Search Results

ONE Planner™ Hip is intended for use as preoperative surgical planning software to aid orthopedic surgeons in component selection, sizing and placement for primary total hip arthroplasty.

ONE Planner™ Hip (OPH) is an interactive software application intended to be used as a preoperative tool for Total Hip Arthroplasty. It enables 2D sizing and positioning of implants in the patient's anatomy, calculates biomechanical measurements and performs functional analysis based on the patient's pelvic kinematics. The biomechanical measurements include measurements related to leg length and femoral offset. The functional analysis includes determination of pelvic parameters (e.g. pelvic tilt), and cup orientation calculations.

The software application consists of an automated templating system and a web-based templating user interface.

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the ONE Planner™ Hip, a software device for preoperative surgical planning in total hip arthroplasty. It details the device's intended use, technological characteristics, and the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, the document does not provide information on:

• Specific acceptance criteria and reported device performance in a table format.
• Details of the test set: sample size, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, or adjudication methods.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used for performance evaluation.
• Details about the training set: sample size, or how its ground truth was established.

The document explicitly states:

• "Software verification and validation testing was conducted to satisfy the requirements of the FDA Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices and IEC 62304 (Medical Device Software- Life Cycle Process)."
• "The software is considered a 'moderate' level of concern, a malfunction in the device could lead to a minor injury."
• "Non-clinical testing was performed to assess the usability and performance of the ONE Planner™ Hip to demonstrate that the device functions as intended."
• "Clinical testing was not necessary for the determination of substantial equivalence."

This indicates that the clearance was based on non-clinical software verification and validation, and usability/performance testing, demonstrating that the device functions as intended and does not introduce new questions of safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate device. It does not describe a study involving an AI component with specific performance metrics against a ground truth, expert readers, or a test/training set in the context of an AI-driven medical device. The "Acceptance Criteria" and "Study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of AI performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement) are not present in this document.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Based on the available information, here's what can be addressed:

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

• Not provided in the document. The document mentions "Software verification and validation testing" and "Non-clinical testing to assess the usability and performance...to demonstrate that the device functions as intended." It does not specify quantitative performance metrics or acceptance criteria for those metrics.

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

• Not provided in the document. The document refers to "non-clinical testing" but does not detail the size or provenance of any "test set" in the context of evaluating an AI model's performance; instead, it refers to software V&V and usability.

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

• Not provided in the document. Since "clinical testing was not necessary" and no AI performance study with a test set evaluated by experts is described, this information is absent.

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

• Not provided in the document.

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 provided in the document. The document does not describe any MRMC study or AI assistance to human readers.

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

• Not provided in the document. The device is described as "interact[ing]" with the user, suggesting a human-in-the-loop, but no standalone performance data is presented.

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

• Not provided in the document.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not provided in the document. There is no mention of a training set as would be relevant for an AI model.

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

• Not provided in the document.

Summary of what's described in the document regarding testing:

• Type of Testing: Software Verification & Validation Testing and Non-Clinical Testing (Usability and Performance).
• Purpose of Testing: To satisfy FDA guidance (IEC 62304) and demonstrate that the device functions as intended and does not introduce new safety and effectiveness questions compared to the predicate device.
• Level of Concern: Moderate (malfunction could lead to minor injury).
• Clinical Testing: Not deemed necessary for substantial equivalence determination.

Ask a specific question about this device

The product is intended for total or hemi hip arthroplasty with cemented applications for rehabilitating hips damaged as a result of:

• Advanced wear of the joint due to degenerative, post-traumatic, or rheumatic diseases
• Failed previous hip surgery including joint reconstruction (osteotomy), arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement (THR)
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

The Avenir Cemented Hip Stem is a femoral hip prosthesis that is designed for cemented fixation into the intramedullary canal for pathological or degenerative conditions involving the femur that merit total or hemi hip arthroplasty. The Avenir Cemented Hip Stem is a straight, doubletapered stem manufactured from Protasul - S30 stainless steel material. The tapered aspects of the stem match the Avenir-Müller Stem, and promotes self-locking of the stem within the femoral canal.

