Search Results

The Hoffmann 3 Modular External Fixation System components are external fixation frame components for use with the components of the Hoffmann II MRI and Hoffmann II Compact MRI External Fixation Systems, in conjunction with Apex Pins. It is intended to provide stabilization of open and/or unstable fractures and where soft tissue injury precludes the use of other fracture treatments such as IM rods, casts or other means of internal fixation.

The Hoffmann 3 Modular External Fixation System consists of Rods, Posts, Couplings, Clamps and Pins that can be combined to construct different frame configurations that are MR conditional. The components for the subject device where manufactured from a variety of materials including austentic steel, titanium, and a Vectran coating. This line extension is intended to add additional components for connecting rods and fixed posts, design and material modifications to the couplings, pin clamp, rods and posts. Although the Hoffmann II MRI External Fixation System will continue to be marketed, the Hoffmann 3 Modular External Fixation System will be available with additional components for connecting rods and include design and material modifications to the couplings, pin clamp, rods and posts.

{"1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance": "The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a table format. Instead, it describes a comparative evaluation against a predicate device. The "reported device performance" is stated as demonstrating "comparable mechanical properties to the predicate components" and that the system "could be safely used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging under predetermined conditions."\n\nAcceptance Criteria (Implied from testing and claim of substantial equivalence):\n* Mechanical Properties: Comparable to the Hoffmann II MRI System's mechanical properties.\n* Magnetic Resonance Environment Safety: Safe for use in MRI under predetermined conditions (Radio Frequency Heating, Force and Torque, Artifact).\n\nReported Device Performance:\n* Mechanical testing demonstrated comparable mechanical properties to the predicate components.\n* Testing in a Magnetic Resonance Environment established that the Hoffmann 3 Modular External Fixation System could be safely used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging under predetermined conditions. (Specific results like % difference or specific thresholds are not provided in this summary.)", "2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)": "The document refers to "Non-Clinical Testing" and lists various mechanical and MRI environment tests. However, it does not specify the sample sizes used for these tests. There is no mention of human subject data, and thus no data provenance in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective studies are applicable for the type of testing described.", "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 section is not applicable. The study described is non-clinical performance testing of a medical device (external fixator system) and does not involve the establishment of ground truth by human experts in the context of diagnostic interpretation. The 'ground truth' for this type of device would relate to engineering standards and safety parameters established by regulatory bodies or industry best practices, not expert consensus on medical images or patient outcomes.", "4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set": "This section is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of data (e.g., medical images) by multiple experts to establish a consensus ground truth. The tests performed for this device were non-clinical mechanical and MRI compatibility tests.", "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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is an external fixation system, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted device. The testing described focuses on the mechanical and MRI compatibility of the hardware components.", "6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done": "This question is not applicable to the Hoffmann 3 Modular External Fixation System as it is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI system. There is no 'standalone' algorithm performance to report.", "7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)": "For the non-clinical testing of this external fixation system, the 'ground truth' would be based on established engineering and material science principles, industry standards (e.g., for strength, bending, torsion, pull-out, rotation), and regulatory requirements for MRI compatibility (radio frequency heating, force and torque, artifact). It's not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data related to clinical diagnosis.", "8. The sample size for the training set": "This question is not applicable to the Hoffmann 3 Modular External Fixation System. This device is a physical medical hardware system, not a machine learning model or software that requires a 'training set.' The listed tests are non-clinical hardware performance tests.", "9. How the ground truth for the training set was established": "This question is not applicable, as there is no 'training set' for this physical medical device."}

Ask a specific question about this device

The XtraFix External Fixation System is indicated for use in construction of an external fixation frame for treatment of long bone (foot, femur, and tibia) and pelvic fractures that require external fixation. Specifically, the system is intended for:

• Temporary stabilization of open or closed acute fractures with soft tissue injuries; .
• . Definitive stabilization of open or closed fractures where open or alternative closed treatment is undesirable or otherwise contraindicated;
• Stabilization of fractures in the context of polytrauma; .
• Temporary or definitive stabilization of certain pelvic fractures or pelvic ring injuries; .
• Arthrodesis and osteotomies with associated soft tissue problems; .
• Stabilization of limbs after removal of total joint (knee, and ankle) arthroplasty for . infection or other failure;
• Neutralization of fractures stabilized with limited internal fixation; .
• . Stabilization of non-unions; and
• . Intraoperative temporary stabilization tool to assist with indirect reduction.

The XtraFix External Fixation System includes various elements designed to build a fixator construct. The system includes clamps, posts, bars, and fixation pins.

The provided document describes the XtraFix External Fixation System, a medical device for stabilizing bone fractures. It does not contain information about a study with acceptance criteria and device performance in the context of an AI/algorithm-driven device. The document is a 510(k) summary, which is typically a premarket notification for a medical device demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

Specifically, the document states:

• "The principles of operation of the XtraFix External Fixation System are the same as for the predicates."
• "The XtraFix External Fixation System was characterized and evaluated according to the requirements outlined in FDA Guidance document, "Establishing Safety and Compatibility of Passive Implants in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment." Testing confirmed the device can be used in an MR environment under predetermined conditions. Therefore, the term "MR Conditional" can be used to describe the system in accordance with the guidance document."
• "All evaluations determined that the XtraFix External Fixation System is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

This indicates that the "study" conducted was primarily focused on demonstrating MR compatibility and confirming the device's technological characteristics are similar to existing predicate devices, rather than a performance study with acceptance criteria for an AI-powered diagnostic or therapeutic tool.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and information points as they pertain to AI/algorithm performance and ground truth, as that information is not present in the provided text. The device is a physical external fixation system, not a software-based AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device