Search Results

BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility System is indicated for total hip replacement in the following conditions: - Osteoarthritis - Femoral neck fracture - Dislocation risk - Osteonecrosis of the femoral head - Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed and if bone reconstruction so permits

BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility Liners are designed to provide additional stability where there is an unstable joint and are for use in total hip arthroplasty that is intended to provide increased patient mobility and reduce pain by replacing the damaged hip joint articulation or a previously implanted prosthetic hip joint in patients where there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components.

The BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility Liners are intended for single use only.

BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility Liner is indicated for total hip replacement, which includes: - Osteoarthritis - Femoral neck fracture - Dislocation risk - Osteonecrosis of the femoral head - Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed are if bone reconstruction so permits

The BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility Liner is highly cross-linked ultra- high molecular weight polyethylene. The liner is mobile (free) in the metallic shell and retained on the prosthetic femoral head. The BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility Liner is compatible with all the stems listed on K181744 as well as all the BI-MENTUM™ cups cleared in K181744. The BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility Liner is also compatible with the PINNACLE® Dual Mobility Liner, cleared in K200854.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the BI-MENTUM™ ALTRX® Dual Mobility Liner. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, rather than establishing de novo performance criteria or conducting a clinical study with human patients and associated AI performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details (like sample size for test sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance, ground truth establishment, and training set details) are not applicable to this type of regulatory submission because the device is a mechanical implant, not an AI/software device.

The "acceptance criteria" in this context are the demonstration of mechanical and material properties that are substantially equivalent to predicate devices, ensuring safety and efficacy.

Here's the information that can be extracted:

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

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets its "acceptance criteria" (which in this context are the non-clinical performance standards to demonstrate substantial equivalence) consisted of a series of non-clinical tests as listed above.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as "sample size" in the context of patients or independent data points for an AI model. The tests were likely performed on a sufficient number of device units/specimens required by the respective ISO/ASTM standards.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/software device using medical image data from specific countries or patients. The data is generated from laboratory testing of the physical device.

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 this context refers to established engineering specifications and successful performance against industry standards (ISO, ASTM). The "experts" would be the engineers and scientists conducting and analyzing the mechanical tests, ensuring adherence to the standard methodologies.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used for human review of data, typically in diagnostic or clinical settings. Mechanical tests have objective pass/fail criteria based on measured values against specified thresholds.

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 an AI-powered diagnostic device that would assist human readers in interpreting medical data.

6. 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.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Expert Consensus / Industry Standards: The "ground truth" for the device's performance is defined by established international and American standards for orthopedic implants, specifically ISO 14242-2 (for wear testing) and ASTM F1820-13, ASTM F2582-20, ASTM F2003-02 (for mechanical properties like head assembly, retention force, impingement, and accelerated aging). These standards represent accumulated expert consensus on what constitutes safe and effective performance for such devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device. There is no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device itself is manufactured following standardized designs and processes, and then tested.

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

• Not applicable. As there's no training set, there's no ground truth to establish for it in the context of an AI model. The "ground truth" for the design and manufacturing of such a device is derived from extensive biomechanical research, clinical experience with previous generations of implants, and compliance with material and engineering standards.

Ask a specific question about this device