Search Results

KLS Mini Osteosynthesis System (K943347): The KLS Mini Osteosynthesis System is indicated for 1) Fractures, 3) Reconstruction procedures of the craniomaxillofial skeletal system.
KLS Chin Plate System (K943348): The KLS Chin Plate System is indicated for 1) Fractures, 3) Reconstruction procedures of the craniomaxillofacial skeletal system.
KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System (1.0MM) (K944561): The KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System (1.0MM) is used in oral-maxillo-cranio-facial surgery to stabilize fractures. The bone segments are attached to the plate with screws to prevent movement of the segments.
KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System (1.5MM) (K944565): The KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System (1.5MM) is used in oral-maxillo-cranio-facial surgery to stabilize fractures. The bone segments are attached to the plate with screws to prevent movement of the segments.
KLS Martin Centre-Drive Drill-Free Screw (K971297): The KLS Martin Centre-Drive Drill-Free Screws are in rigid internal fixation of the oral-maxillo-cranio-facial bones. The bone screws are used to anchor plates which are contoured to fit the bone fragments. The addition of the self drilling feature is the only difference between the submitted device and the predicate device referenced.
KLS-Martin Temporary Condylar Implant (K990667): The KLS-Martin Temporary Condylar Implant is only intended for temporary reconstruction of the mandibular condyle in patients who have undergone resective procedures to remove malignant or benign the removal of the mandibular condyle. This device is not for permanent implantation, for patients with TMF or treatment of temporomandibular joint disease (TMD).
KLS-Martin Mandibular/Reconstruction System II (K032442): The KLS-Martin Mandibular/Reconstruction System II is intended for use in the stabilization of mandibular fractures and mandibular reconstruction.
KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System (K033483): The KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System is intended to be surgically placed in the mouth for use an an anchor for orthodontic procedures.
KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System (Plates) (K040891): The KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System (Plates) are implants intended to be surgically placed in the mouth for use as an anchor for orthodontic procedures in patients.
KLS Martin Rigid Fixation - Sterile (K060177): The KLS Martin Rigid Fixation - Sterile is in sterile packaging, osteosynthesis products with the following indications for use:
K051236: The RESORB-X® SF Sonotrode is only intended for use for insertion of the RESORB-X® SF pins.
K032442: The KLS Martin Mandibular/Reconstruction System II is intended for use in the stabilization of mandibular fractures and mandibular reconstruction.
K971297: The KLS Martin Centre-Drive Drill-Free screws are in rigid internal fixation of the oral-maxillo-cranio-facial bones. The bone screws are used to anchor plates which are contoured to fit the bony surface and stabilize the bone fragments. The addition of the self drilling feature is the only difference between the predicate device reference
K944565: The KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System is used in oral-maxillo-cranio-facial surgery to stabilize fractured bone segments. The bone segments are attached to the plate with screws to prevent movement of the segments.
K944561: The KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System is used in oral-maxillo-cranio-facial surgery to stabilize fractured bone segments. The bone segments are attached to the plate with screws to prevent movement of the segments.
KLS Martin Drill-Free MMF Screw (K042573): The KLS Martin Drill-Free MMF Screws is intended for use in maxilonandibular fixation of fractures of the maxilla, mandible, or both.
Drill Free MMF Screw (K083432): The Drill Free MMF Screw is intended for use in maxillomandibular fixation of fractures of the maxilla, mandible, or both.
KLS Martin L1 MMF System (K173320): The KLS Martin L1 MMF System is intended for temporary stabilization of maxillary fractures. It is designed to maintain proper occlusion during intraoperative bone healing (app. 6-8 weeks). It is indicated for the temporary treatment of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) in adults or adolescents who have permanent teeth present (ages 12 and older).

