Search Results

The device is used for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions:

1. Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
2. Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
3. Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
4. Correction of functional deformity.
5. Treatment of nonunion femoral neck and trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur with head involvement that is unmanageable using other techniques.
   The device is intended for cementless use.

The subject device designed for total hip arthroplasty includes acetabular components and femoral components. The acetabular components are composed of a highly crosslinked ultra - high - molecular - weight - polyethylene articulating bearing surface fixed in a metal shell acetabular cup, while metal shell could be fixed with acetabulum by Ti Cancellous Screw and optional screw hole cover. The femoral component is composed of a ceramic femoral head.
U-Motion II Acetabular Cup includes U-Motion II HA Cup and U-Motion II PS Cup. It is manufactured from titanium alloy forging (ASTM F620) which are forged by titanium alloy bars conforming to ASTM F136. The outer surface of U-Motion II HA Cup is coated with dual coatings, CP Ti powder (ASTM F1580) for the inner layer and HA (ASTM F1185) for the outer layer. The materials of substrate and coating layers are identical to previous cleared "UNITED" U2 Acetabular Component (K050262, K12177). The outer surface of U-Motion II PS Cup is coated with CP Ti power. There are nineteen sizes of acetabular shell available, ranging from 44 through 80 mm outer diameter in 2 mm increments. U-Motion II Cup has a snap fit locking groove for acceptance of the U-Motion II XPE Cup Liner.
Clustered-hole and multi-hole series of U-Motion II Cup have shell holes for Ti Cancellous Screw fixation to the acetabulum. Ti Cancellous Screw are self tapping and in a 6.5 mm diameter with length of 15 to 60 mm in 5 mm increments. The designs of screw are identical with the cleared screws (K050262), except for the design of screw head. This subject device also has screws and hole covers available to cover the shell holes if desired. Screw and hole covers are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V bar (ASTM F136).
U-Motion II XPE Cup Liner is manufactured from highly crosslinked UHMWPE which conforms to ASTM F2565 and the UHMWPE raw material is in accordance with ASTM F648 and ISO 5834. The materials are identical to previous cleared "UNITED" XPE liners of U2 Hip System (K111546). U-Motion II XPE Cup Liner includes 0° and 20° hood designs, which are available in 28 mm. 32 mm. 36 mm and 40 mm inside diameter (ID), The 28 mm inserts fit the acetabular shells with outer diameter (OD) ranging from 44-80 mm, the 32 mm inserts fit the acetabular shells ranging from 48-80 mm, the 36 mm inserts fit the acetabular shells ranging from 52-80 mm, and the 40 mm inserts fit the acetabular shells ranging from 56-80 mm.
40 mm Ceramic Femoral Head - Delta is an additional size extension to the previously cleared "UNITED" Ceramic Femoral Head--Delta (K103497, K112463). The materials, design, safety and effectiveness of this subject are identical to the previously cleared device (available in sizes 28 mm, 32 mm and 36 mm), except for its larger diameter. 40 mm Ceramic Femoral Head - Delta, developed by CeramTec AG, is made from an alumina matrix composite in accordance with ISO 6474-2 and is available in -3, +1, +5 and +9 mm of neck length.
U-Motion II Cup will be used with U-Motion II XPE Cup Liner, 40 mm Ceramic Femoral Head - Delta, previously cleared 28 mm, 32 mm metal Femoral Head (K022520, K111546) and Ceramic Femoral Head (K103479, K112463) in corresponding size. This device should not be used with those of another manufacturer's hip components since the articular and dimensional compatibility cannot be assured. The 40 mm Ceramic Femoral Head may be used with UTF Stem (K110245) and the stems made of titanium alloy in U2 Hip Stem series (K003237, K062978, K111546).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the U-Motion II Acetabular System, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document describes a bench performance testing approach to demonstrate the device's safety and effectiveness. The acceptance criteria are implicitly met by showing that the device is "capable of withstanding expected in vivo loading without failure" and that "there are no new issues related to the safety and effectiveness" as confirmed by these tests. The device performance is deemed satisfactory if it passes these tests.

