Search Results
Found 3 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(274 days)
Intended Use: Plate and screw Implants are intended for temporary fixation, correction or stabilization of bones in various anatomical regions.
One-Quarter Tubular Plates 2.4/2.7 are indicated for fixation of fractures of the foot, hand, wrist, and forearm (including radius). The plates should only be used for load-sharing purposes, e.g., buttressing, tension banding, neutralization, or compression.
Straight Plates 2.4/2.7 are indicated for fixation of fractures, osteotomies, malunions and nonunions of the foot, hand, wrist, and forearm (including radius) and arthrodesis of small bones of the foot and hand.
Reconstruction Plates 2.4/2.7 are indicated for fixation of fractures of the foot, hand, wrist, and forearm (including radius)
Radius Distal Styloid Plate 2.4/2.7 is indicated for the fixation for fractures of the radial styloid that have metaphyseal comminution or as an adjunct to either volar of dorsal plate fixation when additional support of the radial styloid is required.
The Radius Proximal head plates 2.4/2.7 are indicated for extra-articular and intra-articular fractures of the proximal radius and multifragmented radial neck fractures.
The Radius Distal Volar Plates 2.4/2.7 are indicated for the fixation for fractures, fusions, or osteotomies of the distal radius.
One-Third Tubular Plates 3.5 are indicated for fixation of fractures of the elbow (distal humerus and ulna), and fibula. The plates should only be used for load-sharing purposes, e.g., buttressing, tension banding, neutralization, or compression.
Reconstruction Plates 3.5 are indicated for fixation of fractures of the elbow (distal humerus and ulna), wrist, and forearm (including radius), fibula, and calcaneus
Straight Plates 3.5 are indicated for fixation of fractures, osteotomies, malunions and nonunions of the elbow (distal humerus and ulna), wrist, forearm (including radius), and fibula.
Tibia T-Plates 3.5 are indicated for buttressing of partial articular fractures and bone fragments of the distal tibia.
The Clavicle Superior Plates 3.5 are indicated for:
- Fractures of the clavicle shaft
- Fractures of the lateral clavicle
- Malunions of the clavicle
- Non-unions of the clavicle
The Clavicle Hook Plate 3.5 is indicated for fixation of lateral clavicle fractures and dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint.
The Humerus Proximal Plates 3.5 are indicated for the fixation of fractures, fracture dislocations, non-unions and osteotomies of the proximal humerus.
The Tibia Proximal Lateral Plates 3.5 are indicated for:
- Split-type fractures of the lateral tibial plateau
- Lateral split fractures with associated depressions
- Pure central depression fractures
- Split or depression fractures of the medial plateau
The Tibia Distal Medial Plates 3.5 are indicated for the fixation of fractures, osteotomies, and non-unions of the distal tibia.
The Tibia Distal Anterolateral Plates 3.5 are indicated for the fixation of fractures, osteotomies, and non-unions of the distal tibia.
The Humerus Distal Dorsolateral Plates 2.7/3.5 are indicated for
- Intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus
- Supracondylar fractures of the distal humerus
- Non-unions of the distal humerus
The Humerus Distal Medial Plates 2.7/3.5 are indicated for
- Intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus
- Supracondylar fractures of the distal humerus
- Non-unions of the distal humerus
The Ulna Proximal Olecranon Plates 3.5 are indicated for
- Complex extra- and intra-articular olecranon fractures
- Non-unions of the proximal ulna
- Osteotomies
- Simple olecranon fractures
Broad Curved Plates 4.5/5.0 are indicated for fixation of fractures, osteotomies, malunions and nonunions of humerus, femur, and tibia.
Broad Plates 4.5/5.0 are indicated for fixation of fractures, osteotomies, malunions and nonunions of humerus, femur, and tibia.
Narrow Plates 4.5/5.0 are indicated for fixation of fractures, osteotomies, malunions and nonunions of humerus, and distal tibia.
T Plate 4.5/5.0 is intended to buttress metaphyseal fractures of the proximal humerus, medial tibial plateau and distal tibia. The plates should only be used for load-sharing purposes, e.g., buttressing, tension banding, neutralization, or compression.
T-Buttress Plates 4.5/5.0 are intended to buttress metaphyseal fractures of the proximal humerus, medial tibial plateau and distal tibia. The plates should only be used for load sharing purposes, e.g., buttressing, tension banding, neutralization, or compression.
LL-Buttress Plates 4.5/5.0 are intended to buttress metaphyseal fractures of the proximal humerus, medial tibial plateau and distal tibia. The plates should only be used for load sharing purposes, e.g., buttressing, tension banding, neutralization, or compression.
Femur Distal Plates 4.5/5.0 are indicated for distal shaft fractures, supracondylar fractures, intraarticular fractures, and periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur
Tibia Proximal Lateral Plates 4.5/5.0 are indicated for proximal shaft fractures, metaphyseal fractures, intra-articular fractures and periprosthetic fractures of the proximal tibia.
The Genostis Osteosynthesis System comprises of fracture fixation plates, corresponding screws and required surgical instruments. Different shapes and sizes are available to accommodate for different anatomical regions and locations of fractures. The plate screw interface is either locking, non-locking or, for some plates, realized by a combination hole offering both options (locking and non-locking).
