Search Results

Triathlon® Hinge Knee System is intended to be implanted with bone cement for the following condition(s):

• There is destruction of the joint surfaces, with or without significant bone deformity.
• The cruciate and/or collateral ligaments do not stabilize the knee joint.
• The ligaments are inadequate and/or the musculature is weak. And/or
• Revision is required of a failed prosthesis where there has been gross instability, with or without bone loss or inadequate soft tissue.

When used with MRH femur and/or MRH tibial baseplate replacement indicated in revision of an existing prosthesis:

• Revision is required of a failed prosthesis where there has been gross instability, with or without bone loss or inadequate soft tissue.

When used with compatible GMRS components:

• Where segmental resection and/or replacement of femur and/or proximal tibia is required

The subject THK components are a line extension of the previously cleared Triathlon® Hinge Knee System (K223528, K230416). The THK System (K223528, K230416) is a tricompartmental knee system consisting of a stemmed femoral component and a stemmed tibial bearing component connected by a set of previously cleared MRH or THK Bushings and an MRH or THK Axle (K994207, K002552, K223528, K230416). A bumper locks this assembly. This assembly provides motion through the MRH or THK Axle/Bushings combination in the flexion/extension plane. The articulation between the bearing surfaces on the underside of a tibial bearing component and a tibial insert provides motion in the rotating plane. A hinge tibial insert is assembled to a Triathlon® Hinge Revision Tibial Baseplate that incorporates a longitudinal bore to accept a previously cleared MRH Tibial Sleeve (K994207, K002552) or Triathlon Tibial Sleeve (K223528, K230416). Optional distal femoral and tibial augments are available to fill bone defects.

The subject Triathlon® Hinge Small Proximal Tibial Bearing Component and Triathlon® End Cap are sterile, single use devices intended for cemented use only and are being added to the previously cleared THK system (K223528, K230416) as an extension. They can be used with previously cleared MRH Knee components (K994207, K002552), GMRS (K023087, K222056), and Triathlon® Knee System components (K172634, K172326, K190991, K143393, K141056, K132624, K070095, K061521, K053514, K052917, K051948, K051146, K040267).

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter is for a mechanical medical device (a knee implant system), not an AI/software as a medical device. Therefore, the request for "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" using metrics relevant to AI/software (like sensitivity, specificity, MRMC studies, ground truth for training/test sets, etc.) is not applicable here.

The document provided details about the substantial equivalence of the "Triathlon® Hinge Knee System" to previously cleared predicate devices. The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria for a mechanical implant typically involves non-clinical (benchtop) testing and engineering analyses to demonstrate performance, material compatibility, and safety, rather than clinical trials or AI performance evaluations with ground truth.

Here's how the provided information relates to the typical evaluation of such a device, addressing the closest analogues to your requested points:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for a Mechanical Implant:

For mechanical implants like the Triathlon® Hinge Knee System, "acceptance criteria" are generally tied to the successful completion of various non-clinical (benchtop) tests and analyses. These tests simulate the physical stresses and conditions the implant will experience in the human body. The "study" proving the device meets these criteria is the execution and successful outcome of these non-clinical tests.

No direct table of "acceptance criteria" vs. "reported device performance" in the AI sense is provided in this 510(k) summary. Instead, the summary lists the types of non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate performance and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The implied acceptance is that the device passed these tests, meaning its performance in these simulated scenarios was deemed acceptable and comparable to existing, legally marketed devices.

Table of Non-Clinical Tests (Analogous to Performance Metrics):

Ask a specific question about this device

The Stryker Spine Tritanium® PL Cage is an intervertebral body fusion device indicated for use with autograft and/or allogenic bone graft comprised of cancellous and/or corticocancellous bone graft when used as an adjunct to fusion in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level or two contiguous levels from L2 to S1.

DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. The DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). These patients should be skeletally mature and have six months of nonoperative therapy.

Additionally, the Tritanium® PL Cage can be used as an adjunct to fusion in patients diagnosed with degenerative scoliosis.

The Tritanium® PL Cage is to be implanted via a posterior approach.

The Tritanium® PL Cage is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation systems that have been cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine.

The Tritanium® PL Intervertebral Body Fusion Cage is intended for use as an aid in lumbar spinal fixation. The cage is a hollow, rectangular implant that consists of a unique configuration of both solid and porous structures that are simultaneously built using Laser Rapid Manufacturing (LRM) method applying Stryker's proprietary Tritanium® In-Growth Technology. The lordotic angles to adapt to a variety of patient anatomies. It has serrations on the superior and inferior porous surfaces of the implant for fixation, an ergonomically shaped anterior edge, and a flat posterior edge. The implant is designed to be used with supplemental fixation cleared for use in the lumbosacral spine. The Tritanium® PL cages are constructed from Titanium alloy: Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F1472-08) and are provided sterile.

The provided text is related to a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Tritanium® PL Cage," an intervertebral body fusion device. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and does not detail a study involving AI or human reader performance. Therefore, I cannot provide information on the majority of the requested points.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and the summary of non-clinical testing for the device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document describes non-clinical testing performed in compliance with specific guidance and ASTM standards to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The "reported device performance" is the successful compliance with these tests, indicating that the device met the required mechanical and material properties.

The following points cannot be answered based on the provided text, as the document describes a 510(k) submission for an intervertebral body fusion device focusing on mechanical and material testing, not a study involving AI for image analysis or human reader performance.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable/Not provided. The testing described is mechanical and material testing of the device itself, not a clinical study with patients or data.
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/Not provided. Ground truth in the context of AI or diagnostic studies is not relevant to the mechanical device testing described.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable/Not provided.
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: No. This type of study was not conducted or reported.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: No. This is not an AI algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable/Not provided. The "ground truth" for this device would be its physical and mechanical properties as measured against established standards.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable/Not provided. This is not an AI algorithm, so there is no training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable/Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device