Search Results

The OMNI Anseris Hip Stem is intended for use as the femoral component of a primary or revision total hip replacement when used with the Apex Interface™ Acetabular System. The Apex Interface™ Acetabular System articulates with the Apex Modular Femoral Head (Cobalt Chromium or Ceramic). The femoral hip stem is intended for uncemented fixation and single use implantation. These prostheses may be used for hip arthroplasty to treat the following conditions, as appropriate:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
• Rheumatoid arthritis;
• Correction of functional deformity;
• Congenital dislocation;
• Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed;
• Femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur.
  The OMNI Anseris Hip Stem is also intended for use in hemiarthroplasty when used with the Apex Bipolar Head. For further details, please refer to the Apex Bipolar Head Instructions for Use.

The OMNI Anseris Stem is a "fit and fill" femoral stem with a tapered conical design and is intended for use as the femoral component of a primary or revision total hip replacement when used with the Apex Interface™ Acetabular System.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "OMNI Anseris Hip Stem." It details the manufacturer's claim of substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than proving the device meets acceptance criteria through a standalone study of its performance in a clinical setting.

Therefore, the information typically found in a study proving acceptance criteria for an AI/algorithm-based device (like sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or ground truth establishment) is not present in this document because it describes a physical implantable device, not a software algorithm.

However, I can extract the information related to the device's non-clinical testing which serves as the "study" proving it meets specific engineering/physical acceptance criteria.

Here's the information parsed from the provided text, focusing on the nearest equivalent to your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for OMNI Anseris Hip Stem (Non-Clinical Testing)

This document describes the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the OMNI Anseris Hip Stem to predicate devices. The "acceptance criteria" here refer to meeting specific engineering and performance standards for a hip implant, rather than clinical performance metrics of an AI algorithm.

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

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of individual units tested, but the document refers to "the results of testing of the proposed Anseris Hip Stems." For mechanical testing, this typically refers to a specific number of samples required by the standard (e.g., n=6 or more for fatigue testing). The document does not specify the exact number of physical stems tested.
• Data Provenance: The testing was carried out by the manufacturer, OMNIlife Science. The data is internal to the company's testing processes as part of their 510(k) submission. There is no mention of country of origin of data in a clinical sense, nor is it retrospective or prospective as it's mechanical testing of a physical 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 a physical device being cleared through substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on non-clinical (mechanical and material) testing. There is no "ground truth" derived from expert consensus like in an AI/imaging study. The "ground truth" here is the pass/fail criteria of established international and industry standards (ISO, ASTM).

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable. As there are no human readers or interpretations of data akin to an AI study, there's no adjudication method. The tests are designed to provide objective, quantifiable results against predefined engineering specifications.

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 physical hip implant, not an AI software or diagnostic imaging tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. The "standalone performance" is the performance of the hip stem in a mechanical testing environment.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" refers to compliance with established international and industry standards for hip implants, such as ISO 7206-6, ISO 7206-4, ISO 21535, and ASTM F2996-13, as well as biocompatibility standards (e.g., SAL of 10-6 for sterility, endotoxin limits).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an algorithm undergoing machine learning.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set, there is no ground truth for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Apex Hip System is intended for primary or revision total hip replacement. The femoral hip stems and acetabular cup are intended for uncemented fixation and single use implantation. The Apex Acetabular Cup liners, standard and ApeX-LNK Poly, are intended for use with the Apex Modular Acetabular Cup, in combination with the Apex Modular, Apex K2, Apex K2 mid length or Apex K1 Hip in total hip replacement procedures. The acetabular cup inserts are intended to articulate with a metal (cobalt chromium) or ceramic (alumina) femoral head. These prostheses may be used for the following conditions, as appropriate: Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis Rheumatoid arthritis Correction of functional deformity Congenital dislocation Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed Femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur

Non hooded (0 deg neutral) and Hooded (10 deg) +4mm offsets for use with 28, 32, 36, 40mm Apex Modular heads.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Interface Acetabular System, Acetabular Insert. The documentation primarily focuses on the device's design, materials, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, along with non-clinical testing.

Here's an analysis of the requested information:

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: The document does not specify the exact number of samples used for each non-clinical test (ROM analysis, artificial aging, push-out & lever-out). It only states "All samples tested."
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of this device and testing. The tests are in vitro mechanical/material tests, not data derived from human subjects or clinical settings based on a specific country of origin or retrospective/prospective nature.