KLS Mini Osteosynthesis System (K943347): The KLS Mini Osteosynthesis System consists of titanium non-locking plates ranging in thickness from 0.6mm - 2.5mm and titanium screws ranging in diameter from 1.5mm - 2.3mm.
KLS Chin Plate System (K943348): The KLS Chin Plate System consists of titanium plates ranging in thickness of 0.6mm and titanium screws ranging in diameter from 1.5mm - 2.3mm.
KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System (1.0mm) (K944561): The KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System is designed to aid in the alignment and stabilization of the skeletal system after a facial fracture or surgery. The bone plates, bone plates, bone screws and accessories of various shapes and sizes for use in oral-maxillo-cranio-facial surgery. The bone plates are manufactured from CP Titanium and range in thickness from 0.3mm - 0.6mm. The bone screws are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and range in diameter from 1.0mm - 1.2mm.
KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System (1.5mm) (K944565): The KLS-Martin Micro Osteosynthesis System is designed to aid in the alignment and stabilization of the skeletal system after a facial fracture or surgery. The bone plates and screws of various shapes and sizes for use in oralmaxillo-cranio-facial surgery. The bone plates are manufactured from CP Titanium and range in thickness from 0.3mm - 0.6mm. The bone screws are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and range in diameter from 1.5mm - 1.8mm.
KLS Martin Centre-Drive Drill-Free Screw (K971297): The KLS Martin Centre-Drive Drill-Free Screws are designed to eliminate the need for pre-drilled pilot holes. They are self-tapping with one step insertion. They are intended for use in rigid internal fixation of the oral-maxillo-cranio-facial bones. The bone screws are used to anchor plates where are contoured to fit the bone fragments. The bone fragments. The bone screws are manufactured from Titanium Alloy and range in diameter from 1.0mm - 2.0mm.
KLS-Martin Temporary Condylar Implant (K990667): The KLS-Martin Temporary Condylar Implant is a solid condylar head which attaches with fastening screws to a KLS-Martin Fracture/ Reconstruction Plate. The implant is available for left and right placement. The KLS-Martin Temporary Condy intended for temporary reconstruction of the mandibular condyle in patients who have undergone resective procedures to benign tumors requiring the removal of the mandibular condyle. This device is not for permanent implantation, for patients with TMJ or traumatic injuries, or for treatment of temporomandibular joint disease (TMD).
KLS-Martin Mandibular/Reconstruction System II (K032442): The KLS-Martin Mandibular/Reconstruction System II includes several different designs of titanium plates and screws intended for use in the stabilization and fixation of mandibular fractures and reconstruction. The plates are manufactured from either CP Titanium or Titanium Alloy and range in thickness from 1.0mm - 3.0mm. The screws are manufactured from either CP Titanium Alloy and range in diameter from 2.0mm - 3.2mm.
KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System (K033483): The KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System consists of a titanium screw designed to aid in dental movement by providing a rigid skeletal fixation point. The screw is intended to be surgically placed in the mouth for orthodontic procedures. The screws are manufactured from either CP Titanium or Titanium Alloy.
KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System (Plates) (K040891): The KLS-Martin Ortho Anchorage System (Plates) consists of titanium non-locking plates to aid in dental movement by providing a rigid skeletal fixation point. The plates are manufactured from either CP Titanium Alloy and are fixated with titanium screws and are utilized as an anchor for orthodontic procedures in the palatal, maxilla or mandible region.
KLS-Martin Drill-Free MMF Screw (K042573): The KLS-Martin Drill-Free MMF Screw provides temporary occlusal and fracture stabilization. These screws may be applied prior to or after exposure of the fracture. The KLS-Martin Drill-Free MMF Screw is in maxillomandibular fixation to provide stabilization of fractures of the maxilla, or both. The screws are manufactured from either CP Titanium Alloy and are provided in 2.0mm diameter with lengths ranging from 8mm - 12mm.
KLS Martin Rigid Fixation - Sterile (K060177): The KLS Martin Rigid Fixation - Sterile includes titanium plates of various shapes and thickness, titanium screws of various length and diameter, stainless steel twist drills of various length and stainless steel sonotrode tips that are provided in sterile packaging. The KLS Martin Rigid Fixation - Sterile is intended to provide KLS Martin's previously cleared osteosynthesis products in sterile packaging.
Drill Free MMF Screw (K083432): The Drill Free MMF Screw provides temporary occlusal and fracture stabilization. These screws may be applied prior to or after exposure of the fracture. The Drill Free MMF Screw is in maxillomandibular fixation to provide stabilization of fractures of the maxilla, mandible, or both. The screws are manufactured from Stainless Steel and are provided in 2.0mm diameter with lengths ranging from 8mm - 12mm.
KLS Martin L1 MMF System (K173320): The KLS Martin L1 MMF System is a bone-borne maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) system consisting of metalic archbars with sliding locking plates that attach to the dental arches with screws. The system is intended to provide temporary stabilization of mandibular and maxillary fractures as well as maintain properative bone fixation and postoperative bone healing (app. 6-8 weeks). The patient is brought into occlusion by wiring around the archbar wire hooks. The L1 MMF system plates are manufactured from CP Titanium (ASTM F67), are available in either a 7-hole siding plate configuration with two different lengths, and are 0.5mm in plate thickness. The L1 MMF system sliding locking plates are fixated with either 2.0 x 6 mm selfdrilling locking screws manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136). Implants are available both sterile. The system also includes the necessary instruments to facilitate placement of the implants.

