Search Results

The PolyLock System is indicated for use in the treatment of bone fractures, osteotomies, arthrodesis, osteochondritis, and interfragmentary indications in the small bones of the hand and foot. Including, fusions of the forefoot and midfoot, stabilization of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th tarsometatarsal fusions, intercuneiform, navicular-cuneiform, talo-navicular, calcaneo-cuboid, and medial column fusions, first metatarsal osteotomies for hallux valgus/rigidus correction, first metatarsal fracture fixation, arthrodesis of the first metatarsal cuneiform joint, and arthrodesis/fusion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint.

The PolyLock System consists of various shapes and sizes of plates for the management of small bone orthopedic osteotomies, reconstruction, and trauma. Features include a low profile, limited contact plate capable of dynamic/manual compression, with threaded screw holes accepting both poly-axial and locking screws. The system also consists of poly-axial and locking screws with diameters consisting of 2.0mm, 2.4mm and 2.7mm and lengths from 8mm to 26mm. System instrumentation includes: drill bits, countersinks, K-wires, olive wires, depth gauges, reamers, driver shafts, guides, plate benders, clamps, and driver handles to facilitate the placement of the screws. The implants are intended for single use only. Instruments designed for bone removal are intended for single use only, such as: drill bits, countersinks, reamers, K-wires, and olive wires.

This document is a 510(k) Summary for the PolyLock Small Bone Plating System, which is a medical device. This type of regulatory submission in the US focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than providing clinical performance data against specific acceptance criteria like an AI device would.

Therefore, the provided document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets them in the context of an AI/ML device.

Specifically, the document states:

• "No clinical studies were performed" (page 4, "Clinical Test Summary").
• The review is based on substantial equivalence for "terms of intended use, design, materials used, mechanical safety, and performances." (page 4, "Substantial Equivalence Claimed to Predicate Devices").
• "Engineering rational was performed to show performance equivalence." (page 4, "Non-clinical Test Summary"). This refers to non-clinical bench testing, not clinical studies with acceptance criteria for device performance.

Without a clinical study, there are no acceptance criteria, no reported device performance against those criteria, no sample sizes for test sets, no ground truth, no experts, and no MRMC or standalone performance data.

Ask a specific question about this device