Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(90 days)
The MPACT Extension implants are 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 psoriatic 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, arthrodesis, hemiarthrodesis, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present
The MPACT implants subject of this submission are comprised of the following products:
- 33 sizes of Offset +4mm PE liners; and
- 32 sizes of Face-changing +10° PE liners.
These liners are a component of a total hip joint prosthesis that is used to replace the acetabulum. The component is an inner liner made of High-Cross ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE); which is inserted in the Acetabular shell.
They are all a line extension to Medacta's MPACT (K103721), and MPACT Extensions (K122641 and K132879) Systems and are designed to be used with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System. In detail, the Liners subject of the current submission are compatible with the MPACT No-Hole and Two-Hole (K132879), MPACT Multi-Hole and Rim-Hole (K132879); and the Mpact 3D Metal Acetabular Shells (K171966).
As regards to the femoral head components, the MPACT Extension Liners can be combined with the CoCr Ball Heads (K072857 and K080885), MectaCer Biolox Option Heads (K131518), or with the MectaCer BIOLOX® Forte (K073337) or MectaCer BIOLOX® Delta Femoral Heads (K112115).
The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for a medical device called "MPACT Extension" and details the non-clinical performance data used to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It explicitly states that no clinical studies were conducted. Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study information related to human performance (e.g., sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable to this submission.
Here's a breakdown of the relevant information from the provided document:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Test | Standard/Guideline | Acceptance Criteria (Implicit) | Reported Device Performance (Implicit) |
---|---|---|---|
Performance Tests | |||
Static/Dynamic Compressive Load Testing | ASTM F1820-13 | Meets requirements of ASTM F1820-13 for axial disassembly force of a modular acetabular device. | Device passed the tests, supporting substantial equivalence. |
Static Lever-out Testing | ASTM F1820-13 | Meets requirements of ASTM F1820-13 for axial disassembly force of a modular acetabular device. | Device passed the tests, supporting substantial equivalence. |
Range of Motion | EN ISO 21535 (2007) | Meets requirements of EN ISO 21535 for hip-joint replacement implants. | Device passed the tests, supporting substantial equivalence. |
Biocompatibility | |||
Pyrogenicity (Bacterial Endotoxin Test) | European Pharmacopoeia §2.6.14 (equivalent to USP chapter ) | Meets requirements for bacterial endotoxin levels. | Device passed the tests. |
Pyrogenicity (Pyrogen Test) | USP chapter | Meets requirements for pyrogenicity determination. | Device passed the tests. |
Note: The document states that testing was conducted according to written protocols with acceptance criteria based on standards. The specific numerical acceptance values or individual performance results are not explicitly listed in this summary, but the general statement "device passed the tests, supporting substantial equivalence" implies that the acceptance criteria were met for all listed non-clinical tests.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
Not applicable. No human test set was used as this was a non-clinical evaluation.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable. No human test set was used.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable. No human test set was used.
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were conducted."
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This device is a physical medical implant (hip joint component), not an algorithm or AI software for which standalone performance would be relevant.
7. The type of ground truth used
For the non-clinical performance tests, the "ground truth" was established by the specified industry standards (ASTM F1820-13, EN ISO 21535, European Pharmacopoeia §2.6.14, USP chapter , USP chapter ). These standards define the methodologies and acceptable performance limits for mechanical properties and biocompatibility.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. No human training set was used. "Training set" typically refers to data used to train AI models; this device is a physical implant.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. No human training set was used.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1