Search Results

Intended Use: The Incompass Total Ankle System is intended to give a patient limited mobility by reducing pain, restoring alignment and replacing the flexion and extension movement in the ankle joint.

Indications for Use: The Incompass Total Ankle is indicated for patients with ankle joints damaged by severe rheumatoid, post-traumatic, or degenerative arthritis. The Incompass Total Ankle is additionally indicated for patients with a failed previous ankle surgery.

Incompass™ Total Ankle System is a total ankle replacement system consisting of implants and instruments.

Incompass™ Total Ankle System will harmonize the Infinity™ and Inbone™ Total Ankle Systems into one comprehensive system consisting of modular stemmed and low-profile pegged tibial trays, tibial inserts, and talar domes. The harmonized system is facilitated by sharing the same tibial resection geometry between the pegged and the stemmed tibial tray designs.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for the Incompass Total Ankle System. It outlines the device's indications for use, its classification, and declares its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical evidence.

However, the clearance letter explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not necessary for the determination of substantial equivalence."

This means that the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment (which are typical for studies proving a device meets acceptance criteria, especially for AI/ML-based devices or those requiring clinical trials) is not included in this document. The clearance was based on non-clinical performance bench testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence in wear, articular stability, lock detail, manufacturing processes, static strength, fatigue strength, fretting, corrosion, and MRI safety, rather than clinical efficacy studies.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from this document. If this were a submission for a device that required clinical performance data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness (e.g., an AI/ML device), this section would typically contain summaries of those studies.

Based on the provided document, here's what can be inferred or explicitly stated regarding the acceptance criteria and study proving adherence to them:

The device in question is a Total Ankle System, a type of orthopedic implant, not an AI/ML-based device or one that underwent a clinical efficacy study for its 510(k) clearance.

The "study" that proves the device meets acceptance criteria, in this context, refers to non-clinical performance bench testing.

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

Since no clinical efficacy study was conducted for this 510(k) clearance, there's no data to populate such a table detailing clinical performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, or human reader improvement).

The acceptance criteria for this device were related to substantial equivalence through bench testing. The document states:

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the document, as it refers to engineering and materials testing (bench testing) rather than a dataset of patient cases. For bench testing, "samples" would refer to the number of devices or components tested.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical patient data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective), as the evidence was non-clinical bench testing. The testing would have been conducted in a laboratory 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 as typically defined for AI/ML or clinical studies (e.g., expert consensus on medical images) was not established. The "ground truth" for bench testing is determined by engineering standards, material science principles, and established testing methodologies.

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

• Not applicable. This is relevant for studies involving human reviewers or AI output, not for materials and mechanical bench 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:

• No. This type of study is specifically for AI/ML-assisted diagnostic devices. The Incompass Total Ankle System is a physical medical implant.

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

• No. This is relevant for AI/ML algorithms.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The "ground truth" for this clearance was established through engineering standards, material specifications, and validated bench testing protocols comparing the device's physical and mechanical properties against those of legally marketed predicate devices. It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the clinical sense.

8. The sample size for the training set:

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

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

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

The Salto XT ankle prosthesis is indicated as a total ankle replacement in revision surgeries only for patients with ankle joints damaged by severe rheumatoid, post-traumatic, or degenerative arthritis. Components are intended for cemented use only.

The cleared Salto Talaris and the new Salto XT are intended for total ankle replacement. Both are a semiconstrained anatomical design, which reproduces the kinematics of the ankle joint. And both consist of two mating components: a metal tibial base in association with a conforming polyethylene articulating insert, and a metal talar component.

The submission seeks clearance for:

• the addition of new components to the Salto XT (tibial and talar components).
• the addition of a new size and new thicknesses to the cleared range of Salto Talaris tibial inserts.

The tibial inserts are compatible with both Salto Talaris (K060544, K090076, K130533) and the new Salto XT. The new device Salto XT has been designed to be compatible with the cleared and the new Salto Talaris tibial inserts. All Salto XT components are compatible with cleared Salto Talaris components.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for two medical devices, Salto XT and Salto Talaris ankle prostheses. This document details the FDA's decision of substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but does not describe acceptance criteria for software performance or a study proving that a device meets such criteria.

The document describes non-clinical testing for mechanical performance, such as tibial fatigue, insert locking mechanism strength, talar stability, contact pressure, and wear. These are physical tests of the prosthesis components, not software performance.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies related to software performance from this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended Use: The INFINITY™ Total Ankle System is intended to give a patient limited mobility by reducing pain, restoring alignment and replacing the flexion and extension movement in the ankle joint.

Indications For Use: The INFINITY™ Total Ankle is indicated for patients with ankle joints damaged by severe rheumatoid, posttraumatic, or degenerative arthritis.

The INFINITY ™ Total Ankle is additionally indicated for patients with a failed previous ankle surgery.

CAUTION: The ankle prosthesis is intended for cement use only.

The INFINITY™ Total Ankle System is a fixed-bearing total ankle prosthesis that restores mobility to a failing ankle joint. It encompasses three components (i.e., tibial insert, and talar dome) that are assembled to create a two-piece prosthesis. The device is composed of Titanium Alloy, Cobalt Chrome, Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene, and commercially pure Titanium and each component is available in multiple sizes to accommodate variable patient anatomy.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the INFINITY™ Total Ankle System, a medical device. This type of document is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate that the medical device is at least as safe and effective as a legally marketed device (predicate device).

However, the information provided does not contain details about acceptance criteria, a study proving device performance against those criteria, or any of the specific reader study methodologies requested.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Device Description: What the INFINITY™ Total Ankle System is made of and how it functions.
• Intended Use and Indications for Use: For whom and under what conditions the device is designed to be used.
• Technological Characteristics Comparison: A high-level statement that its features are similar to predicate devices.
• Non-Clinical Evidence: A list of types of non-clinical analyses performed (Bone interface stability, Component stability, Fatigue testing, Contact area/stress testing) and a conclusion that these results show the device performs "at least as well as" predicate devices. No specific performance metrics, acceptance criteria, or detailed study results are given.
• Clinical Evidence: Explicitly states "N/A", meaning no clinical evidence was presented for this 510(k) submission.
• Substantial Equivalence Conclusion: A general statement of safety and effectiveness based on non-clinical evidence and comparison to predicate devices.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and answer the specific questions because the necessary data is not present in the provided text. The document aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to existing devices through non-clinical testing and design comparison, rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance metrics as one might find for an AI/software device.

Ask a specific question about this device