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

• This information is not applicable as the document explicitly states, "No clinical studies were performed." The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the performance standards defined in the ASTM and ISO standards, which are engineering specifications, not expert medical consensus.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• This information is not applicable as there were no clinical studies involving human readers or subjective interpretations of data that would require an adjudication method. The testing involved objective physical measurements against established 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:

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is a medical device (hip insert), not an AI diagnostic or image analysis tool. The document explicitly states, "No clinical studies were performed."

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

• This information is not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" was established by engineering performance standards specified by ASTM F2003-02 (extreme artificial aging) and ISO-21535-2007 (ROM analysis), along with industry-standard "Push-out & Lever-out Test" criteria.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This information is not applicable as no clinical studies or AI/machine learning models were involved in the evaluation of this device.

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

• This information is not applicable as no clinical studies or AI/machine learning models were involved.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Apex Hip System is intended for primary or revision total hip replacement. The femoral hip stems and acetabular cup are intended for uncemented fixation and single use implantation. These prostheses may be used for the following conditions, as appropriate: Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis; Rheumatoid arthritis; Correction of functional deformity; Congenital dislocation; Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed; Femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur.

Apex Modular Head sizes 28, 32, 36, and 40 mm with a + 10.5mm offset

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Apex Modular Heads, +10.5mm offset:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Apex Modular Heads, +10.5mm offset

This submission (K101575) is for a medical device seeking substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily established by demonstrating equivalency to the predicate devices through non-clinical testing, rather than defining novel performance thresholds for clinical outcomes.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that this is a 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence based on non-clinical testing, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met by demonstrating that the subject device's performance is comparable to or better than previously cleared predicate devices for relevant mechanical and material properties. The device performance is reported as meeting the specified standards, thereby indicating compliance with the implicit acceptance criteria for safety and effectiveness in comparison to the predicates.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of physical units tested beyond the mention of "tests were conducted." For mechanical and material testing, sample sizes are typically defined by the specific ASTM/ISO standards referenced (e.g., minimum number of specimens for fatigue testing). The provided text indicates that the tests were conducted, implying adequate sample sizes were used as required by the standards.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., specific country or lab). The tests are described as "Non-Clinical Test Summary," meaning they were laboratory-based and not derived from human subjects. The reference to ISO and ASTM standards suggests internationally recognized testing protocols. Retrospective or prospective designations are not applicable as these are non-clinical lab tests.

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

• Not applicable. For this type of mechanical and material performance testing, "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and the results obtained from the tests themselves using calibrated equipment. There is no concept of expert consensus for establishing ground truth in this context, unlike clinical studies involving image interpretation or diagnosis.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. As described above, the "test set" refers to the mechanical and material testing of the device components. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are employed in clinical studies, particularly in situations where there is subjective human interpretation or diagnostic agreement required (e.g., radiology reads).

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed." Therefore, no MRMC comparative effectiveness study was conducted. This device is seeking clearance based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical performance data and material specifications.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• Not applicable. This device is a physical medical implant (hip prosthesis), not a software algorithm or AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" is not relevant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering and Material Standards Compliance, and Mechanical Test Results: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by demonstrating compliance with recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) for mechanical properties, material composition, and manufacturing processes relevant to hip implants. The results of the non-clinical tests (ROM, FEA, Fatigue Strength) serve as the evidence to support this compliance and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate devices.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is a physical medical implant and does not involve AI or machine learning algorithms that require a "training set."

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

• Not applicable. No training set was used or required for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Apex ARC Hip Stem is intended for use as the femoral component of a primary or revision total hip replacement. This femoral hip stem is intended for uncemented fixation and single use implantation. This prosthesis may be used for the following conditions, as appropriate:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
• Rheumatoid arthritis;
• Correction of functional deformity;
• Congenital dislocation:
• Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed;
• Femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur.

