Search Results

The hip prosthesis AMIS-K Long is designed for cemented use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

Total hip replacement is indicated in the following cases:
· Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis or congenital hip dysplasia

• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head
• · Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck
  · Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, arthrodesis, partial hip arthroplasty, hip resurfacing replacement, or total hip arthroplasty.

Partial hip arthroplasty is indicated in the following cases:
· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck

• · Non-union of femoral neck fracture
• · Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• · Primary pathology involving the femoral head but with a non-deformed acetabulum.

The AMIS-K Long cemented stem is designed for cemented use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The AMIS-K Long is a straight, double-tapered cemented stem whose primary stability is ensured by bone cement.

The AMIS-K Long implants in this submission are comprised of the following size: from #2 to #5 with 2 different stem body size for #2, #3 and #4, 1 different stem body size for #5. Stem length: 200 - 250 - 300 mm (for each size).

The AMIS-K Long implants are part of the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system.

The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system consists of femoral stemoral heads, and acetabular components.

The AMIS-K Long are cemented stems manufactured from high nitrogen stainless steel (ISO 5832-9) with a mirror polished surface.

The acetabular components consist of metal cups and liners made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), or Highcross highly crosslinked ultra-high polyethylene (HXUHMWE). Acetabular components include the Mpact DM (K143453), VersafitCup (K083116 and K092265), VersafitCup CC Trio (K103352, K120531 and K122911), Mpact (K103721 and K132879), Mpact 3D Metal (K171966), and Medacta Bipolar Head (K091967).

The AMIS-K Long implants can be combined with the CoCr Ball Heads (K072857 and K080885). Endo Head (K111145), or MectaCer BIOLOX® Forte (K073337) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115).

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Amis K Long hip prosthesis), which primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML or diagnostic performance.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria in the context of AI/ML performance. Specifically:

• No acceptance criteria for AI/ML performance are listed. The acceptance criteria mentioned refer to non-clinical performance tests for the physical hip prosthesis (e.g., pull-off strength, fatigue testing).
• No study proving AI/ML device performance is described. The document explicitly states "No clinical studies were conducted." and describes non-clinical mechanical tests.
• The requested elements (sample size, data provenance, expert qualifications, etc.) are not applicable in this context as the document is about a physical implant, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device.

The study described in the document primarily focuses on non-clinical mechanical tests to validate the physical properties of the hip prosthesis, such as pull-off strength, range of motion, and fatigue. These tests adhere to established international standards (ASTM, EN ISO, ISO).

In summary, the provided text does not contain the information necessary to answer the questions about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as they relate to AI/ML or diagnostic accuracy.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis SMS is designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty, for primary or revision surgery. Hip replacement is indicated in the following cases:

· Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis or congenital hip dysplasia

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, partial hip arthroplasty, hip resurfacing replacement or total hip arthroplasty.

The SMS femoral stem is a cementless bone preserving short stem designed for proximal fixation in total or partial hip arthroplasty for primary or revision surgery.

The SMS implants are comprised of the following products:

• SMS Cementless Solid Standard Stem (available in 11 sizes from size 3 to 13); and ●
• . SMS Cementless Solid Lateralized Stem (available in 11 sizes - from size 3 to 13).

Both are available on the US market via the clearance - K181693.

Concerning the new sizes of the solid version: 1V2, 2V2, size 14, and size 15; both STD and LAT versions have been introduced as a product range extension to the stems currently marketed as the SMS product line (K181693).

The SMS implants are line extensions to Medacta's Total Hip Prosthesis - AMIStem-H, Quadra-S and Quadra-H Femoral Stems (K093944), AMIStem and Quadra - Line Extension (K121011), AMIStem-P, AMIStem-P Collared and AMIStem-H Proximal Coating Femoral Stems (K173794), Quadra-H and Quadra-R Femoral Stems (K082792), AMIStem-H Proximal Coating (K161635), MiniMAX (K170845), and SMS (K181693).