All plates and screws are made of titanium alloy (Ti 6Al 4V ELI) according to ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3.
The implants of the Genostis Osteosynthesis System are sterilized by radiation and are delivered sterile.
The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Genostis Osteosynthesis System does not describe a study involving an AI/software device or human readers. Instead, it describes a traditional medical device (bone fixation plates and screws) and primarily references non-clinical (biomechanical and biocompatibility) testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
Therefore, many of the requested criteria related to AI/software performance, human reader studies, and ground truth establishment in a diagnostic context are not applicable to this document.
However, I can extract and structure the information that is relevant to the device's acceptance criteria based on the provided text, particularly concerning non-clinical testing.
Here's the breakdown based on the information available:
Acceptance Criteria and Study for Genostis Osteosynthesis System
The Genostis Osteosynthesis System is a traditional medical device (bone fixation plates and screws), not an AI/software diagnostic device. As such, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" proving it meets them are primarily based on non-clinical engineering and biological tests, not AI performance metrics or human-in-the-loop diagnostic studies.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Test/Standard | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|---|
Material Biocompatibility | Cytotoxicity (ISO 10993-5) | Satisfactory bio-compatibility endpoints | Performed; results satisfactory. |
Sensitization (ISO 10993-10) | Satisfactory bio-compatibility endpoints | Performed; results satisfactory. | |
Irritation/Intracutaneous Reactivity (ISO 10993-23) | Satisfactory bio-compatibility endpoints | Performed; results satisfactory. | |
Chemical Characterization (ISO 10993-18) | Satisfactory bio-compatibility endpoints | Performed; results satisfactory. | |
Toxicological Risk Assessment | Satisfactory bio-compatibility endpoints | Performed; results satisfactory. | |
Bacterial Endotoxin Testing | Acceptable endotoxin levels | Performed; results satisfactory. | |
Mechanical Performance | Screw Performance (ASTM F543) | Satisfactory mechanical performance | Performed; results satisfactory. |
Plate Performance (ASTM F382) | Satisfactory mechanical performance | Performed; results satisfactory. | |
Packaging & Sterilization | Sterility (Radiation) | Device must be sterile at delivery | Implants are sterilized by radiation and delivered sterile. Test conducted on final sterile product. |
General | Substantial Equivalence to Predicates | All non-clinical testing demonstrates substantial equivalence. | All testing indicates substantial equivalence to predicates. |
Note: The document states "All results were satisfactory" for all tests, indicating the device met the pre-defined acceptance criteria for each test.
2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact number of units or samples used for each biomechanical or biocompatibility test. It generally states that testing was "performed" and "conducted on final sterile product."
- Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated as "country of origin," but testing would be performed in a controlled laboratory environment. The tests are non-clinical (biomechanical and biocompatibility), not data from patients. The study is by nature prospective in that new manufactured devices were tested to meet the standards, not a retrospective analysis of existing data.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications
- Not Applicable. This is a medical device (hardware) clearance, not an AI/software diagnostic device that requires expert ground truth for interpretation of medical images or other diagnostic data. The "ground truth" here is the adherence to established engineering and biocompatibility standards.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- Not Applicable. As this is non-clinical mechanical and biocompatibility testing, there is no "adjudication" in the sense of reconciling expert opinions on diagnostic findings. The results are quantitative and objective measurements against established standard thresholds.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done
- Not Applicable. MRMC studies are for evaluating clinical interpretation of diagnostic results, typically with AI assistance. This device is a physical implant, not a diagnostic tool or AI.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
- Not Applicable. This pertains to AI algorithm performance. The device is a bone fixation system and does not rely on an algorithm for its primary function.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
- Pre-defined Standards and Controls: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by well-defined, internationally recognized (ISO) and American (ASTM) standards for material properties, mechanical strength, and biocompatibility. The device must perform within the specified parameters of these standards. For example, screws must meet certain torque resistance (ASTM F543), and plates must meet specific load-sharing characteristics (ASTM F382).
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
- Not Applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- Not Applicable. There is no "training set" for this type of medical device clearance. The design and manufacturing processes are established based on engineering principles and existing predicate device designs, with performance validated against the standards mentioned above.
Ask a specific question about this device
(258 days)
The Versalock Periprosthetic Femur Plates is indicated for temporary internal fixation and stabilization of fractures and osteotomies of the femur, including:
- · Periprosthetic fractures
- Comminuted fractures
- Supracondylar fractures
- Trochanteric fractures
- · Fractures in normal and osteopenic bone
- Non-unions and Malunions.
The purpose of this submission is to obtain marketing clearance for the Versalock Periprosthetic Femur Plates System which is composed of plates, screws and, a cerclage cable and related device.
The subject devices are designed for the treatment of femur fractures, particularly, periprosthetic femur fractures. The plates are available in the following design-types to be used according to the fracture location: Proximal and Distal Femur Periprosthetic Plates, Trochanteric Periprosthetic Plates and Condylar Femur Plates.
