Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(116 days)
Restoration ADM and MDM Systems (ADM/MDM X3 Inserts, MDM Acetabular Inserts, MDM Acetabular Liners)
Indications for Use:
The indications for use for total hip arthroplasty include:
- Noninflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
- Rheumatoid arthritis;
- Correction of functional deformity;
- Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed; and,
- Treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
- Dislocation risks
MDM Liners are intended for cementless use only.
Trident II Acetabular System (Trident II Cups (Clusterhole HA, PLS Clusterhold HA, Tritanium Clusterhole, Tritanium Multihole, Tritanium Solidback))
Indications for Use:
- Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
- Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
- Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
- Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.
When used with MDM Liners
- Treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
- Dislocation risks
When used with Constrained Liner:
- The Trident Constrained Acetabular Insert is indicated for use in primary and revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, joint or soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intraoperative instability.
The Trident II Acetabular Shells are indicated for cementless use only.
Restoration® Modular Hip System
The Restoration® Modular Hip System is indicated for use in:
- Noninflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
- Rheumatoid arthritis;
- Correction of functional deformity;
- Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed; and,
- Nonunions, femoral neck fractures, and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
Additional indications specific to the Restoration Modular Hip System
The Restoration® Modular Hip System is intended to be used for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty, as well as in the presence of severe proximal bone loss. These femoral stems are designed to be press fit into the proximal femur.
Secur-Fit Advanced
The indications for use for total hip arthroplasty with stems include:
- noninflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
- rheumatoid arthritis;
- correction of functional deformity;
- revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed; and,
- nonunions, femoral neck fractures, and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
Additional indication specific to use of the Femoral Stem with compatible Howmedica Osteonics Constrained Liners:
- When the stem is to be used with compatible Howmedica Osteonics Constrained Liners, the device is intended for use in primary or revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intra-operative instability.
The Stems are intended for cementless use only and are intended for total and hemiarthroplasty procedures.
Accolade II Femoral Stems
The indications for use of the total hip replacement prostheses include:
- noninflammatory degenerative joint disease, including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis;
- rheumatoid arthritis;
- correction of functional deformity;
- revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed; and,
- nonunions, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
Additional indication specific to use of the Femoral Stems with compatible Howmedica Osteonics Constrained Liners:
- When the stem is to be used with compatible Howmedica Osteonics Constrained Liners, the device is intended for use in primary or revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intra- operative instability.
The Stems are intended for cementless use only and are intended for total and hemiarthroplasty.
TRIDENT AND TRITANIUM ACETABULAR COMPONENTS
- Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
- Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
- Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
- Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.
The HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS TRIDENT and TRITANIUM Acetabular Shells are intended for cementless use only.
Dome hole plug is indicated for cemented or cementless hip arthroplasty, when an acetabular shell plug is thought to be advantageous
V40 COBALT-CHROME (COCR) FEMORAL HEADS (LFIT V40™ Femoral Heads)
- Painful disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
- Revision of previous cup arthroplasty or other procedures
- Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
- Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies in the acetabulum.
Insignia Hip Stem
Hip Arthroplasty Indications:
- Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: noninflammatory degenerative joint disease (including osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis), rheumatoid arthritis or post-traumatic arthritis.
- Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, hip arthroplasty or other procedure.
- Correction of functional deformity
- Treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
Additional indication specific to use of lnsignia Hip Stems with compatible Howmedica Osteonics Constrained Liners:
- When the stem is to be used with compatible Howmedica Osteonics Constrained Liners, the device is intended for use in primary or revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intra-operative instability.
Additional indication specific to use of lnsignia Hip Stems with compatible ADM and MDM Acetabular Components:
- When the stem is to be used with compatible Howmedica Osteonics ADM and MDM Acetabular Components, the device is indicated for Dislocation risks
Insignia Femoral Stems are intended for cementless use only and are intended for total and hemiarthroplasty procedures.
Restoration Anatomic Shells
Indications for Use
- Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, posttraumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
- Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
- Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
- Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.
When used with MDM Liners
- Treatment of nonunion, femoral neck and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement that are unmanageable using other techniques.
- Dislocation risks
When used with Constrained Liner:
- The Trident Constrained Acetabular Insert is indicated for use in primary and revision patients at high risk of hip dislocation due to a history of prior dislocation, bone loss, joint or soft tissue laxity, neuromuscular disease, or intraoperative instability.
The Restoration® Anatomic Shell is indicated for cementless use only.
Trident X3, Trident X3 Elevated Rim, Trident X3 Eccentric Inserts)
Indications for Use:
- Painful, disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
- Revision of previous unsuccessful femoral head replacement, cup arthroplasty or other procedure.
- Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
- Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies of the acetabulum.
BIOLOX Delta Ceramic V40 Femoral Heads (V40)
The femoral heads are intended for mechanical fixation to their mating hip stems, and can be used in cemented or cementless hip arthroplasty procedures.
For Use as a Total Hip Replacement:
- Painful disabling joint disease of the hip resulting from: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis or late stage avascular necrosis.
- Revision of previous cup arthroplasty or other procedures.
- Clinical management problems where arthrodesis or alternative reconstructive techniques are less likely to achieve satisfactory results.
- Where bone stock is of poor quality or is inadequate for other reconstructive techniques as indicated by deficiencies in the acetabulum.
For Use as a Bipolar Hip Replacement
- Femoral head/neck fractures or non-unions.
- Aseptic necrosis of the femoral head.
- Osteo-, rheumatoid, and post traumatic arthritis of the hip with minimal acetabular involvement or distortion.
- Pathological considerations or age considerations which indicate a more conservative acetabular procedure and an avoidance of the use of bone cement in the acetabulum.
- Salvage of failed total hip arthroplasty
"D" femoral heads
The Novae® Dual Mobility and Hype® hip Systems are indicated for total hip replacement, which includes:
- osteoarthritis,
- femoral neck fracture,
- dislocation risk,
- osteonecrosis of the femoral head,
- revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed and if bone reconstruction so permits.
- Sunfit TH, Novae® E TH, and Coptos TH acetabular cups are intended for press-fit use and Novae® Stick acetabular cup is indicated for cemented use.
- Hype® SCS, SCC, SCL, SCV, SCC Mini, and SCLA Mini hip stems are intended for press-fit use.
"C" femoral heads
The Novae® Dual Mobility and Hype® hip Systems are indicated for total hip replacement, which includes:
- osteoarthritis,
- femoral neck fracture,
- dislocation risk,
- osteonecrosis of the femoral head,
- revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed and if bone reconstruction so permits.
- Sunfit TH, Novae® E TH, and Coptos TH acetabular cups are intended for press-fit use and Novae® Stick acetabular cup is indicated for cemented use.
- Hype® SCS, SCC, SCL, SCV, SCC Mini, and SCLA Mini hip stems are intended for press-fit use.
Hype® SC cementless hip stems
The Novae® Dual Mobility and Hype® hip Systems are indicated for total hip replacement, which includes:
- osteoarthritis,
- femoral neck fracture,
- dislocation risk,
- osteonecrosis of the femoral head,
- revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed and if bone reconstruction so permits.
- Sunfit TH, Novae® E TH, and Coptos TH acetabular cups are intended for press-fit use and Novae® Stick acetabular cup is indicated for cemented use.
- Hype® SCS, SCC, SCL, SCV, SCC Mini, and SCLA Mini hip stems are intended for press-fit use.
Novae® dual mobility acetabular cup range including Novae® cementless or cemented metal‑backs, CI E and XPEO‑E liners, pegs and VCI screws
- Novae® dual mobility acetabular cups are indicated for total hip replacement, which includes:
- osteoarthritis,
- femoral neck fracture,
- dislocation risk,
- osteonecrosis of the femoral head,
- revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed and if bone reconstruction so permits.
- "Sunfit TH", "Novae E TH" and "Coptos TH" acetabular cups are intended for press-fit use.
- Novae® Stick acetabular cup is intended for cemented use.
The devices covered by this submission are Stryker and Serf femoral stems, femoral heads, acetabular shells and liner, and Serf acetabular bone screw, to form traditional hip or dual mobility (DM) hip systems. All devices are commercially available and have been cleared in prior 510(k) submissions.
This FDA 510(k) clearance letter details the clearance of Stryker and Serf hip devices. It's important to note that this document is for traditional medical devices (implants) and NOT for a medical device (AI/ML) software. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI/ML software performance (like accuracy, F1 score, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies) are not applicable to this submission.
The "device" in this context refers to the physical hip implant components. The submission (K250989) is primarily for updating labeling to inform users of compatibility between components from Stryker and Serf, and for adding MR safety information to Serf products.
Here's an analysis of the provided text based on the requested information categories, indicating when a category is not applicable:
1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
Since this is for physical hip implant components and primarily a labeling update for compatibility, the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" are based on engineering analyses verifying the physical and functional compatibility and MR safety of the combined components, rather than typical performance metrics for AI/ML software.
Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance (Implied) |
---|---|
Mechanical Compatibility: | Satisfied: Engineering analyses confirmed safe compatibility. |
- Wear and articular surface tolerances | - Acceptable wear and articular surface tolerances when combined. |
- Impingement | - No unacceptable impingement issues. |
- Range of motion | - Maintained appropriate range of motion. |
- Femoral head disassembly | - No premature femoral head disassembly. |
MR Safety: | Satisfied: Demonstrated safe under MRI conditions. |
- Heating | - Acceptable heating levels. |
- Displacement | - Negligible displacement. |
- Induced torque | - Acceptable induced torque levels. |
- Image artifact | - Acceptable levels of image artifact. |
Substantial Equivalence: | Achieved: Determined to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices. |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of clinical images or AI/ML data. The "test set" here refers to the physical samples of the hip implant components and their combinations. The document does not specify the exact number of physical samples tested for each engineering analysis (wear, impingement, etc.).
- Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical images. The data provenance would be internal laboratory testing results performed by the manufacturer. No country of origin for clinical data is relevant here. The studies were non-clinical (engineering analyses).
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)
Not applicable. For physical device compatibility and MR safety, ground truth is established through engineering principles, mechanical testing, and standardized MR safety protocols, not by expert consensus on clinical data.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. No clinical adjudication of results from image analysis is relevant for this type of device 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
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML software device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML software device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
Given the nature of the device (physical hip implants), the "ground truth" for the engineering analyses would be:
- Established engineering standards and specifications: For wear, impingement, range of motion, and femoral head disassembly.
- International standards for MR safety: Such as ASTM standards for MR compatibility testing (e.g., heating, displacement, induced torque, image artifact).
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML software device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML software device.
Summary of the Study that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:
The study that proves the device meets the (implied) acceptance criteria is a series of non-clinical engineering analyses. The submission states:
- Non-Clinical Testing: "Performance of the subject combinations of Stryker and Serf hip devices were evaluated in a series of engineering analyses. These included wear and articular surface tolerances, impingement, range of motion, femoral head disassembly, and MR safety (including heating, displacement, induced torque, and image artifact)."
- Clinical Testing: "Clinical testing was not required as a basis for substantial equivalence."
- Conclusion on Equivalence: "Based upon a comparison of the intended use, indications for use, design, material, sterilization method, technical and performance characteristics, and operational principles, the Stryker and Serf subject hip devices, when used in the proposed compatible combinations with each other, are substantially equivalent to the predicate devices identified in this premarket notification."
The FDA's clearance is based on the determination that these engineering analyses confirm the safety and effectiveness of the proposed compatible combinations and MR safety, demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. The acceptance criteria are implicit in the successful completion of these standard engineering tests for orthopedic implants.
Ask a specific question about this device
(118 days)
Cl../..X liner for NOVAE® Dual mobility Acetabular Cup is indicated for total hip replacement, which includes:
- . Osteoarthritis
- . Femoral neck fracture
- Dislocation risk ●
- Osteonecrosis of the femoral head
- . Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed and if bone reconstruction so permits
SUNFIT TH, NOVAE E TH and COPTOS TH are intended for press-fit use and NOVAE STICK is indicated for cemented use
The Cl../..X liner for NOVAE® Dual Mobility Acetabular Cup is made of cross-linked Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene which meet the strength requirements of the ASTM F648 and the testing listed in the ASTM F2565. The liner is mobile (free) in the NOVAE® metallic shell (clearance K111572) and retained on the prosthetic femoral head. Liners can be used with Ø22.2 or 28 mm prosthetic femoral heads.
I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your request about acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them.
The document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a medical device called "CI../..X liner for NOVAE® Dual Mobility Acetabular Cup." While it mentions that "Acceptance criteria were met for each test," it does not explicitly state what those acceptance criteria are nor does it provide a detailed description of the study that proves the device meets those criteria.
Specifically, the following information you requested is missing from the provided text:
- A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The text only generally states that "Acceptance criteria were met."
- Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned.
- Number of experts used to establish the ground truth and their qualifications: Not applicable for this type of mechanical testing.
- Adjudication method: Not applicable for this type of mechanical testing.
- Multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: The document explicitly states "No clinical studies were performed."
- Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study: Not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.
- Type of ground truth used: For mechanical tests, the ground truth would be the physical measurements themselves against established standards, but details are not provided.
- Sample size for the training set: Not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
The document only lists the types of non-clinical tests performed:
- Dimensional analysis
- Head insertion force
- Head lever out force
- Wear analysis
And states that these tests were conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on design, materials, and mechanical performance according to ASTM standards. It concludes that the device is substantially equivalent based on these non-clinical tests.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1