The Apex ARC Hip Stem consists of a curved, rectangular tapered stem, and modular necks that connect to the tapered hole in the stem. The femoral stems are manufactured from titanium alloy and the modular necks are manufactured from cobalt chromium alloy. Three neck sizes are offered, with a neutral, 8 degree, and 12 degree varus-valgus angle, respectively. The necks are compatible with the modular heads that are part of the Apex Modular and Apex K2 hip systems (K000788, K012918, and K073150) and may be used with head diameters and offsets up to a maximum offset of +7 mm. These configurations allow the user to choose a combination of stem, neck, and head components to appropriately fit the anatomy of the patient. The Apex ARC Hip Stem may be used in conjunction with the Apex Modular™ Acetabular Cup (K031110, K062489, and K073150) for total hip arthroplasty.

The provided document describes the 510(k) Summary for the Apex ARC™ Hip Stem (K090845). This is a medical device submission to the FDA, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a traditional clinical study with defined endpoints as would be expected for a novel AI/software device.

Therefore, the requested information elements (acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert ground truth, MRMC, standalone performance) are not directly applicable in the context of this device's submission type and the information provided. Traditional clinical trials with acceptance criteria and statistical analysis are typically not required for Class II devices demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the non-clinical tests conducted which serve a similar purpose to demonstrating the device's functional integrity and safety, and compare them to the general characteristics of the predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this is a 510(k) submission for a mechanical implant, "acceptance criteria" are not explicitly defined in terms the performance metrics commonly associated with AI/software (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, the device's "performance" is demonstrated through non-clinical mechanical and material testing based on recognized international and ASTM standards. The acceptance criterion for these tests is generally successful completion of the test without failure, meeting the requirements of the specified standard, and demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in terms of number of physical devices tested for each non-clinical test. For mechanical tests, representative samples are typically used to meet the requirements of the standards. For material properties, it refers to the composition. The document doesn't detail the number of physical units tested.
• Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical, meaning they were performed in a laboratory setting, not on human subjects. No country of origin is specified for the testing, but the submitter (OMNI life science, Inc.) is based in E. Taunton, MA, USA. This is a prospective assessment for market clearance, meaning the tests were conducted specifically for this submission.

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

This question is not applicable to this 510(k) summary. For mechanical devices, "ground truth" typically relates to objective physical measurements or material properties as defined by engineering standards, not expert consensus as in diagnostic imaging. The "experts" involved would be the engineers and technicians conducting and validating the tests, adhering to the specified ISO and ASTM standards. Their qualifications are inherent in the rigorous nature of these testing facilities.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for expert consensus on clinical findings, not for objective mechanical test results. The results of the non-clinical tests are binary (pass/fail compliance with the standard).

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 total hip replacement device, not an AI/software diagnostic tool, and therefore no MRMC study was performed.

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

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

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for this device's evaluation is primarily based on engineering standards (ISO, ASTM) for mechanical performance and material properties. This includes objective measurements of fatigue strength, fretting potential, disassembly strength, torsional strength, range of motion, and material composition. Biocompatibility (ETO residuals) is also assessed against established standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not a machine learning model, so there is no "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 device.

In summary: The Apex ARC™ Hip Stem, a Class II medical device, demonstrates its safety and effectiveness for market clearance by showing substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices (Apex K2™ Hip System and Aesculap Metha® Hip System) through a detailed comparison of design, materials, and intended use, and by successfully completing a series of non-clinical mechanical and material tests according to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and FDA guidance documents. No clinical studies or AI-related evaluations were performed for this submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Apex Hip System is intended for primary and revision total hip replacement. The femoral hip stem and acetabular cup are intended for uncemented fixation and single use implantation. The Apex Acetabular Cup Liners, standard and ApeX-LNK Poly, are intended for use with the Apex Modular Acetabular Cup, in combination with the Apex Modular, Apex K1 Hip in total hip replacement procedures. The acetabular cup liners are intended to articulate with a metal (cobalt chromium) or ceramic (alumina) femoral head. These prostheses may be used for total hip arthroplasty to treat the following conditions, as appropriate:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
• Rheumatoid arthritis;
• Correction of functional deformity;
• Congenital dislocation;
• Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed;
• Femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur.