The SMS implants are part of the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system consists of femoral stems, modular femoral heads and acetabular components. The acetabular components consist of metal cups and liners made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or Highcross highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXUHMWPE). Acetabular components include the Mpact DM (K143453), VersafitCup (K083116 and K092265), VersafitCup CC Trio (K103352), Mpact (K103721 and K132879), Mpact 3D Metal (K171966) and Medacta Bipolar Head (K091967).

The SMS stems can be combined with the CoCr ball heads (K072857, K080885 and K103721), Endo Head (K111145) or with the MectaCer BIOLOX® Forte (K073337), MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Option Heads (K131518).

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "SMS Cementless Stem" (K201673), a hip prosthesis. The document details the device, its intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices, along with performance data.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document outlines various non-clinical performance tests conducted for the SMS Cementless Stem. However, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria values or the quantitative results of these tests in a table format. It only states that the testing was conducted "according to written protocols with acceptance criteria that were based on standards."

Here's what can be inferred for a table, but actual criteria values and results are missing in the document:

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

The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were conducted." Therefore, there is no test set in the context of human clinical data or patient outcomes. The "performance data" refers to non-clinical mechanical and material tests. The sample sizes for these mechanical tests are not provided in this summary. Data provenance is not applicable here as no human data was used.

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

Not applicable as no clinical studies were conducted and no ground truth in the clinical sense was established. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the specifications and requirements of the referenced ISO and ASTM standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable as no clinical studies were conducted which would require adjudication of expert opinions or outcomes.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and its effect size

No MRMC study was mentioned or performed, as "No clinical studies were conducted." This device is a mechanical implant, not an AI or diagnostic tool that would typically undergo MRMC studies.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hip implant, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical performance and coating tests, the "ground truth" implicitly refers to the
requirements and specifications outlined in the referenced international standards (ISO and ASTM) and the European Pharmacopoeia/USP chapters. The device is expected to meet these pre-defined engineering and material standards. This is a form of engineering/material specification compliance as ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of medical device's approval.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis MiniMAX is designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery. Hip Replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

MiniMax anatomical stems are coated cementless stems intended to be used in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The anatomical design of the MiniMax stems results in a 9° anteversion of the neck which is mirror polished with 12/14 Eurocone taper and a 127° neck-shaft angle. The macrostructures are negative medially and positive laterally which increases the contact area. The lateral flare is rounded and non-invasive. The MiniMAX stems' distal tip has a 5° curvature to follow the contours of the femoral canal to aid in the insertion and avoiding distal interference.

MiniMAX stems can be combined with the CoCr ball heads (K072857, K080885 and K103721), Endo Head (K111145) or with the MectaCer BIOLOX® Forte (K073337), MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Option Heads (K131518).

MiniMAX stems are made of Titanium Aluminum Niobium Alloy (Ti-6Al-7Nb). The surface treatment consists of titanium plasma spray coating, Ra 300um, in the proximal 2/3 of the shaft to improve proximal fixation and HA (Hydroxyapatite) coating, Ra 80um, along the entire length of the shaft.

This submission seeks add Size 9 left and right anatomical stems to the currently marketed MiniMAX product line.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (MiniMAX hip prosthesis) and does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered device. The document is a traditional medical device submission focused on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through mechanical testing and material characterization.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance tables, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, and MRMC/standalone studies for an AI/ML device is not present in the provided text.

However, I can extract the information that is present regarding the device's performance data and how it was evaluated.

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

The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria with numerical targets and reported performance for an AI/ML device. Instead, it lists the types of performance tests conducted for a mechanical hip prosthesis and states that the "subject devices do not represent a new worst case when compared to the previously cleared devices."

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

The document mentions "worst-case device" testing for the predicate device, K170845. This typically implies a very small sample size, potentially N=1 or N=3, for each test as per engineering standards for mechanical devices. It's not a 'test set' in the sense of an AI/ML validation. There's no information on data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

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. This is a mechanical device submission, not an AI/ML study requiring expert ground truth for interpretation.

