Search Results

The Universal Drive System functions as a powered instrument system consisting of drills, saws, and associated handpieces to perform cutting of soft tissue and bone. The fields of application include: Orthopedic, Otolaryngological, Oral/Maxillofacial, Arthroscopic, Hand, Foot, Neuro, and Plastic/Reconstructive surgical procedures.

The Universal Drive System is a combination of the entire MicroChoice® System and component Linvatec handpieces/blades/burrs of the Apex® Universal Drive System. Both systems and their intended uses are cleared by MicroChoice 510(k) #K942660 and Apex Universal Drive System 510(k)'s #K944476 & #K964548.

The Universal Drive System consists of a AC powered drive console, a sterilizable handpiece cord, various motorized handpieces, various shavers, blades, burrs, drills, routers, and a foot switch.

The modification will take place within the MicroChoice drive console power unit software. A computer chip will be upgraded to allow additional motorized handpieces from the Apex Universal Drive system for orthopedic and arthroscopic type procedures.

Three handpieces from the Apex Universal Drive System will be modified with a detachable handpiece cord. The detachable handpiece cord will allow the "Apex style" handpieces to run on the same console as the MicroChoice original handpieces. All new handpieces will perform as described in the previous 510(k) submissions.

The accessories including shavers, blades, burrs, drills, and routers from the Apex Universal Drive System will be used in addition to the MicroChoice System accessories. The shavers will have diameters of 2.0-6.0mm and lengths of 75-200mm.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Linvatec Universal Drive System, submitted in 1997. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than presenting detailed clinical study results with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics described in your request.

Therefore, the document does not contain the specific information required to fill out the table and answer all the questions about acceptance criteria and a detailed study proving the device meets them. This filing process relies on bench testing and comparisons to existing devices, not typically extensive human clinical trials with endpoints like effect size or expert adjudication.

However, I can extract what is implied or directly stated regarding safety and effectiveness and the testing performed for substantial equivalence.

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

Based on the document's content, specific quantitative "acceptance criteria" are not explicitly stated in a table format, nor are detailed "reported device performance" metrics outside of general qualitative statements. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The implied acceptance criterion is that the new Universal Drive System would perform functionally similarly to the predicate devices for its intended surgical uses.

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

The document does not specify a "test set sample size" in terms of patient data or clinical study subjects. The testing mentioned refers to bench testing for engineering and functional verification, not clinical trials. There is no information about data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective clinical data) because the submission is for device modification and substantial equivalence, not a clinical study.

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. This type of submission relies on engineering and functional testing rather than expert-established ground truth from clinical cases.

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

Not applicable. No expert adjudication method is mentioned or implied for this type of device submission.

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. The device is a surgical drive system (drills, saws, handpieces), 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

Not applicable. The device is a physical surgical instrument system, not an algorithm.

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

For this type of device, the "ground truth" for safety and effectiveness is largely based on:

• Engineering specifications and performance metrics: Verifying that motor speeds, torque, vibration, material strength, sterility, and electrical safety meet predefined standards and are comparable to predicate devices.
• Functional equivalence benchmarking: Testing that the modified system and new components perform surgical actions (cutting, drilling) in a manner consistent with, and as effectively as, the predicate devices.
• Compliance with recognized standards: Meeting relevant industry standards for medical devices.

No clinical "ground truth" from human patients (e.g., pathology, outcomes data) is described in this 510(k) summary.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This refers to a physical device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This refers to a physical device, not a machine learning algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device