Search Results

The VEGA Knee System is indicated for use in reconstruction of the diseased by ostearthritis, theumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, the need to revise failed arthroplasties where pain, deformity or dysfunction persist, and for patients suffering from correctable valgus or varus deformity and moderate flexion contracture.

Posterior Stabilized (PS) components are also for aon-functioning posterior cruciate ligament and severe anteroposterior instability of the knee joint.

The VEGA Knee is designed for use with bone cement.

The Columbus Total Knee System is indicated for use in reconstruction of the diseased by osteoarthritis, theumatord arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, the need to revise failed arthroplasties where pain, deformity or dysfunction persist, and for patients suffering from correctable valgus or varus deformity and moderate flexion contracture.

Posterior Stabilized (PS) components are also for and on non-functioning posterior cruciate ligament and severe anteroposterior instability of the knee joint.

The Columbus Knee is designed for use with bone cement.

All Poly Tibia posterior stabilizing and cruciate retaining implants are a line extension to the VEGA Knee System® and Columbus Total Knee System, respectively. The posterior stabilizing version is being introduced to the VEGA Knee System® and the cruciate retaining, deep dish version is being introduced to the Columbus Total Knee System. The subject implants are available with an optional centralizer.

VEGA Knee System® is a semi-constrained cemented prosthesis with a posterior stabilized (PS) design. Columbus Total Knee System includes both cruciate retaining and posterior stabilizing variants of the femoral, tibial and meniscal components.

For both knee systems, the femoral component, tibial plateau and extension stems are manufactured from Cobalt Chromium Molybdenum alloy (CoCrMo), available with an optional Zirconium nitride (ZrN) coating. The tibial gliding surface (insert), patella and All Poly Tibia are manufactured from Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE). The optional centralizer, designed to be used with the All Poly Tibia is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). The patella and All Poly Tibia incorporate X-ray markers. The materials of the X-ray markers in the patella are wrought stainless steel and the All Poly Tibia X-ray markers consist of a titanium peg and a tantalum ball. The tibial plug is made of PEEK.

VEGA and Columbus Knee Systems are made up of numerous components available in various sizes. The VEGA Knee System® is compatible with Aesculap Columbus cruciate retaining/posterior stabilizing tibial plateaus (CR/PS and CRA/PSA) and augments.

VEGA and Columbus components are sterile and intended for single use only.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the VEGA Knee System® and Columbus Total Knee System, specifically regarding the introduction of All Poly Tibia posterior stabilizing and cruciate retaining implants with an optional centralizer. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices. However, the document does not contain acceptance criteria for device performance or a study proving that the device meets such criteria.

Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices by addressing technological characteristics and manufacturing processes. The "Performance Data" section briefly mentions:

• A risk analysis.
• Biomechanical testing.
• A comparison evaluation of wear.
• Biocompatibility of X-ray markers.
• Validation and verification of new instruments.

The conclusion of this section is that these analyses "raised no new issues of safety and efficacy for the design modifications described herein." This indicates that the intent was to show that the new components did not negatively impact the established safety and efficacy of the existing systems, rather than to present new acceptance criteria or a study demonstrating achievement of those criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text as it is not present. The document focuses on regulatory approval through substantial equivalence, not on quantifiable performance acceptance criteria and a study demonstrating their achievement.

Ask a specific question about this device

General Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKR) Indications:

• Painful, disabling joint disease of the knee resulting from: noninflammatory degenerative joint disease (including osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, or avascular necrosis), rheumatoid arthritis or post-traumatic arthritis.
• Post-traumatic loss of knee joint configuration and function.
• Moderate varus, valgus, or flexion deformity in which the ligamentous structures can be returned to adequate function and stability.
• Revision of previous unsuccessful knee replacement or other procedure.
• Fracture of the distal femur and/or proximal tibia that cannot be stabilized by standard fracture -management techniques.

The Triathlon® Tritanium® Tibial Baseplate and Tritaium® Metal-Backed Patella components are indicated for both uncemented and cemented use.

The Triathion® Total Knee System beaded and beaded with Peri-Apatite components are intended for uncemented use only.

The Triathlon® All Polyethylene tibial components are indicated for cemented use only.

Additional Indications for Posterior Stabilized (PS) and Total Stabilizer (TS) Components:

• Ligamentous instability requiring implant bearing surface geometries with increased constraint.
• Absent or non-functioning posterior cruciate ligament.
• Severe anteroposterior instability of the knee joint.

Additional Indications for Total Stabilizer (TS) Components:

• Severe instability of the knee secondary to compromised collateral ligament integrity or function.

Indications for Bone Augments:

• Painful, disabling joint disease of the knee secondary to: degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or post-traumatic arthritis, complicated by the presence of bone loss.
• Salvage of previous unsuccessful total knee replacement or other surgical procedure, accompanied by bone loss.

The Triathlon® Tritanium® Metal-Backed Patella is an extension of the Triathlon® Total Knee System product line for use in primary and revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. It is a sterile, single-use, non-modular metal-backed patella that is manufactured from UHMWPE (ASTM F648) and commercially pure titanium (ASTM F1580). The device is offered in symmetric and asymmetric designs that are available in multiple sizes. The metalbacking features a porous-coated posterior surface and three porous-coated pegs to provide cemented or cementless fixation to bone.

This document, a 510(k) Summary for the Triathlon® Tritanium® Metal-Backed Patella, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than presenting a study of a device meeting specific acceptance criteria through performance data. Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing an acceptance criteria study are not present in this submission.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This document does not contain a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance metrics in the typical sense of a clinical or analytical performance study. Instead, it lists non-clinical laboratory tests performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" in this context is the successful completion of these tests, implying that the new device performs comparably to the predicates.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test. For non-clinical laboratory testing, the sample size typically refers to the number of test articles (patellar components) subjected to each specific test. This tends to be much smaller than clinical study sample sizes and is dependent on the specific ASTM standard or internal protocol used.
• Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical laboratory tests, likely conducted by the manufacturer (Stryker Orthopaedics) or a contract laboratory. The "country of origin of the data" would typically be the location of the testing facility, which is not specified but presumed to be a regulated environment. The data is retrospective in the sense that these are engineering and material characterization tests performed on manufactured devices.

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

This information is not applicable as this submission is for a medical device and relies on engineering and material testing standards (ASTM) to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not on expert ground truth for an AI or diagnostic device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable. The "test set" here refers to physical components undergoing laboratory testing, not, for example, medical images requiring expert adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is used for diagnostic or AI-assisted devices to assess human reader performance. This submission is for a physical orthopedic implant.

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 concept applies to AI/software as a medical device, which this orthopedic implant is not.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this submission are the established engineering and material specifications, as well as the performance characteristics of the predicate devices. The new device is tested against these benchmarks (often defined by ASTM standards) to show that its properties are within acceptable ranges and comparable to the predicates.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of an orthopedic implant submission based on substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing. This term is relevant for machine learning algorithms.

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

This is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device