The document describes the KLS Martin Oral-Max Implants - MR Conditional, a bundled submission of various osteosynthesis systems and screws intended for use in craniomaxillofacial surgery. The purpose of this submission is to support the conditional safety and labeling modification of these devices in the magnetic resonance (MR) environment.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

The acceptance criteria are implied by the non-clinical tests conducted to support MR Conditional safety, aligning with relevant ASTM standards and FDA guidance. The reported device performance is that the devices can be safely scanned under specified conditions.

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

The testing involved computational modeling and simulation (CM&S). The "test set" in this context refers to the simulated scenarios and device configurations.

• Sample Size for Test Set: "the entire portfolio of KLS Martin maxillofacial implants" was simulated. This implies that all devices grouped under "KLS Martin Oral-Max Implants - MR Conditional" were included in the simulations. The document also mentions "various in-vivo device positions and landmarks," "worst-case single and multiple devices," and simulations in "10 cm increments." This suggests a comprehensive set of simulated scenarios rather than a traditional physical sample size.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated as "country of origin" or "retrospective/prospective" in the same way clinical data is. The data is generated through computational modeling and simulation using MED Institute's FDA-qualified Medical Device Development Tool (MDDT) and the Duke virtual human anatomy. This is a form of prospective simulation data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Not applicable in the traditional sense for this type of non-clinical, simulation-based study. The "ground truth" for the RF-induced heating simulations is derived from the established physics and engineering principles embedded in the FDA-qualified MDDT and the Duke virtual human anatomy model. The expertise lies in the development and validation of these computational tools and the interpretation of the simulation results by experts in MR safety and medical device engineering at MED Institute and the submitting company. The document does not specify the number or qualifications of individual experts validating the computational model, but implies that the MDDT itself is "FDA-qualified," indicating a level of expert review and agreement on its methodology.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are typically used for consensus building among human expert readers for clinical studies, especially when establishing ground truth from image interpretation. This study is based on physical property testing and computational simulations, not human interpretation of clinical data.

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 a study involving human readers or AI-assisted diagnostic performance. It focuses on the physical safety of implants in an MR environment.

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

The RF-induced heating assessment involved "Computational modeling and simulation (CM&S) ... using MED Institute's FDA-qualified Medical Device Development Tool (MDDT) and in a clinically relevant position within the Duke virtual human anatomy." This is a standalone algorithm/model-based assessment without a human-in-the-loop for the performance evaluation itself. Human experts design the simulations, configure the models, and interpret the results, but the "performance" (temperature rise, SAR calculations) is computed by the algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical tests:

• Magnetically induced displacement force, torque, and image artifacts: The "ground truth" is based on the physical properties of the materials and device designs, measured or calculated according to established ASTM standards (F2052-21, F2213-17, F2119-07).
• RF-induced heating: The "ground truth" for the simulations is derived from the established electromagnetic physics and thermal dynamics principles implemented in the FDA-qualified Medical Device Development Tool (MDDT) and applied to the Duke virtual human anatomy model. The MDDT's qualification process by the FDA implicitly establishes the reliability of its results as a form of "ground truth" for simulation-based assessments.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a non-clinical study for MR safety assessment, not a machine learning model requiring a training set in the typical sense. The "training" for the MDDT is its initial validation and qualification against known physical phenomena and experimental data, which is a separate process from this submission.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for a machine learning model in this context. The "ground truth" for qualifying the simulation tool (MDDT) would have been established through extensive validation against experimental measurements and recognized physical theories.

Ask a specific question about this device

MCI - Neuro Fixation System is indicated for use in selective trauma of the cranial skeleton, cranial surgery and reconstructive procedure.

The MCI – Neuro Fixation System is composed of plates (including burr hole covers), screws, and meshes. The bone plates and meshes are made from commercially pure titanium (ASTM F67) and the bone screws are manufactured from titanium alloy - Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136) and are available in different sizes and shapes, according to the site of the implantation and the extension of the fracture. The surface of plates, meshes and screws are colored-anodized.