No explicit quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., a specific threshold for shear strength, a maximum wear rate) are provided in this summary section, nor are specific reported performance values for each test type. Instead, the document states generally that a "review of the mechanical data indicates that the U-Motion II Acetabular System is capable of withstanding expected in vivo loading without failure."

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a numerical count of individual devices tested. The document refers to "the U-Motion II Acetabular System" and its components being evaluated against various ASTM and ISO standards for mechanical testing. These standards typically specify sample sizes for such tests.
   • Data Provenance: The studies were bench tests (laboratory simulations), not clinical data from patients. The document does not specify the country of origin for the data; however, the manufacturer is in Taiwan.

2. 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 type of study. For bench testing of medical devices like an acetabular system, the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering and materials science standards (ASTM, ISO), and the performance is evaluated by engineers/technicians against these predefined criteria, not by medical experts establishing a diagnostic ground truth.

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

   • This is not applicable as there was no expert adjudication process for this type of bench test. The results are based on objective measurements and adherence to specified test methods.

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:

   • This is not applicable. This submission is for a physical orthopedic implant (hip replacement components), not a diagnostic imaging AI device. Therefore, no MRMC study was performed.

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

   • This is not applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm. However, the bench tests performed are akin to "standalone" performance evaluations in that they assess the device's inherent mechanical properties and durability without human interaction (beyond setting up and running the tests).

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

   • The "ground truth" for this device's performance relies on compliance with recognized international and national standards for medical device mechanical testing (ASTM F1854, F1160, F1044, F1147, F1978, F1820, F2759, ISO 14242-1, ISO 6474-2). These standards define the acceptable mechanical properties and testing methodologies for such implants. There is no biological or diagnostic "ground truth" in this context.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This is not applicable. This filing is for a physical medical device (orthopedic implant), not a machine learning or AI algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set."

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

   • This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

This device is indicated in hip arthroplasty for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions:

For use as a Total Hip Replacement

1. Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
2. Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
3. Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.

For use as a Bipolar Hip Replacement

1. Femoral head/neck fractures or non-unions.
2. Aseptic necrosis of the femoral head.
3. Osteo-, rheumatoid, and post-traumatic arthritis of the hip with minimal acetabular involvement or distortion.

Cemented stem is designed for cemented use only.

This device manufactured from CoCrMo alloy (ASTM F1537) is an extension of cleared "UNITED" U2 Acetabular Cup and Femoral Head (K022520) and "UNITED" U2 Hip System (K111546). The material, design, safety and effectiveness of this subject are identical to the previously cleared femoral heads except for its offset. The previously cleared femoral head offsets for the U2 Hip System are -3, +0, +5, and +10 mm. This submission adds +7.5 and +2.5 mm offset heads for 28, 32 and 36 mm diameter sizes. This device is intended to be used with the previously cleared U2 Acetabular Cup Liner (K050262), U2 XPE Liner (K111546), U2 bipolar implant (K101670), Revision Stem (K062978), HA/Ti Plasma Spray Stem (K003237), Ti Porous Coated Stem (K003237), UTF Stem (K110245), Press-fit Stem (K111546) and Cemented Stem (K111546) in corresponding size. The differences of femoral head offset do not affect the intended use of the device or alter the fundamental scientific technology of the device.

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) submission for "Femoral Heads, +2.5 and +7.5 mm Offset," which are extensions of previously cleared femoral head prostheses. This submission focuses on the addition of new offset sizes.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

The document does not specify a distinct "test set" in the sense of a clinical or imaging dataset with a specific sample size. The evaluation for this device appears to be based on mechanical testing and design assurance processes, not human clinical data or imaging studies that would typically involve a "test set" of patients or scans.

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

Not applicable. The evaluation is based on mechanical testing and engineering principles, not expert interpretation of clinical data or images.

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

Not applicable. There is no mention of a test set requiring adjudication in the context of this device's evaluation.

