Search Results

The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System is indicated for the fixation of fractures, mal-unions, nonunions or osteolomies for the clavicle, humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpal, tibia, fibula, malleolus and metatarsal.

The OIC Variable Ande Small Fragment Locking Plate System consists of titanium plates for the Distal Radius. Clavice. Proximal Humerus, Tibia and Distal Fibula, bone screws and instruments for implantation. The platety of sizes and are pre-contoured to match the anatomy of the patient and 3.5mm bone screws. The bone screws are available in two diameters (2.5mm) and range in length from 6mm to 130mm. The bone screws are available with both threaded (locking) and non-threaded (non-locking) heads.

The OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System implants are made of titanium alloy or cp titanium in compliance with ASTM F136 or ASTM F67.

The provided text describes a medical device submission (K140357) for the OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System. However, it does not contain information regarding traditional acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria in the context of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, primarily through engineering and material testing, rather than clinical trials with patient outcomes or AI-driven performance studies.

Therefore, many of the requested categories cannot be filled as the information is not present in the provided text.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the available information, with clear indications where the information is not present:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for K140357: OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System

The provided 510(k) summary for the OIC Variable Angle Small Fragment Locking Plate System does not detail specific acceptance criteria or clinical performance studies related to diagnostic accuracy or human-in-the-loop improvements for an AI device. Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through mechanical testing and material compliance.

The "acceptance criteria" can be inferred from the standards the device conforms to and the evaluation methods used to demonstrate substantial equivalence, which are primarily related to mechanical properties and materials.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable/not provided. The evaluation was primarily based on engineering analyses (FEA) and literature review, not a test set of data in the context of AI or clinical outcomes.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable/not provided. The document refers to "literature review" for comparative mechanical performance, but does not specify the origin of this literature.

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

• Not applicable. The ground truth for mechanical performance was established via engineering analyses and comparisons to published standards and literature, not expert consensus on a test set of cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. No test set requiring expert adjudication is described.

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 typically performed for diagnostic devices or AI-assisted interpretation, which is not the nature of this orthopedic implant submission.

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

• No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The 'ground truth' for this 510(k) submission relates to engineering standards, material specifications, and documented mechanical performance characteristics established through finite element analysis and literature review. It is not clinical pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus on patient cases.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is an orthopedic implant, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set. The "training" for its design and evaluation would come from established engineering principles, material science, and the design of predicate devices.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of this orthopedic implant. The benchmarks for performance (comparable mechanical properties, material compliance, etc.) were established through recognized ASTM standards, the performance of predicate devices, and engineering analyses (FEA).

Ask a specific question about this device