Search Results

The NBD Cement Restrictor Device is intended for use as a cement restrictor in orthopedic surgeries such as those involving the femoral canal and tibial plateau in hip stem and total knee replacement. The NBD Cement Restrictor is NOT intended for any spinal indications.

The NBD Cement Restrictor Device is a hollow, titanium, rounded rectangular frame with fenestrated surfaces on all sides and 1mm toothed spikes on opposite sides. The device is intended to be used in conjunction with standard PMMA cement.

The provided text describes a medical device, the NBD Cement Restrictor, and its 510(k) submission to the FDA. However, it does not contain the specific information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria, a study proving the device meets those criteria, or details about training and test sets, expert involvement, or comparative effectiveness studies.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Device Description: What the NBD Cement Restrictor is (hollow, titanium, rounded rectangular frame with fenestrated surfaces and spikes).
• Intended Use: As a cement restrictor in orthopedic surgeries like hip stem and total knee replacement, specifically excluding acetabular cup surgeries.
• Performance Data: States "No applicable performance standards have been promulgated," but mentions the material conforms to ISO 5832-3.
• Functional & Safety Testing: A general statement that testing "consisted of examination of the function of the device under conditions similar to those found in normal usage and testing to ensure conformance to product specifications. The results were successful and did not raise any issues of safety and effectiveness of the device." This is a qualitative statement, not a detailed study with acceptance criteria.
• Substantial Equivalence: To the RA-BEATM Cement Restrictor Device (K990345), and mentions other predicate devices. This is the primary basis for FDA clearance in this case.
• FDA Communication: The FDA's clearance letter, including a specific warning against spinal indications.

Therefore, many of the requested sections cannot be filled based on the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred or directly stated, and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and 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)

• Not provided. The document states "Functional and safety testing... consisted of examination of the function of the device under conditions similar to those found in normal usage" but gives no details on the sample size, specifics of the "conditions," or provenance (e.g., in-vitro, ex-vivo, animal, human, country of origin).

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)

• Not applicable/Not provided. The device is a physical implant, not an AI or diagnostic device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set in the conventional sense. The "testing" mentioned is likely engineering/bench testing.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. This refers to consensus-building among experts, which is not described for the functional/safety testing of this physical device.

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. This is a physical medical device (cement restrictor), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. MRMC studies are not relevant to its type of evaluation.

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

• No. This is a physical medical device. The concept of "standalone algorithm performance" does not apply.

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

• Not applicable in the typical sense. For a physical device like this, "ground truth" would be established by engineering specifications, material properties, and observed mechanical performance under simulated load or surgical scenarios. The document states "conformance to product specifications" and "successful" function without further detail.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. This device is not an AI model, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. As there is no AI model, there is no training set or ground truth for it.

Ask a specific question about this device