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

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the passing criteria of the specified international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM). For example, fatigue tests would have an endurance limit or cycles to failure requirement specified in the standard.

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis SMS is designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty, for primary or revision surgery. Hip replacement is indicated in the following cases:

· Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis or congenital hip dysplasia

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthroplasty, hip resurfacing replacement or total hip arthroplasty.

The SMS femoral stem is a cementless bone preserving short stem designed for proximal fixation in total or partial hip arthroplasty for primary or revision surgery. The SMS implants subject of this submission are comprised of the following products:

• SMS Cementless Solid Standard Stem (available in 11 sizes); and ●
• SMS Cementless Solid Lateralized Stem (available in 11 sizes).

The SMS implants are line extensions to Medacta's Total Hip Prosthesis - AMIStem-H, Quadra-S and Quadra-H Femoral Stems (K093944), AMIStem and Quadra - Line Extension (K121011), AMIStem-P, AMIStem-P Collared and AMIStem-H Proximal Coating Femoral Stems (K173794), Quadra-H and Quadra-R Femoral Stems (K082792), AMIStem-H Proximal Coating (K161635), and MiniMAX (K170845).

The SMS implants are part of the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system consists of femoral stems, modular femoral heads and acetabular components. The acetabular components consist of metal cups and liners made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or Highcross highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polvethylene (HXUHMWPE).

Acetabular components include the Mpact DM (K143453), VersafitCup (K083116 and K092265), VersafitCup CC Trio (K103352), Mpact (K103721 and K132879), Mpact 3D Metal (K171966) and Medacta Bipolar Head (K091967).

The SMS stems can be combined with the CoCr ball heads (K072857, K080885 and K103721), Endo Head (K111145) or with the MectaCer BIOLOX® Forte (K073337), MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Option Heads (K131518).

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the SMS Femoral Stem, a cementless bone-preserving short stem designed for proximal fixation in total or partial hip arthroplasty.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to acceptance criteria and supporting studies, though it's important to note that this is a medical device submission, not an AI/ML device submission, so the questions regarding human readers, training sets, etc., are not directly applicable here. The document focuses on mechanical performance and biocompatibility for a physical implant.

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

The document lists performance tests and the standards they adhere to, implying that meeting these standards constitutes the acceptance criteria. However, it does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria and does not present specific performance data values in a table format. It merely states that "Testing was conducted according to written protocols with acceptance criteria that were based on standards." and that the studies "demonstrated substantial equivalence."

Here's a generalized representation based on the provided information:

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 lists various non-clinical mechanical and coating tests, which typically involve physical samples of the device components. It does not specify the sample sizes (number of stems tested for fatigue, etc.) for each test. The provenance of the data is implicit: it's generated from laboratory testing of the device components. There is no clinical data or patient-derived data mentioned.

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 question is not applicable to this type of medical device submission. Ground truth and expert adjudication are relevant for AI/ML diagnostic devices, not for physical implants that undergo mechanical and material testing. The "ground truth" for these tests are the established scientific principles and measurement techniques outlined in the specified ISO and ASTM standards.

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

This question is not applicable for the same reasons as #3. Mechanical testing results are typically objectively measured and evaluated against a standard, not subject to expert adjudication in the same way as diagnostic interpretations.

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 question is not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

This question is not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specifications and acceptable ranges outlined in the referenced international (ISO) and American (ASTM) standards. For instance, a fatigue test determines if the device can withstand a certain number of cycles at a specific load without failure, as per the standard's requirements. Pyrogenicity is determined by established biological testing methods (LAL test, USP pyrogen test).

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device. There is no concept of a "training set" for a physical implant undergoing mechanical and material characterization.

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

This question is not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis QUADRA-P is designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty; for primary or revision surgery. Hip replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis or congenital hip dysplasia

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthroplasty, hip resurfacing replacement or total hip arthroplasty.