The plates are for use with the subject device screws to fix them to the bone. The following compatible screws are available for this purpose: Cortical Screws, Versalock Variable Angle Locking Screws, Versalock Variable Angle Screws, Versalock Variable Angle Cannulated Screws and Versalock Variable Angle Periprosthetic Screw. The Trochanteric Plate Fastening Screw is to connect one plate to another when a Trochanteric Periprosthetic Plates is used. The Versalock Spacer Screw is threaded into the plate hole prior to plate insertion to act as a spacer providing no contact between the plate and the bone surface.
The Gama Cable is a cerclage cable indicated to provide fixation and/or stabilization of the bone when it is not possible the usage of any screw. The Gama Cable related devices are the Gama Cable Lock and the Versalock Connector Screw. During the installation of the Gama Cable Lock is crimped to lock the movement of the cable, maintaining the tensioning applied while the Versalock Connector Screw , which holds the cable to the plate and set the proper cable routing position. The Gama Cable and related devices are used in conjunction with the Proximal or Distal Femur Periprosthetic Plates, or Condylar Femur Plates
The subject devices are made of made of titanium alloy (ASTM F136) with exception of the Gama Cable Lock which it is made of commercially pure titanium (ASTM F67). All the subject devices are coloredanodized.
The devices must only be used by qualified surgeons mastering the surgical technique, having been trained and qualified in orthopedic surgeries.
The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Versalock Periprosthetic Femur Plates System - GMReis. This document outlines the regulatory submission for a medical device and, as such, does not contain information about a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance testing.
Therefore, many of the requested sections related to clinical studies, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert ground truth adjudication, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance will not be available in this document.
Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted or inferred from the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document doesn't provide a table of explicit acceptance criteria with specific numerical targets. Instead, it states that performance was demonstrated through mechanical testing according to established ASTM standards. The "performance" in this context refers to the device's mechanical integrity and functionality, rather than a clinical outcome.
Acceptance Criteria (Standard Adherence) | Reported Device Performance (Demonstrated Adherence) |
---|---|
Adherence to ASTM F382 for plates (static and dynamic testing) | Performance of subject device plates was demonstrated through static and dynamic testing according to ASTM F382. |
Adherence to ASTM F543 for screws (mechanical testing) | Performance of subject screws was demonstrated through mechanical testing according to ASTM F543. |
Adherence to ASTM F2180 for cerclage cable (mechanical testing) | Performance of the cerclage cable was demonstrated through mechanical testing according to ASTM F2180. |
System construct testing for cerclage cable | Performance of the cerclage cable was demonstrated through system construct testing. |
Biocompatibility established via risk assessment following ISO 10993-1 | Biocompatibility was established through a risk assessment following ISO 10993-1. |
Equivalence in indications for use, design principles, materials, physical dimensions, and sterilization method to predicate device | The subject and predicate devices have equivalent intended use and equivalent technological characteristics. The subject and predicate devices are all manufactured from identical or equivalent materials and share equivalent design characteristics. The subject and predicate devices encompass equivalent physical dimensions and are to be sterilized by identical or equivalent method. |
No new issues of safety or efficacy raised by technological differences | Any difference in the technological characteristics do not raise new issues of safety or efficacy. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Sample Size: Not applicable. This document describes mechanical testing of physical device components, not a study involving patient data or a "test set" in the context of AI/diagnostic device performance. The sample sizes would refer to the number of plates, screws, and cables tested in the lab. This specific number is not provided, though it would typically be defined by the ASTM standards.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable. The data comes from internal mechanical testing, not patient data from a specific country or collected retrospectively/prospectively.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- Not applicable. Ground truth as typically defined for diagnostic AI/clinical studies (e.g., expert consensus on images, pathology results) is not relevant to this type of device submission. The "ground truth" here is the adherence to mechanical engineering standards, which is determined by test procedures and measurement against those standards.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable for the reasons stated above.
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 is not a diagnostic AI device, and therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant or mentioned.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- No. This is a physical medical implant device, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- For the non-clinical performance (mechanical testing), the "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering standards (ASTM F382, ASTM F543, ASTM F2180) and a risk assessment based on biocompatibility standards (ISO 10993-1).
- For the substantial equivalence claim, the "ground truth" is the characteristics of the predicate device, which the subject device is compared against.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned as this is not an AI/machine learning device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. There is no training set.
Ask a specific question about this device
(165 days)
The Femoral Neck System (FNS) is indicated for basilar femoral neck fractures in adults and adolescents (12-21) in which the growth plates have fused or will not be crossed.
The subject Femoral Neck System is comprised of implants designed to treat basilar femoral neck fractures as well as system-specific insertion instruments. The Femoral Neck System is a modular system consisting of four connected implant components forming a fixed-angle gliding fixation device which allows for controlled collapse of the femoral head. The implants are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and are provided in a range of dimensions. The same construct can be used for the left and right femur.
The provided text does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study related to an AI/ML medical device. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the DePuy Synthes Femoral Neck System, a metallic bone fixation appliance.
Therefore, I cannot provide a response to the prompt's request for acceptance criteria and study details for an AI/ML device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1