MCI - Neuro Fixation System devices are for single use. The devices are provided non-sterile and must be properly sterilized before use, according to the recommendations provided in the Instructions for Use.

The devices must only be used by qualified surgeons mastering the surgical technique, having been trained and qualified in cranial surgery.

The provided text describes information about the MCI-Neuro Fixation System, a cranial fixation device. However, it does not contain the kind of detailed information about acceptance criteria, clinical study design, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or comparative effectiveness studies that your request asks for, especially concerning an AI/ML-driven device.

The document discusses:

• Regulatory Clearance (K212391): It's a 510(k) premarket notification for a Class II medical device.
• Device Description: The system consists of plates, screws, and meshes made from titanium.
• Predicate Device: K141911 - OPTIMUS NEURO SYSTEM.
• Performance Data: This section focuses on bench testing for physical and material properties (metallographic tests, cyclic polarization, cycle bend testing of plates, screw torsion yield test, pull-out testing, driving torque testing).
• Biocompatibility: Stated as supported by a reference device (K182758).
• Lack of Clinical Data: Explicitly states, "No clinical data were included in this submission."

Since this device is a physical fixation system and not an AI/ML driven diagnostic or prognostic tool, the concepts of human readers, AI assistance, ground truth establishment (beyond material specifications), training sets, and test sets in the context of diagnostic accuracy are not applicable to this document.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and device performance, or details about clinical study design, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods as requested, because this information is not present in the provided text. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through material and mechanical bench testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions (IPS) Planning System is intended for use as a software system and image segmentation system for the transfer of imaging information from a medical scanner such as a CT based system. The input data file is processed by the IPS Planning System and the result is an output data file that may then be provided as digital models or used as input to a rapid prototyping portion of the system that produces physical outputs including anatomical models, guides, splints, and case reports for use in maxillofacial surgery. The IPS Planning System is also intended as a pre-operative software tool for simulating / evaluating surgical treatment options.

The KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions (IPS) Planning System is a collection of software and associated additive manufacturing (rapid prototyping) equipment intended to provide a variety of outputs to support reconstructive and orthognathic surgeries. The system uses electronic medical images of the patients' anatomy (CT data) with input from the physician, to manipulate original patient images for planning and executing surgery. The system processes the medical images and produces a variety of patient specific physical and/or digital output devices which include anatomical models, guides, splints and case reports.

The provided text describes the KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions (IPS) Planning System and its regulatory clearance (K182789) by the FDA. However, it does not contain information about a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm's performance.

Instead, the document is a 510(k) summary demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K181241), primarily to expand the patient population to include pediatric subgroups. The core of the device is a planning system involving commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software and additive manufacturing for physical outputs, with human-in-the-loop interaction from trained employees/engineers and physicians.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding AI acceptance criteria, performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies is not present in the provided document. The device, as described, is not an AI algorithm in the sense that it performs automated diagnostic or treatment recommendations independently based on image analysis with defined metrics. It's a system to assist human planning processes.

Here's an analysis based on the information available in the document, and a clear indication of what is not available.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (as far as applicable from the document)

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence, not on acceptance criteria for a freestanding AI algorithm's performance. The "performance" described is primarily related to material properties, biocompatibility, and sterilization, and the functioning of the software as a tool for human planning.

Information NOT Available in the Document (as it pertains to an AI/Algorithm performance study):

1. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance:
   This information is not provided. The study performed was primarily non-clinical (material testing, biocompatibility, sterilization) and a risk assessment for pediatric use, not a clinical trial evaluating algorithm performance on a test set of patient data.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications:
   Not applicable, as no dedicated test set for evaluating AI/algorithm performance against a ground truth is described. The system relies on physician input and interaction with trained employees/engineers for planning, not on an autonomous algorithmic output that requires expert adjudication for ground truth.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:
   Not applicable for the same reasons as above.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:
   No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not necessary for the determination of substantial equivalence." (p.11, p.14). The device is a planning system with human-in-the-loop, not an AI intended to improve human readers' performance directly.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not described. The device is presented as a "software system and image segmentation system" where "trained employees/engineers... manipulate data and work with the physician to create the virtual planning session." (p.4, p.13) The core function described is human-assisted planning and production of physical models, not an autonomous algorithmic output.

