Search Results

The MectaLIF implants in combination with supplemental fixation are indicated for use with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous spinal levels from L2 – S1 whose condition requires the use of interbody fusion. Degenerative disc disease is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These patients may have had a previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). Patients must be skeletally mature. Patients should have received 6 months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with the devices.

The MectaLIF 3D Metal are a line extension to the MectaLIF Oblique and Posterior PEEK implants (K110927, K131671, K181970 and K212831) and MectaLIF Oblique and Posterior TiPEEK implants (K133192, K181970 and K212831). Specifically, the purpose of this submission is to obtain the clearance of MectaLIF 3D Metal Posterior, Oblique and Oblique Dome additively manufactured from Ti6Al4V according to ASTM F2924-14. MectaLIF implants are used to replace a degenerative disc in order to restore the height of the spinal column structure. The devices are not intended to be coupled with other implants but are intended to be used with supplemental fixation and autogenous bone graft. The subject implants are provided individually packed, sterile and single-use.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device called "MectaLIF 3D Metal." This type of document is a regulatory submission demonstrating that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. It does not generally contain acceptance criteria or detailed study results for AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD), as it pertains to a physical implant.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set details cannot be extracted from the provided text because it is not relevant to this type of device or submission.

The document details the following for a physical medical device (intervertebral body fusion device):

• Device Name: MectaLIF 3D Metal
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3080
• Regulation Name: Intervertebral Body Fusion Device
• Regulatory Class: Class II
• Product Code: MAX
• Indications for Use: The MectaLIF implants in combination with supplemental fixation are indicated for use with autogenous bone graft in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous spinal levels from L2 – S1 whose condition requires the use of interbody fusion.
• Predicate Devices: MectaLIF Extension (K212831), MectaLIF Posterior Extension (K181970), MectaLIF TiPEEK (K133192), MectaLIF Extension (K131671), MectaLIF (K110927).
• References Devices: Mpact 3D Metal Implants – DMLS Technology (K202568), GMK 3D Metal Tibial Tray (K221850).
• Performance Data (Non-Clinical Studies): Mechanical standard tests (static and dynamic axial/shear compression, axial compressive subsidence), expulsion test, wear analysis, stereological evaluation, abrasion test, static tensile test, static shear test, pyrogenicity testing, biocompatibility assessment, and shelf-life evaluation. These tests are conducted according to various ASTM and ISO standards for intervertebral body fusion devices and implant materials.
• Clinical Studies: No clinical studies were conducted for this submission, as is often the case for 510(k) clearances when substantial equivalence can be demonstrated through non-clinical testing and comparison to predicates.

In summary, the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or performance studies related to AI/software, as it describes the 510(k) clearance for a physical orthopedic implant.

Ask a specific question about this device

Mpact 3D Metal Augments are intended for cementless use to the bone interface and are affixed to a compatible Medacta Acetabular shell using bone cement in hip replacement surgeries.

Mpact 3D Metal Augments are indicated in cases of:

• Acetabular dysplasia;
• Acetabular fractures;
• Revision of previous implants in the presence of insufficient bone quality or seriously altered bone structures.

The Mpact 3D Metal Augment II is an acetabular implant intended to be used in Total Hip Arthroplasty cemented to its Medacta compatible Acetabular Shell. It is provided sterile and individually packaged to the end user.

The devices subject of this submission are:

• Mpact 3D Metal Augments II from size Ø46 to Ø80, made of Ti6Al4V according to ASTM F2924;
• Double Augment Technique Screw, made of Ti6Al4V according to ISO 5832-3.

The Mpact 3D Metal Augments II represent the second generation of the Mpact 3D Metal Augments cleared within K171966.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a medical device, specifically the Mpact 3D Metal Augments II, which are implants for hip replacement surgeries. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on design and performance testing. However, it does not describe a clinical study in the traditional sense, especially not one that involves human subjects or assesses AI performance.

The provided text details non-clinical performance data and validations to support the device's substantial equivalence to its predicate. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria for AI performance, sample sizes for test sets in an AI context, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance.

Therefore, many of the requested sections (including specific tables for acceptance criteria and device performance based on AI metrics, details about test sets, ground truth establishment for AI, MRMC studies, and standalone performance) cannot be filled from the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is available:

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

The document describes performance testing as "Fatigue testing in single and double augment configurations" and "Rationale of comparison – EBM Additive Manufacturing Technology." It also mentions "Design Validation on Mpact 3D metal Augments II." However, it does not disclose specific acceptance criteria or quantitative performance results for these tests. It only states that "testing activities were conducted to written protocols" and these validations are "provided in support of the substantial equivalence determination." This is typical for a 510(k) summary, which generally summarizes the data rather than providing all raw or detailed results.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The "tests" here refer to non-clinical laboratory and material tests, not clinical studies involving patient data.

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)

This is not applicable to the type of device and study described. There's no "ground truth" to be established by experts in the context of material fatigue or design validation for an orthopedic implant as presented here.

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

This is not applicable to the type of device and study described. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials or studies involving expert review of medical images or outcomes.

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

There is no MRMC or comparative effectiveness study mentioned, as this is a physical medical device (hip augments), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

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

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

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

This is not applicable in the sense of medical diagnosis or AI performance. The "truth" for these non-clinical tests would be the physical properties and performance characteristics determined by established engineering and materials testing standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable, as there is no "training set" for an AI algorithm mentioned in this document.

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

This is not applicable, as there is no "training set" or "ground truth" for it in the context of AI.

Summary of what the document does provide regarding the study/testing:

The document describes non-clinical testing and validations performed to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of the Mpact 3D Metal Augments II to its predicate devices. These tests include:

• Design Validation: Performed on Mpact 3D Metal Augments II (details not provided).
• Performance Testing:
  • Fatigue testing in single and double augment configurations.
  • Rationale of comparison – EBM Additive Manufacturing Technology.
• Pyrogenicity: Control validated using bacterial endotoxin test (LAL test) per ISO11737-3 and European Pharmacopoeia §2.6.14, and in-vivo evaluation in rabbits per USP .
• Biocompatibility assessment.
• Shelf-life evaluation.

The document states that Medacta International S.A., based in Switzerland, submitted this 510(k). The tests are non-clinical, so data provenance regarding country of origin or retrospective/prospective does not apply in the same way as for clinical data. The studies are laboratory-based and conducted according to written protocols to ensure materials and design meet safety and performance standards for orthopedic implants.

Ask a specific question about this device