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 mechanical implant (femoral head) and 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, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's acceptance stems from established engineering standards and regulatory guidance documents related to the safety and mechanical performance of hip implant components. Specifically, it relies on:

• Design Assurance Process Results: Demonstrating that the new offset configurations maintain the safety and effectiveness established for the predicate devices.
• Compliance with Guidance Documents: Adherence to "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document- Hip Joint Metal Polymer Constrained Cemented or Uncemented Prosthesis" and "Guidance Document for Testing Non-Articulating, 'Mechanically Locked', Modular Implant Components."
• Mechanical Testing Results: "Femoral Head Disassembly loads for the stems" were explicitly mentioned as being completed as part of the design assurance process to show safety and effectiveness.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This device is a mechanical implant and does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for this mechanical device, the concept of establishing ground truth for it does not apply.

Ask a specific question about this device

This device is indicated for use in total hip arthroplasty for the following conditions: painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis; correction of functional deformity; treatment of non-union, femoral neck fracture, and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement, unmanageable by other techniques; revision procedures where other treatment or devices have failed arthroplasty or other procedure.

"UNITED" 36 mm Ceramic Femoral Head – Delta is an additional size extension to the previously cleared "UNITED" Ceramic Femoral Head (K103497). The materials, design, safety and effectiveness of this subject are identical to the previously cleared Ceramic Femoral Head - Delta Components (available in sizes 28 mm and 32 mm), except for its larger diameter (available in sizes 36 mm). 36 mm Ceramic Femoral Head - Delta manufactured from zirconia-toughened alumina ceramic is available in -3, +1, +5 and +9 mm of neck length. This device is intended to articulate against XPE cup liners (K111546) and can be used in conjunction with U2 Acetabular Cups and U2 Hip Stem made of titanium. U2 Acetabular Cups include U2 HA/Ti Plasma Spray Cup (K050262). U2 Ti Plasma Spray Cup (K050262) and U2 Ti Porous Cup (K111546), while U2 Hip Stem include HA/Ti Plasma Spray Stem (K003237), Ti Porous Coated Stem (K003237), Ti Plasma Spray Revision Stem (K062978), Ti Press-fit Stem (K111546) and UTF Stem (K110245). The size extension does not affect the intended use of the device or alter the fundamental scientific technology of the device.

This document describes the acceptance criteria and the study conducted for the "36 mm Ceramic Femoral Head, Delta" device (K112463).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly detail specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a performance table for the "36 mm Ceramic Femoral Head, Delta" device in terms of clinical outcomes or specific thresholds for mechanical tests. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through various tests.

The performance data section states: "This 510(k) was prepared in accordance with 'Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications for Ceramic Ball Hip Systems'. Burst test, fatigue test, burst test for post-fatigue, rotational resistance test and pull-off test. completed as part of the design assurance process demonstrated that this device is safe and effective and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device."

This implies that the acceptance criteria for each of these tests were met by comparing the results to those of the predicate devices or to established industry standards outlined in the referenced guidance document. Without the specific guidance document or detailed test reports, the precise numerical acceptance criteria and the exact reported performance cannot be extracted from the provided text.

However, based on the text, the following can be inferred:

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

The text does not specify the exact sample sizes used for each of the "burst test, fatigue test, burst test for post-fatigue, rotational resistance test and pull-off test." The data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective, beyond being "completed as part of the design assurance process." Given the nature of these tests for an orthopedic implant, they would typically be laboratory-based mechanical tests performed on newly manufactured devices.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The study described is a mechanical performance study, not one requiring expert human interpretation for ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The study described is a mechanical performance study, not one requiring adjudication by human experts.

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 information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the mechanical performance tests (burst, fatigue, rotational resistance, pull-off) would be the objective, quantitative measurements derived from the tests themselves, as compared against established engineering standards and performance of legally marketed predicate devices. It is based on objective physical properties and not on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the context of this specific 510(k) submission for mechanical properties.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The described study is a mechanical performance evaluation of an orthopedic implant, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document, as there is no training set mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device