Search Results

CMRP:
The Customized Mandible Recon Plate is indicated for use in primary mandibular reconstruction with bone graft, temporary bridging until delayed secondary reconstruction, secondary mandibular reconstruction, and mandibular fracture fixation.

SMRP:
The Surgeon iD Mandible Recon Plate is indicated for use in primary mandibular reconstruction with bone araft, temporary bridging until delayed secondary reconstruction, secondary mandibular reconstruction, and mandibular fracture fixation.

The subject devices include the Stryker Customized Mandible Recon Plate (CMRP) and Stryker Surgeon iD Mandible Recon Plate (SMRP). Both CMRP and SMRP are intended to be used for rigid internal fixation of primary, secondary mandibular reconstructions, and fixation of mandibular fractures; and have an indication for use in primary mandibular reconstruction with bone graft, temporary bridging until delayed secondary reconstruction, secondary mandibular reconstruction, and mandibular fracture fixation. Subject devices have similar intended use and technical characteristics as the primary predicate device (K193136) and the reference device (K190696), and the additional language in indications for use statement is supported by the reference device (K014263).

The subject devices' plate(s) are designed and manufactured for one patient and/or surgeon specifically, and the customized patient-specific and surgeon-specific design of the plate(s) allows certain features to be configured to meet the individual needs of each patient and surgeon. The subject devices' plate has additional design configuration options (such as branches and flanges, and updated plate bar widths of 5.75-7.5mm) when compared to the primary predicate device. The subject devices' plate(s) are provided with the Design Proposal document, an Instruction for Use (IFU), and an optional Anatomical Model. Additionally, the subject device is compatible with a separately provided Surgical Guides accessory.

The provided text describes a medical device submission (K222650) for the Stryker Customized Mandible Recon Plate and Stryker Surgeon iD Mandible Recon Plate. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a study proving the device meets clinical acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth cannot be extracted from this document, as it pertains to clinical performance which was explicitly stated as not required.

However, the document does mention "performance testing" related to mechanical strength and "End User Validation" that met pre-defined acceptance criteria.

Here's the information that can be extracted, and where details are missing:

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

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for mechanical strength testing (e.g., number of plates tested). Not specified for end-user validation.
• Data Provenance: Not specified.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Number of Experts: For End User Validation, it refers to "skilled users" and "surgeons," but the specific number is not provided.
• Qualifications of Experts: It specifies "skilled users" and "surgeons" for the end-user validation, but further details on their specific qualifications or experience are not provided.

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

• Not applicable to the mechanical bench testing or the described end-user validation.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission is for a physical medical device (bone plate), not an AI/software device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm/AI device.

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

• Mechanical Strength Testing: The "ground truth" or reference for evaluating mechanical strength was established by "the corresponding worst case design" and the tests performed "according to the standards ASTM F382 and ASTM STP 731."
• End User Validation: The "ground truth" was whether the "user needs / design inputs were met." This was assessed by surgeons in a simulated use scenario.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device