The Quadra-P implants are line extensions to Medacta's Total Hip Prosthesis – AMIStem-H, Quadra-S, and Quadra-H Femoral Stems (K093944); AMIStem and Quadra - Line Extension (K121011); AMIStem-P, AMIStem-P Collared, and AMIStem-H Proximal Coating Femoral Stems (K173794); Quadra-H and Quadra-R Femoral Stems (K082792); and AMIStem-H Proximal Coating (K161635).

The Quadra-P implants subject of this submission are comprised of the following products:

• . Quadra-P STD. Stem sizes 0 - 10;
• Quadra-P LAT, Stem sizes 0 - 10.
  The Quadra-P implants are part of the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system consists of femoral stems, modular femoral heads, and acetabular components. The acetabular components consist of metal cups and liners made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or Highcross highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXUHMWPE). Acetabular components include the Mpact DM (K143453), VersafitCup (K083116 and K092265), VersafitCup CC Trio (K103352), Mpact (K103721 and K132879), Mpact 3D Metal (K171966), and Medacta Bipolar Head (K091967).

The Quadra-P implants can be combined with the CoCr Ball Heads (K072857 and K080885), Endo Head (K111145), MectaCer Biolox Option Heads (K131518), or with the MectaCer BIOLOX® Forte (K073337) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115).

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Quadra-P" hip prosthesis, specifically describing the physical and mechanical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. It does not contain information about the performance or acceptance criteria of an AI/Software device, nor does it describe a study involving humans or the establishment of ground truth for such a device.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required to answer your questions about acceptance criteria and studies proving the device meets those criteria, as the provided document pertains to a physical medical device (hip prosthesis) and its mechanical engineering performance tests, not an AI or software-based medical device.

The document discusses:

• Device Name: Quadra-P (hip prosthesis)
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3353 (Hip Joint Metal/Ceramic/Polymer Semi-Constrained Cemented Or Nonporous Uncemented Prosthesis)
• Performance Data (Non-Clinical Studies):
  • Range of Motion (ROM) testing (EN ISO 21535:2009)
  • Fatigue testing (ISO 7206-4 and ISO 7206-6)
  • Pull off force testing (ASTM F2009-00)
  • Pyrogenicity testing (European Pharmacopoeia §2.6.14/USP and USP )
• Clinical Studies: "No clinical studies were conducted."

Since the request is specifically about a device proving it meets acceptance criteria through a study involving a test set, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, and potentially human readers (which implies an AI/Software device or diagnostic device), the provided text is entirely irrelevant to those questions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medacta Anatomic Shoulder Prosthesis is indicated for treatment of humeral fractures and for primary or revision total shoulder replacement in patients with an intact or reparable rotator cuff shoulder joint, severe arthropathy or a previously failed joint replacement.

The patient's joint must be anatomically suited to receive the selected implant(s), and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary for the device to offer full function in vivo.

The glenoid component is intended for cemented application.

The Medacta Anatomic Shoulder Prosthesis is a modular system intended to be used for anatomical shoulder arthroplasty.

The Medacta Anatomic Shoulder Prosthesis is composed of the following components:

• Standard Humeral Diaphysis - Cementless (sizes 6 to 16)
• Standard Humeral Diaphysis Cemented (sizes 6 to 16)
• Humeral Anatomical Metaphysis Cementless (128°, 135° and 142° inclinations, sizes 6 to 16)
• Humeral Anatomical Metaphysis Cemented (128°, 135° and 142° inclinations, sizes 6 to 16)
• Double Eccenter
• Cobalt-Chromium Humeral Head (10 sizes, Ø 40 mm to Ø 58 mm)
• Highcross PE Pegged Glenoid (10 sizes, Ø 40 mm to Ø 58 mm)
• Humeral Stem Screw

The Standard Humeral Diaphysis and the Humeral Anatomical Metaphysis are intended to be assembled together by means of a cylindrical driven-fit coupling and tightened by the Humeral Stem Screw. The Double Eccenter is also connected to the Humeral Anatomical Metaphysis by means of a press-fit cylinder and a securing screw. The Cobalt-Chromium Humeral Head is coupled to a Double Eccenter by means of a taper Morse connection.

