Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(50 days)
The OSSIOfiber® Interference Screws, are indicated for fixation of tissue, including ligament or tendon to bone, or a bone/tendon to bone in adults and children (2-12 years) and adolescents (12-21 years) in which growth plates have fused or in which growth plates will not be crossed by fixation. Interference fixation is appropriate for surgeries of the knee, shoulder, elbow, ankle, foot, and hand/wrist where the sizes offered are patient appropriate; Specifically:
- Shoulder: Rotator Cuff Repairs, Bankart Repair, SLAP Lesion Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, Acromio-Clavicular Separation Repair, Deltoid Repair, Capsular Shift or Capsulolabral Reconstruction
- Foot/Ankle: Lateral Stabilization, Medial Stabilization, Achilles Tendon Repair, Hallux Valgus Reconstruction, Midfoot Reconstruction, Metatarsal Ligament Repair, Flexor Hallucis Longus for Achilles Tendon reconstruction, tendon transfers in the foot and ankle
- Knee: Repair/Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament, Posterior Cruciate Ligament, Medial Collateral Ligament, Lateral Collateral Ligament, Patellar Tendon, Posterior Oblique Ligament, Iliotibial Band Tenodesis, MPFL
- Elbow: Biceps Tendon Reattachment, Ulnar or Radial Collament Reconstruction
- Hand/Wrist: Scapholunate Ligament Reconstruction, Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction, Radial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction, Carpometacarpal joint arthroplasty (basal thumb joint arthroplasty), Carpal Ligament Reconstructions and repairs, tendon transfer in the hand/wrist
The OSSIOfiber® Interference Screw is an orthopedic implant made of poly (L-lactide-co-D,L-lactide) (PLDLA) reinforced with continuous mineral fibers. The OSSIOfiber® Interference Screws are cannulated and fully threaded, available in diameters ranging from 6 to 12 mm and lengths from 23 to 28 mm. The polymer content degrades by hydrolysis into alpha-hydroxy acids that are metabolized by the body. The fibers are made from minerals that are found in natural bone. As the OSSIOfiber® implants degrade, the load transfers to the surrounding anatomy throughout the healing period of the implantation site. Substantial degradation takes place within approximately 18 months as shown in pre-clinical studies, thus eliminating the requirement for future hardware removal surgery.
The OSSIOfiber® Interference Screw is supplied sterile, for single patient use only.
The OSSIOfiber® Interference Screw is designed to be used with commonly available orthopedic surgical tools such as ISO 9714 compatible instrumentation such as ISO 9714 compatible instrumentations.
This document does not describe a study that uses AI or machine learning. It describes a medical device called the OSSIOfiber® Interference Screw and its clearance through the FDA 510(k) process. This process focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, primarily through non-clinical (laboratory/mechanical) testing rather than clinical studies with human subjects or AI performance evaluations.
Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/ML study acceptance criteria and performance data cannot be filled from the provided text.
Here's an analysis of what information can be extracted or inferred from the text related to the device's acceptance criteria and study, with explanations for the missing AI/ML specific data:
Device: OSSIOfiber® Interference Screw
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The provided 510(k) clearance letter does not specify explicit numerical acceptance criteria in the typical format (e.g., "pull-out strength > X N"). Instead, it states that the device was found to be "at least as safe and effective" and demonstrated "at least equivalent performance" to the predicate devices. The performance is assessed comparatively.
Acceptance Criteria Category | Reported Device Performance (vs. Primary Predicate K202535) |
---|---|
Pull-out strength (initial) | Demonstrates "at least equivalent performance" compared to the primary predicate. |
Pull-out strength (after in-vitro degradation) | Demonstrates "at least equivalent performance" compared to the primary predicate. |
In-vitro degradation profile | Characterized and is consistent with the degradation mechanism of the material. |
Torsional strength (initial) | Conducted for the OSSIOfiber® Interference Screws (comparison to predicate not explicitly detailed but implied to meet equivalence). |
Driving torque (initial) | Conducted for the OSSIOfiber® Interference Screws (comparison to predicate not explicitly detailed but implied to meet equivalence). |
Biocompatibility | Established based on referenced ISO 10993 data from previously cleared OSSIOfiber® devices and a rationale. |
Intended Use | Same as primary predicate. |
Principles of Operation | Same as primary predicate. |
Indications for Use | Similar to predicate devices, with identical indications to the primary predicate except for slightly different wording on knee repairs, and additional indications for pediatric patients (which are supported by design, materials, and performance). |
Material Composition | Similar to predicate devices (PLDLA reinforced with continuous mineral fibers). |
Design Characteristics | Similar to predicate devices (cannulated, fully threaded, various diameters/lengths). |
Manufacturing Methods | Same as reference devices. |
Sterilization Methods | Same as reference devices (EtO). |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "Pull-out testing," "Torsional strength," and "driving torque testing" but does not provide the number of samples tested for each.
- Data Provenance: The studies are "non-clinical data" and "in-vitro degradation." This implies laboratory testing rather than human clinical data. The country of origin of the data is not specified, but the submitter is "Ossio Ltd." in Caesarea, Israel. The studies are prospective in the sense that they were conducted for the purpose of this 510(k) submission, not gathered retrospectively from patient treatments.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of those Experts
Not applicable. This information is relevant for studies involving human interpretation (e.g., image analysis by radiologists). The described studies are non-clinical (mechanical and biocompatibility testing). Ground truth in this context would be defined by standard engineering and biocompatibility testing protocols, not expert consensus.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. No adjudication method is described because the studies are non-clinical engineering tests.
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 medical device clearance based on non-clinical performance and substantial equivalence, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive software. There is no AI component described.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This section is for AI/ML algorithms. No such algorithm is described.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
For mechanical testing (pull-out, torsional strength, driving torque): The "ground truth" is established by direct physical measurement according to validated test methods and engineering standards. The performance of the predicate device serves as the benchmark for comparison.
For biocompatibility: Ground truth is established by the results of ISO 10993 testing, which uses established biological endpoints and criteria.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This is for AI/ML studies. No training set is mentioned as there is no AI/ML component.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not applicable. This is for AI/ML studies.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1