Search Results

Versacem is designed for use in total hip arthroplasty, for selected primary or revision surgery. Total hip arthroplasty is indicated in the following cases:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint as a result of arthrosis, traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid polvarthritis 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.
  Versacem is also recommended when dislocation prevention is the main driver for the prosthesis choice and the acetabular bone quality is damaged, as in the following cases:
• · Elderly patients or poor bone quality.
• · Revision for recurrent dislocation in elderly patients with poor bone quality.
• · Patients treated with radiotherapy or chemotherapy.
  Versacem is intended for cemented use only.

The purpose of this submission is to gain clearance for the Versacem Acetabular Shell and to add two new sizes of the compatible Double Mobility HC Liners previously cleared within K092265, K131458 and K143453.
The Versacem Acetabular Shell implants and the Double Mobility HC liners are sterile, individually packaged, implantable medical devices intended to be used in Total Hip Arthroplasty.
The devices subject of this submission are:

• . Versacem Acetabular Shell from size Ø40 to size Ø56;
• . Double Mobility HC liner Ø22.2/DMAZ;
• Double Mobility HC liner Ø28/DMC. ●

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification from the FDA, clearing the Medacta International S.A. Versacem Acetabular Shell and Double Mobility HC Liners. This type of document does not contain the acceptance criteria or detailed study results for device performance as would be found in a clinical trial report or a comprehensive engineering report.

The 510(k) process primarily demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving de novo safety and efficacy against predefined clinical acceptance criteria. The "Performance Data" section in the document only lists the types of non-clinical (bench) tests performed.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill most of the requested information based on this document. Below is a breakdown of what can be inferred or what is explicitly stated, and what cannot be provided:

Inferences/Provided Information from the Document:

• Study That "Proves" Device Meets Acceptance Criteria: The document refers to "Performance Data" from "Nonclinical Studies" (bench testing) to support substantial equivalence. These studies include:
  • Design Validation
  • Wear Test
  • Range of Motion Evaluation
  • Fatigue Test
  • Pull-off and Lever-out Tests (for liner)
  • Evaluation of Jumping Distance
  • Evaluation of Impingement Risk
  • Pyrogenicity testing (LAL test, in-vivo evaluation in rabbit)
  • Biocompatibility assessment
  • Shelf-life evaluation

Information NOT available in this document:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document only lists the types of tests performed, not the specific acceptance criteria for each test nor the quantitative results. For example, it lists "Wear Test" but doesn't state the acceptable wear rate or the actual wear rate achieved.
• Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Bench testing results typically refer to the number of samples tested (e.g., how many shells, how many liners), but this is not provided. Data provenance is not applicable as these are bench tests, not clinical studies with human data.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: This is not applicable as these are non-clinical, mechanical/material performance tests, not studies requiring expert interpretation of clinical data or images.
• Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for non-clinical bench testing.
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable, as this is for a medical device (hip implant), not an AI/imaging device that would involve human readers.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable for this type of device.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is typically engineering and material science standards (e.g., force applied, displacement, wear volume, fatigue cycles to failure). These are implied by the test names (e.g., "Fatigue Test" implies testing to a certain number of cycles or until failure, compared against a standard).
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. These are physical devices, not AI algorithms trained on data.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

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 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 M.U.S.T. Sacral Iliac Screw and Pelvic Trauma System is intended for use in skeletally mature patients for fracture fixation of small and long bones of the pelvis, and for sacroiliac joint fusion for patients suffering from sacroiliac joint disruptions and degenerative sacroiliitis.

The M.U.S.T. Sacral Iliac Screw and Pelvic Trauma System is designed for sacroiliac joint fusion in degenerative sacroiliitis, as well as for the fixation of small and long bone fractures in trauma cases. The screws are hollow-body threaded fusion devices with a self-tapping design, tapered tip, long pitch and dual thread, and a reverse cutting flute. They are cannulated to accept a Ø 3.2 mm guide wire. Sacroiliac joint screws are available in titanium with a rough Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating. Pelvic trauma screws are available in both full and partial thread designs in Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium Extra Low Interstitial (Ti-6A1-4V ELI) and Stainless Steel. Washers are available in standard and favored designs. Radial windowed slots along the screw's body are intended to allow surrounding bone access to bone substitute.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "M.U.S.T. Sacral Iliac Screw and Pelvic Trauma System." The information provided does not contain details about an AI/ML powered device, nor does it describe acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets those criteria.

Instead, this document is for a physical medical device (screws and plates for bone fixation) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through:

• Comparison of technological characteristics: Comparing the new device's material, dimensions, design, and sterilization methods to existing, legally marketed devices.
• Non-clinical performance testing: Referring to mechanical and material tests conducted according to established ASTM and ISO standards (e.g., ASTM F543-13 for bone screws, ISO 13779-3 for hydroxyapatite coating). These tests are typically for mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and material properties.
• No clinical studies were conducted for this particular submission, as stated under "Clinical Studies."