The Glenoid Anatomical Implant is composed of the Highcross PE Pegged Glenoid only, which is cemented into the glenoid bone.

The Medacta Anatomic Shoulder Prosthesis components are single-use only, are provided sterile via gamma irradiation or ethylene oxide, and are packaged individually.

The standard humeral diaphysis, humeral anatomical metaphysis, double eccenter, and humeral stem screw are manufactured from titanium alloy. The humeral head is manufactured from CoCr, and the highcross glenoid is manufactured from polyethylene.

The provided text describes the "Medacta Anatomic Shoulder Prosthesis" and its regulatory clearance. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria for device performance related to a diagnostic or AI-driven system, nor does it detail a study proving such criteria are met.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (a shoulder prosthesis), which is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. The performance data presented focuses on the mechanical, material, and sterilization aspects of the physical implant, NOT on the performance of an AI or diagnostic system.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information in the format specified because the input document does not contain the relevant data for an AI/diagnostic device.

To answer your request, the input document would need to describe a study evaluating the performance of an AI or diagnostic device, including its acceptance criteria and the results of that evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis MiniMAX is designed for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

Hip Replacement is indicated in the following cases:

· Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

The purpose of this submission is to gain clearance for the new MiniMAX, which are anatomical HA coated cementless stems intended to be used in total or partial hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The anatomical design of the MiniMAX stems results in a 9° anteversion of the neck which is mirror polished with 12/14 Eurocone taper and a 127° neck-shaft angle. The macrostructures are negative medially and positive laterally which increases the contact area. The lateral flare is rounded and non-invasive. The MiniMAX stems' distal tip have a 5° curvature to follow the contours of the femoral canal to aid in the insertion and avoiding distal interference.

MiniMAX stems can be combined with the CoCr ball heads (K072857, K080885 and K103721), Endo Head (K111145) or with the MectaCer BIOLOX® Forte (K073337), MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Option Heads (K131518).

MiniMAX stems are made of Titanium Aluminum Niobium Alloy (Ti-6Al-7Nb). The surface treatment consists of titanium plasma spray coating, Ra 300μm, in the proximal 2/3 of the shaft to improve proximal fixation and HA (Hydroxyapatite) coating, Ra 80um, along the entire length of the shaft.

MiniMAX stems are similar to predicate devices Howmedica Osteonics' ABG III Monolithic Hip Stem (K123604) and Medacta's MasterLoc Stem (K151531).

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample size for test set: Not explicitly stated in the provided document. The document mentions "testing was conducted to written protocols," but does not detail the number of units tested for each mechanical or coating test.
• Data provenance:
  • Country of origin: Not specified beyond the manufacturer being Medacta International SA (Switzerland). The testing standards are international (ISO, ASTM, European Pharmacopoeia, USP).
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable in this context as these are laboratory-based non-clinical performance and material tests, not clinical data from patients.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for non-clinical performance tests is established by adhering to widely recognized engineering and medical device standards (ISO, ASTM, EN, USP, European Pharmacopoeia) and internal protocols. These tests measure objective properties (e.g., fatigue strength, range of motion, coating characteristics) rather than requiring expert interpretation of clinical data as a "ground truth."