ApeX-LNK Poly™ Acetabular Cup Liners are manufactured of compression molded, cross-linked and stabilized ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene oxide. The articular geometry of the liners are compatible with existing Apex Modular femoral heads, manufactured from cobalt chrome or alumina ceramic, 40 mm diameter, with various offsets.
Apex Modular Heads have a standard tapered bore that corresponds to the mating taper on the modular neck (ASTM F1636). Various industry standard head diameters are included to allow use of a wide range of acetabular cups, at the discretion of the orthopaedic surgeon.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on acceptance criteria and study details.

Analysis based on the provided document:

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for ApeX-LNK Poly™ Acetabular Cup Liners and Apex Modular Heads. It is a regulatory submission for medical devices, primarily focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing numerical performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies in the way an AI/software device would.

Therefore, the requested information categories (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance) are not applicable in the context of this medical device submission. These categories are typically relevant for AI/ML-based diagnostic or screening devices where performance is measured against a ground truth from human expert interpretation or pathology.

This document demonstrates equivalence through design, materials, manufacturing processes, and in some cases, performance testing (often mechanical bench testing) to ensure safety and effectiveness are comparable to legally marketed devices. It does not involve "performance metrics" in the sense of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) or human reader improvement with AI.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant information from the document, acknowledging the difference in context:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (for Substantial Equivalence) and Reported Device Performance

For this type of device, "acceptance criteria" are primarily established by the requirements for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. The "performance" is judged by meeting these equivalence criteria and by ensuring the device functions as intended and is safe.

• ApeX-LNK Poly™ Acetabular Cup Liners: Used with Apex Modular Acetabular Cup, with Apex Modular, Apex K2 Hip, articulating with metal (cobalt chromium) or ceramic (alumina) femoral head for conditions like degenerative joint disease, rheumatoid arthritis, functional deformity, congenital dislocation, revision procedures, and fractures.
• Apex Modular Heads: Used in total hip replacement, compatible with various acetabular cups. |
  | Operating Principle ("ball-in-socket" cobalt chromium-UHMWPE articular bearing components) | Meets Predicate: "Same operating principle: 'ball-in-socket' cobalt chromium-UHMWPE articular bearing components" |
  | Materials (UHMWPE for liners, wrought cobalt chromium for heads as per specific ASTM standards) | Meets Predicate: "Same materials as predicates: the ApeX-LNK Acetabular Cup Liners are manufactured from ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE, ASTM F648) with identical specifications and processing parameters as the predicate ApeX-LNK Acetabular liners; the Apex Modular Heads are manufactured from the same material as the predicate Apex Modular Heads (wrought cobalt chromium per ASTM F1537)" |
  | Basic Design (UHMWPE liners, cobalt chromium heads, identical modular interface dimensions, surface finish, taper dimensions, locking features) | Meets Predicate: "Same basic design: UHMWPE liners, cobalt chromium heads; identical modular interface dimensions and specifications as the predicates, including surface finish, taper dimensions, and locking features"
• Liner Engagement: 19° taper and PE locking ring (same as ApeX-LNK predicate K073150).
• Liner Options: Neutral and 10° hooded (same as ApeX-LNK predicate K073150).
• Taper Design (Heads): Identical (size "N" bore in ASTM F1636-95) (same as Apex Modular Femoral Heads predicate K000788).
• Offsets (Heads): -3.5, +0, +3.5, +7 (same as Apex Modular Femoral Heads predicate K000788). |
  | Shelf Life (5 years from date of manufacture) | Meets Predicate: "Same shelf life: 5 years from date of manufacture." |
  | Packaging & Sterilization (ETO, SAL 10^-6^) | Meets Predicate: "Packaged and sterilized using the same materials and processes: ETO, SAL 10^-6^*."
• Packaging: Paper board box, Foil outer pouch, Double Tyvek inner pouch (same as ApeX-LNK predicate K073150 and Apex Modular Femoral Heads predicate K000788). |
  | Functional Equivalence (demonstrated via performance testing, design comparisons, functional analysis) | Meets Predicate: "Performance testing, design comparisons, and functional analysis conducted on these devices demonstrate that they are equivalent to the predicate devices." (Specific details of any new performance testing are not provided in this summary, but would typically involve mechanical tests for wear, fatigue, static strength, etc., to support the safety and effectiveness of the new sizes, not a clinical study comparing outcomes to a "ground truth" established by experts). The modifications are limited to the addition of a 40mm size head and a 40mm ID liner. |

Regarding the other requested points:

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

  • N/A. This is a medical device 510(k) submission, not a study evaluating an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm. "Test sets" in the context of this document refer to mechanical testing of physical device components, not data for an AI model.