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and study details for an AI/ML device based on the provided text. The document doesn't discuss AI model performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity, nor does it mention training/test sets, expert adjudication, or MRMC studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

Components of the Signature Orthopaedics hip replacement range are intended to replace a hip joint where bone stock is sufficient to support the implant. When a surgeon has selected prosthetic replacement as the preferred treatment, the devices are indicated for:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis
• Inflammatory joint disease including rheumatoid arthritis
• Correction of functional deformity including congenital hip dysplasia
• Traumatic injury involving the hip joint including traumatic arthritis or femoral head or neck fracture
• Failed previous hip surgery including internal fixation or joint fusion, reconstruction, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement, or total replacement

Signature Orthopaedics' Origin, NEO-T, Remedy and Pegasus femoral stems, and Logical acetabular cups are intended for cementless fixation only. Signature Orthopaedics' Evolve femoral stems are intended for cemented fixation only.

Signature Orthopaedics' BiPolar Head is intended for hemi-hip arthroplasty only, where the natural acetabulum does not require replacement. The BiPolar Head is indicated for bone fractures or pathologies involving only the femoral head/neck and/or proximal femur, such as:

• Acute femoral head or neck fracture
• Fracture dislocation of the hip
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head
• Non-union of femoral neck fractures
• Certain high subcapital and femoral neck fractures in the elderly
• Degenerative arthritis involving only the femoral head

The Remedy™ and Pegasus™ hip stems are intended for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty. The Evolve™ hip stem is intended for cemented total hip arthroplasty. The Remedy™, Pegasus™ and Evolve™ hip stems connect to a femoral head (cobalt-chrome alloy or ceramic) via 12/14 taper connection.

The Remedy™ Hip Stem has a tapered wedge geometry. The stem is manufactured from titanium alloy per ASTM F136. The proximal stem is porous coated with titanium beads and particles per ASTM F67 and the distal stem is matte finished.

The Pegasus™ is a double tapered, straight stem with rectangular cross-section. The stem has a lateral wing for engaging the greater trochanter. The stem is manufactured from titanium alloy per ASTM F136. The stem is grit blasted below the resection line.

The Evolve™ Hip Stem is a highly polished, tapered wedge stem with a rounded crosssection. The Evolve™ Hip Stem is manufactured from high nitrogen stainless steel per ISO 5832-9. The Evolve™ Hip Stem is available in two variants, the Masters series and the Helios Series. Both variants share similar general geometry but are sized differently to provide a more complete range. The Evolve™ Hip Stem includes two accessories, the Evolve™ Distal Centralizer and Evolve™ Cement Plug. The Evolve™ Distal Centralizer is a PMMA cap that sits on the end of the Evolve™ Hip Stem and centralizes it within the femoral canal. The Evolve™ Cement Plug is manufactured from polyethylene per ASTM F648 and is pressed into the femoral canal prior to inserting the Evolve™ Hip Stem to allow cement pressurization.

The BiPolar Head consists of a stainless steel outer shell (per ISO5832-9) and a UHMWPE insert (per ASTM F648). The outer shell is highly polished to articulate against the patient's natural acetabulum. The insert articulates against a Signature Orthopaedics 28mm cobalt-chrome femoral head (K121297). The 28mm femoral head connects to a femoral stem from Signature Orthopaedics' range to complete the hip hemiarthroplasty.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for various hip implants (Remedy™, Pegasus™ and Evolve™ Hip Stems and BiPolar Head) and details the non-clinical performance testing conducted to support their substantial equivalence claim to predicate devices. It does not present acceptance criteria in a quantitative format, nor does it detail a clinical study with a control group or human readers.

Here's an analysis of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a table format. Instead, it lists general performance tests conducted and then concludes that "Non-clinical testing results support the substantial equivalence claim. The RemedyTM, Pegasus™ and Evolve™ Hip Stems and BiPolar Head are expected to perform adequately during clinical use."

The performance tests conducted include:

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 refers to "non-clinical testing and engineering evaluations." This implies in-vitro or bench testing, not patient data. Therefore, concepts like sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective for a patient-based test set are not applicable here. The "test set" would consist of the orthopedic implants subjected to the various physical and mechanical tests. The sample sizes for each specific test are not reported. The company is Australia-based (Signature Orthopaedics Pty Ltd, Lane Cove, NSW 2066, Australia).

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. The device is a physical hip implant. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to the physical and mechanical properties of the device as measured by engineering standards, not expert interpretations of medical images or clinical outcomes.

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

This question is not applicable as the evaluation involves non-clinical engineering tests, not human interpretation or adjudication of medical data.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic devices that involve human interpretation of medical images, often with AI assistance. The document describes hip implants, which are surgical devices, and the testing performed is non-clinical engineering evaluation.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This question is also relevant for AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) and does not apply to physical hip implants.

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

For this type of device, the "ground truth" for the non-clinical testing refers to established engineering standards, material properties, and biomechanical principles. For example, fatigue testing would compare the device's performance against known limits for medical implants, and material characterization would be compared against ASTM or ISO standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device. The "training" in this context would imply the manufacturing and design process of the device itself and the various components.

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

This question is not applicable for the same reason as point 8. The "ground truth" for the design and manufacturing of the implants would be established through engineering specifications, material selection criteria based on ISO/ASTM standards, and biomechanical research for hip implant design.

Ask a specific question about this device