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

1. Noninflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis.
2. Rheumatoid arthritis.
3. Correction of functional deformity.
4. Treatment of non-union, femoral neck fracture and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement, unmanageable using other techniques.
5. Revision procedures where other treatment or devices have failed.

The Arcos One-piece Femoral Revision System hip components are single-use implants, intended for uncemented use only.

The Arcos One-piece Femoral Revision System is to be used as a femoral stem component in hip replacement surgery. The system is designed for both primary and revision total hip and hemi hip arthroplasty. All implants included in this system are intended for single use only. The system also includes implant specific instrumentation for all stem variants.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Arcos One-piece Femoral Revision System, a hip prosthesis. It does not describe an AI/ML powered medical device. Therefore, it does not contain the specific information requested in the prompt, such as acceptance criteria for AI performance, details of a study proving AI performance, sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or training set details.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the new device to existing legally marketed predicate devices based on design, materials, and principle of operation, along with non-clinical performance data.

Below is a summary of what is available in the document related to performance and equivalence, which stands in for the requested "acceptance criteria and reported device performance" as much as possible given the nature of the device:

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

The document does not provide a table of quantitative acceptance criteria typical for AI/ML devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the new device shares similar technological characteristics and performance (where applicable) to its predicate devices, or that any differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.

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. This is not an AI/ML device that uses a test set of data for performance evaluation in the way an algorithm would. The "tests" mentioned are non-clinical (e.g., fatigue), and no specific sample sizes for these tests are provided in the summary.

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. Ground truth, in the context of expert consensus, is not relevant for this type of mechanical device submission.

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

Not applicable.

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-assisted device.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical implant, not an algorithm.

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

Not applicable. The "ground truth" for a mechanical device like this is typically established through engineering standards, material science testing, and clinical experience with predicate devices, rather than expert consensus on diagnostic images or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set for an AI model.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device