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

  • N/A. Ground truth from experts is not applicable here. Mechanical tests typically compare physical measurements or observed failures against engineering specifications, often established by material science experts or engineers.

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

  • N/A. Not applicable for a device 510(k) 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:

  • N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

  • N/A. This is a physical medical device (hip implants), not an algorithm.

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

  • N/A in the context of AI. For this device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating safety and effectiveness relies on established engineering principles, material science data from ASTM standards, and performance characteristics (e.g., strength, wear resistance) that are comparable to previously approved, equivalent predicate devices.

• 8. The sample size for the training set:

  • N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

  • N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.

In summary: The provided document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical device. It demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design, materials, intended use, manufacturing processes, and fundamental operating principles. The concepts of "acceptance criteria" and "studies" as typically applied to AI/ML software performance (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, reader studies) are not relevant to this document. The "study" here is the entire 510(k) submission process, which involves demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed one, often supported by detailed engineering and mechanical testing data (which is not fully detailed in this summary document).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Interface™ Acetabular Cup Liners are intended for use with the Interface™ Acetabular Cup, in combination with the Apex Modular™, Apex K2™, or Apex K1™ Hip Stem in total hip replacement procedures. The acetabular cup liners are intended to articulate with a metal (cobalt chromium) or ceramic (alumina) femoral head. This prosthesis is intended for single use implantation, and may be used for the following conditions, as appropriate:

• . Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
• e Rheumatoid arthritis:
• . Correction of functional deformity;
• . Congenital dislocation:
• . Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed;
• Femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. .

The Interface™ Acetabular Cup Liners are manufactured of compression molded ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, sterilized using ethylene oxide. The articular geometry of the liners are compatible with existing Apex Modular femoral heads, manufactured from cobalt chrome or alumina ceramic, 28 mm, 32 mm or 36 mm diameter. The subject device adds an option for a 20° elevated rim that was not previously offered.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Interface™ Acetabular Cup Liners." This submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices, rather than presenting a study of the device's clinical performance against specific acceptance criteria in the manner of a clinical trial for an AI/ML medical device.

Therefore, the specific information requested about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert involvement, ground truth, and training sets (relevant to AI/ML device studies) is not applicable to this 510(k) submission for a physical orthopedic implant.

Here's why and what information is available:

• Nature of the Device: The Interface™ Acetabular Cup Liners are physical medical devices (orthopedic implants) used in total hip replacement procedures. They are not an AI/ML algorithm or software that performs diagnostic or prognostic functions.
• Regulatory Pathway (510(k)): A 510(k) submission demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device. This typically involves comparing design, materials, manufacturing processes, intended use, and performance characteristics (often mechanical testing for implants) to established, safe, and effective devices. It does not generally require new clinical trials or performance studies against predefined clinical acceptance criteria in the same way an AI/ML device would.

What is provided in the document and how it relates to "acceptance criteria" for a physical device:

The "acceptance criteria" in this context are primarily the demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The study proving this involves detailed comparisons rather than a clinical performance study.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly meeting the design, material, and functional equivalence to the predicates. The "reported device performance" is the comparison showing these equivalences.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is not a clinical study involving a test set of patient data. The "test" is the comparison of device characteristics to predicates.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth, in the clinical sense, is not established for this type of submission. The "ground truth" is the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices.

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 an orthopedic implant, 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.): Not applicable in the context of AI/ML. For this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" (or basis of comparison) is the known safety and effectiveness profiles of the predicate devices (Interface™ (K031110), ApeX-LNK Poly™ (K062489 and K073150), and Zimmer Trilogy® Acetabular System (K934765, K953490, and K972774) UHMWPE cup liners) as determined by their prior FDA clearances and long-standing use in the market.

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.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification that demonstrates substantial equivalence for a physical medical device (acetabular cup liners). The "study" proving it meets "acceptance criteria" involves a detailed comparison of its design, materials, and intended use against already cleared predicate devices. The concepts of test sets, training sets, expert ground truth, and AI-assisted performance are not relevant to this type of regulatory submission.

Ask a specific question about this device