Search Results

aap Biorigid Nail Femur (BNF) is intended to use in fractures of the femoral bone.

The indications are:
Types of Fractures: Simple closed fractures, Comminuted fractures, Open fractures of first, second or third degree, Crush fractures
Antegrade Indications: Femur shaft fractures, Distal femur shaft fractures, Pathological fractures, e.g. tumor osteolysis, Periprosthetic femur fracture in the middle to third part with knee replacement in situ
Retrograde Indications: Supracondylary fractures, Simultaneous nailing of femur and tibia, Distal femur fracture with osteosynthesis or hip prosthesis in situ, Periprosthetic femur fracture at knee arthroplasty
Borderline Indications: Percondylar femur fracture, Pseudarthrosis (only reamed method), Osteoporosis

Intramedullary rods are used for the stabilisation of fractures or correction of deformity of ong bones with or without interlocking screws. The connection between the nail and the interlocking screw is realised with central holes or grooves. Reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing and for the femoral bone the antegrade and retrograde entrance are standard methods today.

agp Bioriqid Nail Femur (BNF) is the consistent development of the Biorigid Nail Tibia for the femoral bone. The BNF is a full material nail. The interlocking of the nail happens with solid Ø 5.3 mm screws through central holes and grooves.

The central holes on the nail protect against rotational forces. The grooves are designed for interlocking possibility over the whole length of the nail and a defined reduction of the rigidity because of the full material nail.

The BNF permits the execution of different implantation techniques and interlocking with only one nail. Therefore it meets the different injury manners and necessity for individual solutions.

aap Biorigid Nail Femur (BNF) incorporates

• Nail in different diameters .
• Interlocking screws in different lenghts ●
• Interlocking nut ●
• Protection cap in different lengths ●
• CondyLock ●
• Accessories, like targeting devices etc. ●

This 510(k) summary does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, which is a different regulatory pathway.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and answer the study-related questions based on the provided document. The document primarily establishes the device's intended use, materials, and comparison to existing devices.

Here's a breakdown of why the information is missing:

• Acceptance Criteria & Device Performance: The document does not define specific performance metrics (e.g., strength, durability, biocompatibility targets) or report test results against such criteria. The "Performance Standards" section refers generally to cGMP's, ASTM requirements, and harmonized standards like ISO 9001 / EN 46001, but these are quality management and material specification standards, not specific device performance acceptance criteria.
• Study Details: Since there's no mention of specific performance testing, there's no information on:
  • Sample sizes for test sets
  • Data provenance
  • Number or qualifications of experts
  • Adjudication methods
  • MRMC comparative effectiveness studies
  • Standalone performance studies
  • Type of ground truth used
  • Training set sample size or ground truth establishment

This document is a regulatory submission for a Class II medical device (intramedullary fixation rod) seeking 510(k) clearance by demonstrating substantial equivalence. For such devices, rigorous clinical trials or extensive performance studies with explicit acceptance criteria are often not required if substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device can be shown. The FDA's letter explicitly states that the device is "substantially equivalent... to legally marketed predicate devices."

What the document does provide in lieu of a performance study:

• Predicate Devices: A list of several similar intramedullary nails from other manufacturers that serve as the basis for demonstrating substantial equivalence (e.g., Howmedica Osteonics Corp. T2 Femoral Nail System, Synthes Ti Distal Femoral Nail).
• Comparison of Technological Characteristics: It states that the aap Biorigid Nail Femur (BNF) is "substantially equivalent to the predicate devices with respect to physical/technical and material characteristics." This implies that the device is expected to perform similarly to those already on the market without needing to re-prove fundamental performance through new studies.
• Material Composition: Specifies the use of Titanium Alloy (Ti 6Al 4V E.L.I. = ASTM F136), a well-established and approved material for such implants.
• Intended Use: Clearly outlines the types of fractures and anatomical locations for which the device is indicated, which aligns with the predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Fixion™ Interlocking Intramedullary Nail is intended for use in fixation of various types of fractures, including diaphyseal fractures and short distal or proximal fragments in the long bones.

The Fixion Interlocking Intramedullary Nailing System consist of the following main components: 1. The Nail Implant is an expandable non-slotted stainless steel cylindrical tube, with a cap protected, female threaded proximal end with holes for interlocking screws to lock the nail in the bone. The Nail Implant may also have both proximal and distal ends with holes for interlocking screws. 2. The Instrument Set consists of a few accessories used during insertion and removal (if required) of the Nail Implant. 3. The Inflation Device is a single-use, manual, plastic pump to be filled with sterile inflation liquid. Once the nail is positioned within the medullary canal, rotation of the pump handle allows for nail diameter increase to its intended diameter under x-ray and controlled pressure. Interlocking screws may be used to lock the nail inside the bone.

The provided text K013449 describes the Fixion Interlocking Intramedullary Nailing System. However, this document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance in the context of diagnostic accuracy, which is typically associated with AI/ML devices.

Instead, the document focuses on:

• Materials and Mechanical Performance for a physical medical device (an intramedullary nail).
• Substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
• Intended use and system description.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information in the format of a diagnostic performance study, as the provided input does not pertain to such a device or study.

Here's a breakdown of why each requested point cannot be addressed with the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document states the device meets ASTM F138 (material spec), ASTM F565 (care/handling), and ASTM F1264-99 (4-point bending mechanical testing). These are standards the device adheres to, not specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria as would be defined for a diagnostic AI model (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). There are no reported numerical performance metrics from a study in this context.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This document describes a physical implant, not a diagnostic algorithm.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a physical implant's mechanical properties is established through material testing and engineering standards, not expert clinical review of data.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 not an AI/ML diagnostic device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For a physical device, the "ground truth" would be adherence to material specifications (ASTM F138) and mechanical performance standards (ASTM F1264-99).
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not use a training set in the context of AI/ML.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document describes a traditional medical device (an intramedullary nailing system) and its compliance with established material and mechanical testing standards, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic device with associated performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device