Search Results

The BiMobile Dual Mobility System is indicated for patients with mobility-limiting diseases, fractures or defects of the hip joint or proximal femur, which cannot be treated by conservative or osteosynthetic procedures. The BiMobile Dual Mobility System is indicated for the following conditions:

• · Primary and secondary osteoarthritis
• · Rheumatoid arthritis
• · Correction of functional deformities
• Avascular necrosis
• Femoral neck fractures
• · Revision after implant loosening dependent on bone mass and quality
• · Dislocation risks
  The device is intended for cemented and cementless use.

The BiMobile cup system is a dual mobility acetabular implant system. The system is consisting of wrought cobalt chromium molybdenum alloy (CoCrMo acc. to ISO 5832-12) metal shells with a highly polished inner surface, which are available in three different outer surface modifications. There is the cemented version with a glass blasted surface of concentric grooves, and two cementless versions where a pressfit generating macrostructure is covered by either a PlasmaLink (titanium plasma spray acc. to ISO 5832-2/ASTM F1580) or TiCaP (titanium plasma spray and calcium phosphate acc. to ISO 5832-2/ASTM F1580 and F1609) coating. For each size, from 42 to 70, a dedicated liner made of Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (conventional UHMWPE acc. to ISO 5834-2/ASTM F648) is available. These can be combined with ceramic or CoCr alloy femoral heads of sizes 22 mm (for Size 42-46) and 28 mm (for size 48-70). The purpose of this submission is to add acetabular liners in Vitamin E highly crosslinked UHMWPE (E-Dur) acc. to ASTM F2695, ASTM F2565 to the BiMobile Dual Mobility System. This premarket notification does not include the femoral components. The BiMobile Dual Mobility System is compatible with previously cleared femoral heads (K171273, K161840, K953653, K931571, and K920756), femoral stems and neck segments (K183141, K161840, K151008, K142187, and K953653,) of Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "BiMobile Dual Mobility System - E-Dur Inserts." It outlines the device, its intended use, and its comparison to predicate devices, focusing on the justification for substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not contain the specific information required to answer your request about acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, especially in the context of AI/ML or diagnostic performance. The provided text details non-clinical performance testing for a hip implant system, which involves material characterization, biocompatibility testing, wear analysis, and mechanical testing. These are typical assessments for orthopedic implants to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness in a mechanical and biological sense, not for evaluating a diagnostic or AI-driven system's performance.

Therefore, many of your specific questions cannot be answered from the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

The document mentions several types of non-clinical performance testing. While it states that the results "demonstrate that the device is as safe, as effective, and substantially equivalent to the predicate devices," it does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or reported performance values for each test (e.g., a specific wear rate limit or a minimum axial disassembly force). It only lists the types of tests performed.

Regarding questions 2-9 about test sets, ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and training sets, the document does not provide any relevant information. This is because the submission is for a physical medical implant, not a diagnostic device or an AI/ML system.

Here's why these questions are not applicable based on the provided text:

• 2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The tests performed are non-clinical (material, wear, mechanical) and do not involve patient data or diagnostic test sets.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of diagnostic or AI performance, is not relevant for this type of device.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for non-clinical mechanical/material testing.
• 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 a hip implant, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted interpretation device.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary: The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary are for a mechanical medical device (a hip implant system). The "performance testing" described is non-clinical, mechanical, and material-based, aimed at demonstrating the physical properties and durability of the implant. It does not involve AI/ML performance, diagnostic accuracy, human readers, or patient-specific ground truth data in the way your questions are framed.

Ask a specific question about this device