Search Results

The Initia Knee System is intended for use in total knee arthroplasty for the following indications:

1. Painful and disabled knee joint resulting from osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis where one or more compartments are involved.

2. Correction of varus, valgus, or posttraumatic deformity.

3. Correction or revision of unsuccessful osteotomy, arthrodesis, or failure of previous joint replacement procedure.

This device is for cemented use only.

The Kyocera Medical Technologies, Inc. (KMTI) Initia Knee System is a patellofemorotibial polymer/ metal/polymer semi-constrained prosthesis intended to replace a knee joint. The system consists of femoral, tibial and patella components intended for use with bone cement. The Initia Knee System includes both posterior-stabilizing (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR) designs.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Kyocera Medical Technologies, Inc. (KMTI) Initia Knee System. It details the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the KMTI A200 Knee System.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" with specific pass/fail values. Instead, it lists various non-clinical performance tests that were conducted and states that the results were "acceptable." The implication is that the performance of the Initia Knee System met the requirements established for these tests, likely aligned with the standards cited.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for each individual non-clinical performance test. It mentions "components" and "trials" which implies multiple units were tested per category.
• Data Provenance: The data is generated from non-clinical performance tests conducted by Kyocera Medical Technologies, Inc. ("KMTI"). The provenance is therefore internal testing by the manufacturer. The document does not specify the country of origin of the data beyond the manufacturer's location in Redlands, CA, USA. The data is prospective in the sense that these tests were conducted specifically for this 510(k) submission to demonstrate device performance.

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

This section is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical performance testing for a medical device (knee prosthesis), not an AI/software device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for these tests are the established engineering principles, material science properties, and consensus standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO) that define acceptable performance for orthopedic implants.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This section is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3. Performance is evaluated against objective engineering criteria and consensus standards, not through expert adjudication of subjective interpretations.

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 subject device is a physical knee prosthesis, not an AI or software-based diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, a MRMC study involving human readers and AI assistance would not be relevant.

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

This section is not applicable. The subject device is a physical knee prosthesis, not an algorithm or software. No standalone algorithm performance was assessed for this device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical performance tests, the "ground truth" is based on:

• Established engineering principles and biomechanical requirements: These tests assess the physical and mechanical properties of the device.
• Consensus standards: The document explicitly lists numerous ASTM and ISO standards (e.g., ASTM F1672-14 for patellar prosthesis, ASTM F1800-12 for tibial tray fatigue, ISO 7207-2 for articulating surfaces). These standards define test methodologies and acceptable performance metrics, which serve as the "ground truth" for assessing device safety and effectiveness.
• Comparison to predicate device: The fundamental basis of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device. Therefore, the predicate's known safe and effective performance also acts as a reference for the "ground truth" of what is considered acceptable.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable. The subject device is a physical knee prosthesis. There is no concept of a "training set" as there would be for an AI/machine learning model. The design and manufacturing process are informed by established engineering knowledge and previous experience with similar devices.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The Kyocera TRIBRID® Unicompartmental Knee System is indicated for use in patients with the following:

• Painful and disabled knee joint resulting from osteoarthritis, or idiopathic osteonecrosis, of . either the medial or lateral compartments.
• Correction of varus, valgus, or posttraumatic deformity. .
• As an alternative to tibial osteotomy in patients with unicompartmental NIDJD disease. .
• Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed. ●
  This device is intended for cemented use only.

KMTI's TRIBRID® Unicompartmental Knee System is a partial knee replacement prostheses intended for application with bone cement. Partial knee replacement components include femoral and tibial components. Femoral baseplates are CoCrMo Alloy while the Tibial implants are Ti6Al4V Alloy. The Tibial bearing inserts are made from Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) variations. Components are available in a variety of designs and size ranges intended for both primary and revision applications.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Kyocera TRIBRID® Unicompartmental Knee System, a medical device. It focuses on mechanical, non-clinical performance data rather than AI/software performance. Therefore, many of the requested criteria related to AI device performance are not applicable.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are based on demonstrating that its mechanical performance is sufficient for its intended use and is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. The document does not provide specific quantitative pass/fail values as acceptance criteria; rather, it lists the types of tests performed and concludes that the results support substantial equivalence.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details (based on the provided document)

Since the document describes a mechanical device and its non-clinical performance testing rather than an AI/software device, many of the typical questions for AI acceptance criteria and studies (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable.

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in this summary. Mechanical tests typically use a small number of samples (e.g., 3-6 or more, depending on the standard) to demonstrate compliance with a standard or to compare to predicate devices.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable. This is in vitro mechanical testing, not human data.

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

   • Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering specifications, material properties, and industry standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO), not by expert consensus on clinical data.

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

   • Not applicable. This is for mechanical testing, not interpretation of clinical imagery or data by experts. Test results are typically compared directly to standard requirements or predicate device performance.

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 a knee implant, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • Mechanical Testing Standards: The "ground truth" for this type of device is compliance with industrial standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO) for mechanical properties, durability, and wear, and demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices that have established safety and effectiveness through their historical use.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is non-clinical mechanical testing, not a machine learning model.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, this is mechanical engineering testing.

Ask a specific question about this device