving human subjects or patient data.

    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. The ground truth for the MR Conditional testing is established by the ASTM standards themselves, which define methodologies and criteria for measurement. No human experts were involved in establishing "ground truth" for this non-clinical testing.

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

    Not applicable. This was non-clinical, objective testing against predefined engineering standards.

    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 document is not about AI or diagnostic imaging interpretation. It is for a joint prosthesis and its MR compatibility.

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

    Not applicable. This document is not about an algorithm, but a physical medical device.

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

    The "ground truth" for the non-clinical testing was defined by adherence to published ASTM standards for MR compatibility. These are objective engineering and physics standards.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. This was non-clinical testing, not a machine learning study.

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

    Not applicable. This was non-clinical testing, not a machine learning study.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K082088
    Date Cleared
    2008-10-22

    (90 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3540
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K080029, K010100, K041160, K051948

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

    The MAKO Surgical Corp. Patellofemoral Knee Implant System II is intended to be used in cemented patello-femoral arthroplasty in patients with degenerative arthritis in the distal femur and patella, patients with a history of patellar dislocation or patella fracture, or patients with failed previous surgery (arthroscopy, tibial tubercle elevation, lateral release) where pain, deformity or dysfunction persists. These components are single use only and are intended for implantation with bone cement.

    Device Description

    This device consists of a CoCrMo patellofemoral component and an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene patella components are intended for cemented, one-time use only. The anterior surface of the patellofemoral component is polished and features a trochlear groove. The posterior surface of the patellofemoral and patella component employ features such as cement pockets and pegs for enhanced stability of the prosthesis when cemented onto the femur and patella, respectively.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the MAKO Surgical Corp. Patellofemoral Knee Implant System II and its regulatory clearance, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or study details (like sample size, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, or comparative effectiveness studies).

    Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor can I provide information about the study design elements you requested, as this information is not present in the provided document.

    This document is a 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices rather than presenting detailed clinical study results or performance metrics against specific acceptance criteria for a new AI/software-based medical device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K051948
    Date Cleared
    2005-10-21

    (95 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    888.3540
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K010100, K020841, K041160

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

    The Avon® Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis is intended to be used in cemented patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with degenerative arthritis in the distal femur and patella, patients with a history of patellar dislocation or patella fracture, or patients with failed previous surgery (arthroscopy, tibial tubercle elevation, lateral release) where pain, deformity or dysfunction persists.

    These components are single use only and arc intended for implantation with bone cement.

    Device Description

    The Avon® Patello-femoral Joint (PFJ) Prosthesis was cleared for marketing in K010100. K020841 and K041160. The current system consists of cobalt-chromium femoral components available in four sizes (extra small, small, medium, and large), and all-polyethylene components available in various sizes (small, medium. and large) and styles. This 510(k) submission is a line extension to the Avon "Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis to add additional styles of patellar components to the system and update the labeling.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Avon® PFJ Prosthesis, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study with acceptance criteria and device performance metrics in the format requested.

    The document is a summary of safety and effectiveness, and subsequently, the FDA's letter of substantial equivalence. This type of submission relies on demonstrating that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, largely through comparison of design, materials, indications, and operational principles, often supported by bench testing where relevant. It does not typically involve clinical studies with human subjects that would generate acceptance criteria and performance data in the context of sensitivity, specificity, or similar metrics for diagnostic devices.

    Therefore, many of the requested categories concerning acceptance criteria and study details cannot be directly answered from the provided text.

    Based on the provided information, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

    The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy per se. The "performance" assessment is based on the claim of substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

    Acceptance Criteria CategoryReported Device Performance/RationaleExplanation from Document
    Safety and EffectivenessSubstantially EquivalentThe device is deemed as safe and effective as the predicate device based on comparison of design, materials, indications, and operational principles.
    DesignEquivalent to predicate"Avon® Patello-femoral Joint Prosthesis is substantially equivalent to the predicate Avon® PFJ Prosthesis in regards to design..."
    MaterialsEquivalent to predicate"...materials..." (specifically cobalt-chromium for femoral, all-polyethylene for patellar components).
    IndicationsEquivalent to predicate"...indications..." (e.g., degenerative arthritis in distal femur and patella, history of patellar dislocation/fracture, failed previous surgery where pain persists).
    Operational PrinciplesEquivalent to predicate"...operational principles."
    CompatibilityPatellar components are compatible with femoral components."Testing demonstrated that the patellar components from the Duracon®, Triathlon® and Scorpio® Knee Systems are compatible with the femoral components in Avon® PFJ Prosthesis." This is a key "performance" aspect cited.

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

    Not applicable. The document describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device (prosthesis), which typically relies on bench testing and comparison to a predicate device, rather than patient-based test sets with a specific sample size. The "testing" mentioned refers to compatibility testing, not a clinical trial or performance study on patient data.

    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. There is no mention of a ground truth established by experts as this is not a diagnostic device or a study involving human-in-the-loop assessment of images or clinical findings.

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

    Not applicable. No test set or expert adjudication is described in the context of this device 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

    Not applicable. This device is a prosthesis, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so an MRMC study is not relevant here.

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

    Not applicable. This is a physical implantable device, not an algorithm.

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

    Not applicable in the sense of a clinical or diagnostic study. The "ground truth" for this submission is the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate device, and the demonstrating that the new device meets the same standards through design, material, and functional equivalence, often supported by bench testing.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. No training set is mentioned as this is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

    Not applicable.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1