Search Results

The DYNASTY® Dual Mobility Inserts and Liners, when used with compatible acetabular shells and femoral heads, are intended for use in total hip arthroplasty for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients. In revision arthroplasties, all devices associated with the wear couple must be removed and replaced.

Indications for Use:

1. non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, ankylosis, protrusio acetabuli, and painful hip dysplasia;

2. inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis;

3. correction of functional deformity; and;

4. revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed;

5. dislocation risks;

6. treatment of non-union, femoral neck fractures of the proximal femur with head involvement which are unmanageable by other techniques

Dual Mobility Inserts and Liners are single use implants intended for uncemented arthroplasty.

The Dual Mobility (DM) Inserts and Liners are designed for use with compatible DYNASTY® acetabular shells, MicroPort Orthopedics non-skirted femoral heads and PROFEMUR® femoral stems, to create a system with two articulating interfaces in the acetabular joint space of the hip.

The E-CLASS® DUAL MOBILITY INSERTS are manufactured from Vitamin E cross linked polyethylene conforming to ASTM F2695 and are available with an inner diameter of 28 mm and outer diameters from 38 mm to 56 mm in 2 mm increments. The E-Class® DM Inserts are compatible with and provide a primary articulating surface for all 28 mm, non-skirted femoral heads.

DM CoCr Liners are manufactured from cobalt chrome (CoCr) alloy conforming to ASTM F1537 (Type 1) and are available with inner diameters from 38 mm in 2 mm increments. The DM CoCr Liners are designed to mate with all DYNASTY® acetabular shells via a taper locking mechanism and provide the secondary articulating surface for the E-Class® DM Inserts.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from MicroPort Orthopedics, Inc. to the FDA regarding their E-CLASS® DUAL MOBILITY INSERTS and DYNASTY® DUAL MOBILITY LINERS. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through mechanical testing.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than a clinical study evaluating human-in-the-loop performance of an AI device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" discussed are for the mechanical properties of the orthopedic implants, not for an AI algorithm's diagnostic performance.

Tabla de criterios de aceptación y rendimiento informado del dispositivo:

Study Information (Mechanical Testing)

This document describes a premarket notification for an orthopedic implant, not an AI/software device. Therefore, the questions related to AI device performance evaluation (e.g., sample size for test/training set, expert ground truth, MRMC study, standalone performance) are not directly applicable to the type of study described.

However, based on the provided text, we can infer some details about the mechanical testing study:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • The sample size for each mechanical test is not explicitly stated (e.g., "n="). Instead, it mentions "MicroPort has evaluated the subject E-CLASS® DUAL MOBILITY INSERTS and DYNASTY® DUAL MOBILITY LINERS and data demonstrates substantial equivalence..." This implies multiple samples were tested for each specified mechanical test to comply with the relevant ASTM/ISO standards.
   • Data Provenance: The testing was "performed for the subject E-CLASS® DUAL MOBILITY INSERTS and DYNASTY® DUAL MOBILITY LINERS" by MicroPort. The location is implied to be within MicroPort's testing facilities, likely in the US (Arlington, Tennessee, is mentioned as their address). It is inherently a prospective execution of validated test methods on newly manufactured devices.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable in the context of mechanical testing. "Ground truth" here refers to the precise measurements and evaluations against established engineering standards (ASTM, ISO). The "expertise" involved would be mechanical engineers and technicians conducting the tests and interpreting the results according to the specified standards.

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

   • Not applicable. Mechanical testing involves objective measurements rather than subjective expert consensus. Results are compared directly to numerical acceptance criteria defined by the standards.

4. 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 device or a human-in-the-loop study.

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

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm. The performance evaluation is inherently "standalone" in the sense that it's testing the physical properties of the device itself, not an algorithm's output.

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

   • The "ground truth" for mechanical testing is defined by the acceptance criteria specified in the referenced ASTM and ISO international standards. These standards provide the validated methodologies and performance thresholds for assessing the safety and efficacy of orthopedic implants.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning study requiring a training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set for mechanical testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Prime Acetabular Cup System is intended for use in total hip arthroplasty for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients.

Indications for Use

1. non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, ankylosis, protrusio acetabuli, and painful hip dysplasia;

2. inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis;

• 3. correction of functional deformity; and,

4. revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed.

Shells with BIOFOAM® coating are intended only for uncemented arthroplasty.

MicroPort is introducing the Prime BIOFOAM® Multi-Hole Shells as a line extension of its existing Prime Acetabular System (K170444, K171181, K180798, and K181598). The subject implants are single use only, are provided sterile, and are to be implanted only by orthopedic specialists in an operating room setting. Associated instrumentation is reusable, provided nonsterile, and are to be used only by orthopedic specialists in an operating room setting.

The Prime BIOFOAM® Multi-Hole Shell includes 10, 12, or 14 screw hole variations. The subject acetabular shells can be used with existing MicroPort devices listed in Section G, Table 3 to form a complete total hip system.

• Multi-Hole Acetabular Shells
  • Material: Ti alloy conforming to ASTM F620 O
  • Coating: Commercially Pure Ti Foam conforming to ASTM F67 O (BIOFOAM®)
  • Outer diameters: 42mm to 68mm with 2 mm increments O
  • Variants: 10, 12, or 14 screw holes O
  • Sterilized using Gamma Radiation O

This FDA 510(k) summary (K201157) is for the Prime BIOFOAM® Multi-Hole Shells, an acetabular shell used in total hip arthroplasty. The document asserts substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on design features, materials, and nonclinical bench testing.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a table format, nor does it provide numerical performance results against such criteria. Instead, it relies on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through design similarity and standard mechanical testing.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The document states "bench testing was performed" for mechanical tests, but doesn't quantify the number of units tested. For MR conditionality, predicate test results were leveraged, so no new test set was used for the subject device in this regard.
• Data Provenance: The document implies the mechanical bench testing was conducted by MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. The general provenance is regulatory submission data. The studies are non-clinical (bench) studies, not human subject studies, so concepts like "country of origin of the data" or "retrospective/prospective" do not directly apply in the same way they would for clinical trials. The data is generated ex vivo.

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

This section is not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical bench tests. "Ground truth" in this context typically refers to clinical diagnosis or outcomes for human subjects. For mechanical and material testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the physical properties measured against established standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This section is not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are relevant for clinical studies where expert consensus is needed to establish ground truth from patient data.

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

This section is not applicable. The device described is a physical orthopedic implant (acetabular shell), not an AI/software device that assists human readers in interpreting medical images. Therefore, an MRMC study is outside the scope of this device's evaluation.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This section is not applicable. The device is an orthopedic implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is established by:

• Standardized Test Methods: Adherence to recognized international and national standards such as ISO 7206 series and ASTM F series (F620, F67, F3090, F1820, F2068, F2052, F2119, F2503, F2182). These standards define how performance characteristics (like fatigue, frictional torque, material properties) are measured and evaluated.
• Material Specifications: Compliance with ASTM standards for material composition (e.g., ASTM F620 for Ti alloy, ASTM F67 for Commercially Pure Ti Foam).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable. As a physical orthopedic implant (not an AI/ML device), there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The design and manufacturing process are subject to engineering design principles and quality control, not algorithmic training.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device