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. This concept typically applies to clinical studies where different readers or experts might have varying interpretations. For non-clinical, objective testing, results are measured against predefined acceptance criteria from established standards. There is no "adjudication" in the sense of reconciling differing expert opinions on the test outcomes.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is a medical device (hip prosthesis), not an AI-based diagnostic or assistive software. The submission focuses on the safety and effectiveness of the implant itself through material properties and mechanical performance.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This is a hardware medical device, not a software algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The "ground truth" for the performance data in this submission is based on established international and national standards (e.g., ISO 7206 series for hip prostheses, ASTM F2009 for taper connections, EN ISO 21535 for hip-joint implants, European Pharmacopoeia and USP for pyrogenicity). These standards define the acceptable performance parameters and testing methodologies for such devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This submission describes a physical medical device. There is no "training set" in the context of an algorithm or machine learning model. The relevant "data" for development would involve extensive engineering design, material science data, and prior knowledge from similar predicate devices.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set in the AI/ML sense, there is no ground truth established for a training set. The device design and manufacturing process would be informed by decades of biomechanical research, clinical outcomes with similar devices, and engineering principles. The "ground truth" for its design and manufacturing would be validated through the performance testing described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis is designed for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The patient should be skeletally mature.

The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

· Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or

psoriactic arthritis, Congenital hip dysplasia, Ankylosing spondylitis.

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

The Versafitcup CC Trio family of acetabular components is designed to be used with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system includes the Quadra S, H, R, and C Stems and CoCrMo and ceramic ball heads (K072857, K073337, K080885, K082792, K083558, and K112115). The AMIStem femoral stems also work with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System (K093944, K103189). The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System is a total hip replacement system consisting of the femoral stem made of metal, a modular femoral head made of metal or ceramic, and acetabular components. The Versafitcup CC Trio extension that are the subject of this 510(k) consist of new sizes of flat and hooded liners, new sizes of the two-hole acetabular shell, and no-hole acetabular shells. The liners are made from either ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or HighCross® highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXUHMWPE) conforming to ISO 5834. The acetabular shells are made from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ISO 5832-3. The outside of the metal component has macrostructures in the equatorial region. The outer surface of the metallic cup has a dual laver of coatings: Ti (ASTM F 1580) plasma spray and Hydroxyapatite (ASTM F 1185).

All the Versafitcup CC Trio extension components are supplied sterile in single-use individual packages.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Versafitcup CC Trio extension, which is an acetabular component for total hip arthroplasty. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than a standalone clinical study with acceptance criteria in the typical sense of a diagnostic or AI device.

Therefore, the information requested for AI/diagnostic devices, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, and ground truth establishment, is not applicable or available in this document.

Instead, the performance testing described is focused on mechanical characteristics, comparing the new device components to "worst case liners and acetabular shells of the predicate devices."

Here's an attempt to extract the relevant information based on the provided text, while acknowledging the limitations:

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

Note: The document does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or performance metrics (e.g., maximum allowable wear per year, specific range of motion values). The acceptance is implicitly based on being comparable to or not worse than the predicate devices' "worst case" performance for these mechanical tests.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The testing is described as mechanical testing of the device components, not involving human subjects or clinical data in the form of a test set.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data provenance. The testing is laboratory-based mechanical testing.

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" here is based on engineering specifications and mechanical test results, not expert interpretation of clinical data.

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

• Not applicable. This refers to adjudication of expert opinions for clinical ground truth.

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 type of study is for diagnostic or AI-assisted interpretation, which is outside the scope of this device's submission.

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

• Not applicable. This device is an implanted medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" or basis for evaluation is compliance with mechanical testing standards and comparison to the performance of predicate devices for parameters like range of motion, connection stability, and wear. These are engineering and material science metrics.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This refers to training data for an AI algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. This refers to establishing ground truth for AI training data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System is intended for cementless use in total or partial hip arthroplasty and in primary or revision surgery.

Hip replacement is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthritis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polyarthritis, or congenital hip dysplasia.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery, joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement.

The AMIStem and Quadra - Line Extension is comprised of the following femoral stems:

• Quadra H STD #00 Short neck
• Quadra S STD #00 Short neck
• AMIStem H STD Stem #00
• AMIStem H LAT Stem #0
• AMIStem H Collared STD and LAT, multiple sizes

The subject devices have the same material as the predicate devices (titanium alloy, according to ISO 5832-11, 1994, Implants for surgery - Metallic materials - part 11: Wrought titanium 6-aluminum 7-niobium alloy).