The provided document K131884 is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the "Avenir® Cemented Hip Stem." This document describes the device, its intended use, and its comparison to predicate devices, along with non-clinical performance data.

Crucially, this document explicitly states under the section "Clinical Performance and Conclusions:"

"Clinical data and conclusions were not needed for this device."

This means that a clinical study, including human performance testing or reader studies, was not performed to demonstrate the device's substantial equivalence or safety and effectiveness. The basis for clearance was non-clinical (lab) performance testing and comparison to predicate devices.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth, and training sets cannot be extracted from this document as such a study was not conducted or reported.

The document focuses on non-clinical testing such as:

• Accelerated Corrosion Fatigue Test
• Proximal & Mid-Stem Fatigue Testing
• Pull-off Strength testing and rationale
• Summary of Burst Strength Testing
• Range of Motion analysis.

These tests are designed to demonstrate the physical and mechanical performance of the implant itself, not the performance of an AI algorithm or human readers interpreting images.

Since the prompt asks for details about a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria related to AI or clinical performance, and the document explicitly states clinical data was not needed, I cannot provide the requested information based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BIOLOX delta Ceramic Femoral Heads are modular components used in total hip arthroplasty and indicated for the following:

Patients suffering from severe hip pain and disability due to rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, polyarthritis, collagen disorders, avascular necrosis of the femoral head, and nonunion of previous fractures of the femur; patients with congenital hip dysplasia, protrusio acetabuli, or slipped capital femoral epiphysis; patients suffering from disability due to previous fusion: patients with previously failed endoprostheses and/or total hip components in the operative extremity; and patients with acute neck fractures.

The BIOLOX delta Ceramic Femoral Heads are fabricated from an alumina matrix composite and are available in diameters of 28, 32, 36, and 40 mm with a range of offsets to accommodate various patient anatomies. They serve as an alternative to both metal and alumina ceramic femoral heads for use in total hip arthroplasty.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting study for the BIOLOX delta Ceramic Femoral Heads:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document describes the device, its intended use, and a comparison to a predicate device. It does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics (e.g., specific fatigue limits, wear rates, a certain number of cycles successfully passed). Instead, the performance is assessed against the substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. The document refers to "non-clinical testing" which implies mechanical and engineering tests, not patient data in the traditional sense of a "test set" for an AI or diagnostic device.
• Data Provenance: The "non-clinical testing" was likely conducted by Zimmer GmbH, which is located in Winterthur, Switzerland. However, the exact location of the testing facilities is not explicitly stated. The data is non-clinical/engineering (not patient data), so the concept of retrospective or prospective doesn't directly apply in the same way as clinical trials.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth:

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. For this type of device (femoral head prosthesis), "ground truth" is established through engineering principles, material science, and mechanical testing standards, rather than expert consensus on medical images or clinical diagnoses.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified, but implied to be engineers, material scientists, and regulatory specialists involved in medical device design, testing, and regulatory submissions.

4. Adjudication Method:

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This document describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device (a ceramic femoral head), not a study involving human readers or interpretation of results that would require an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1. The assessment is based on objective engineering test results and regulatory review.

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

• MRMC Study: No. This is a physical orthopedic implant, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted device that would involve human readers interpreting cases.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

• Standalone Study: No. There is no algorithm involved in this device. The performance is assessed through non-clinical (mechanical) testing of the physical implant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Ground Truth: The "ground truth" in this context is established through engineering principles, material standards, mechanical testing results, and comparison to established performance characteristics of predicate devices. This includes:
  • Results from pull-off testing.
  • Results from range of motion analyses.
  • Results from fatigue strength analysis.
  • Adherence to material specifications (alumina matrix composite).
  • Compliance with relevant ASTM or ISO standards for orthopedic implants (though not explicitly listed, this is inherent in regulatory submissions).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that uses a "training set." The development of the device relies on established engineering design principles, material science, and manufacturing processes, which are refined through iterative design and testing rather than a statistical training set.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established:

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as there is no training set in the context of an AI/ML model for this device. The "truth" for the device's design and manufacturing is derived from decades of knowledge in biomedical engineering, orthopedics, materials science, and testing standards for implantable medical devices.

Ask a specific question about this device