The AMIStem H and Quadra H have the same coating as the predicate devices: Hydroxyapatite coating, material according to ASTM F1185.

The Quadra H STD #00 Short neck, Quadra S STD #00 Short neck, AMIStem H STD Stem #00, and AMIStem H LAT Stem #0 are a smaller size than the predicate devices and are intended for patients with a smaller bone structure.

The AMIStem H Collared differs from the AMIStem H (KQ93944) only for the presence of the collar. The collar of the stem is designed to achieve contact only with the medial femoral cortex and to provide a path for direct axial stress transfer from the prosthesis to the proximal femur avoiding the over-insertion of the stem in case of subsidence.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the AMIStem and Quadra - Line Extension, which are femoral stems for hip prostheses. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving novel clinical effectiveness through extensive clinical trials with acceptance criteria for a new device.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific performance metrics, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance does not apply directly to this 510(k) summary.

However, I can extract the information that is relevant to the substantial equivalence determination.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text:

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

The concept of "acceptance criteria" for a new, novel device is not explicitly stated as this is a line extension demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The primary "acceptance criterion" in this context is demonstrating that the new devices perform the same as the predicate devices and do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable. This submission relies on performance testing against established standards and comparison to predicate devices, not on a clinical "test set" of patient data for algorithm evaluation.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The focus is on mechanical testing and material compatibility, not clinical data provenance in the typical sense of a diagnostic or AI device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a study requiring expert ground truth for a diagnostic outcome. The "ground truth" for the device's acceptable performance is defined by adherence to international standards (ISO, ASTM) and comparison to legally marketed predicate devices.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. This is not a study involving human adjudication of results.

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 passive implant; it does not involve AI or human readers for diagnostic interpretation.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant; it does not involve algorithms or AI.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence is based on:

• Engineering Standards: Compliance with international standards such as ISO 7206-4, ISO 7206-6 (for mechanical performance), and ISO 5832-11, ASTM F1185 (for materials).
• Predicate Device Performance: The established safety and effectiveness track record of the legally marketed predicate devices. The subject devices are shown to perform similarly and use the same materials and coating as these predicates.

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis is designed for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The patient should be skeletally mature.

The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

· Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis. rheumatoid arthritis or

psoriactic arthritis. Congenital hip dysplasia, Ankylosing spondylitis.

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

The Versafitcup® CC Trio family of acetabular components is designed to be used with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system includes the Quadra S, H, R, and C Stems and CoCrMo and ceramic ball heads (K072857, K073337, K080885, K082792, K083558, and K112115). The AMStem femoral stems also work with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System (K093944, K103189). The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System is a total hip replacement system consisting of the femoral stem made of metal, a modular femoral head made of metal or ceramic, and acetabular components. The Versafitcup® CC Trio acetabular components that are the subject of this 510(k) consist of two new flat fixed liners that are made of HighCross® highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXUHMWPE).

All the Versafitcup® CC Trio components are supplied sterile in single-use individual packages.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Versafitcup CC Trio - Additional Liners) and, as such, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics typically found in clinical trials for new drug or high-risk device approvals.

Therefore, many of the requested elements (e.g., sample size for test sets and training sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance) are not applicable or not provided in this type of regulatory submission. The device is a physical medical device (hip implant liners), not a software/AI device, which explains why many of these questions about AI performance and expert review are not relevant to this document.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details (Based on available information)

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is a physical device. Performance was assessed through mechanical testing, not a test set of data. The document refers to "worst-case liners of the predicate devices" for comparison.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a physical device's mechanical properties is established through standardized engineering tests, not expert consensus in the clinical sense.
3. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. Mechanical tests for physical devices do not involve clinical adjudication.
4. 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 is a physical hip implant liner, not an AI diagnostic or assistive device.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical hip implant liner, not a software device.
6. The type of ground truth used: Mechanical test results, compared against established standards or predicate device performance.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI model.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device