6. The type of ground truth used:
   Ground truth in the context of an AI algorithm's diagnostic or predictive performance is not relevant here, as no such AI is described. The "ground truth" for the device's function would relate to the accuracy of the generated physical models and plans relative to the patient's anatomy and surgical intent, which is managed through human interaction and validation within the system's intended use.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   Not applicable. The document refers to "commercially off-the-shelf (COTS) software applications" (p.4, p.13) which implies existing, validated software tools are being used, not a newly developed AI model requiring a separate training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   Not applicable, as no new training set for an AI model is described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions (IPS) Planning System is intended for use as a software system and image segmentation system for the transfer of imaging information from a medical scanner such as a CT based system. The input data file is processed by the IPS Planning System and the result is an output data file that may then be provided as digital models or used as input to a rapid prototyping portion of the system that produces physical outputs including anatomical models, guides, splints, and case reports for use in maxillofacial surgery. The IPS Planning System is also intended as a pre-operative software tool for simulating / evaluating surgical treatment options.

The KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions (IPS) Planning System is a collection of software and associated additive manufacturing (rapid prototyping) equipment intended to provide a variety of outputs to support reconstructive and orthognathic surgeries. The system uses electronic medical images of the patients' anatomy (CT data) with input from the physician, to manipulate original patient images for planning and executing surgery. The system processes the medical images and produces a variety of patient specific physical and/or digital output devices which include anatomical models, guides, splints and case reports.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text, focusing on what is present and what is not:

The document (K181241 510(k) Summary) describes the KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions (IPS) Planning System, which is a software system for image segmentation and pre-operative planning, and also provides physical outputs like anatomical models, guides, and splints for maxillofacial surgery. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (VSP System K120956) and uses several reference devices.

Acceptance Criteria and Study Information:

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a planning system that ultimately produces physical outputs. The "performance" being evaluated relates to the characteristics of these physical outputs (tensile strength, biocompatibility, sterility, pyrogenicity) and the software's functionality. There isn't a direct "device performance" metric in the traditional sense of an AI diagnostic device's sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy against a clinical outcome.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given the nature of the device (planning system with physical outputs, not a diagnostic AI), the performance metrics are primarily related to safety and manufacturing quality.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of a dataset for evaluating AI performance (e.g., medical images for segmentation accuracy). Instead, "testing" refers to non-clinical performance evaluations of the physical outputs and software.
  • For Tensile & Bending, Biocompatibility, Sterilization, and Pyrogenicity, the sample sizes are not explicitly mentioned, but the tests were performed on "the subject polyamide guides" and "titanium" components. The provenance is internal testing performed by the manufacturer, or results leveraged from previous KLS Martin device submissions.
  • For Software V&V, no specific numerical "test set" of software inputs is given, but testing was performed on "each individual software application."
• Data Provenance: The data provenance for non-clinical testing is internal to the manufacturer or relied upon previous regulatory submissions for similar materials/processes. It is not patient or country-specific data as would be for clinical studies. The data used by the IPS Planning System itself (CT data) would be patient data, but the evaluation here is of the system's outputs, not its interpretation of patient data in a diagnostic manner. The document states the system "transfers imaging information from a medical scanner such as a CT based system."

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• This question is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests (tensile strength, biocompatibility, etc.) is established by standard scientific and engineering methodologies, not by expert medical review of images.
• For the "Software Verification and Validation," the "ground truth" for software functionality is defined by the established software requirements and specifications, validated by internal quality and user acceptance testing, not by external experts in the medical domain. The document mentions "input from the physician" for manipulation of original patient images, suggesting physicians set the clinical goals for the plan, but the validation of the system's performance is not described as involving experts establishing a "ground truth" concerning image interpretation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. There is no adjudication method described as would be used for clinical interpretation or diagnostic performance evaluation by multiple experts. The non-clinical tests follow established standards and protocols.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done.
• This device is a planning system for maxillofacial surgery, not a diagnostic AI that assists human readers in image interpretation or diagnosis. It aids in surgical planning and creates physical outputs. The submission explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not necessary for the determination of substantial equivalence."

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

• Given the device's function, it is inherently a "human-in-the-loop" system. The description states: "The system uses electronic medical images of the patients' anatomy (CT data) with input from the physician, to manipulate original patient images for planning and executing surgery." And, "The physician provides input for model manipulation and interactive feedback through viewing of digital models...that are modified by the trained employee/engineer during the planning session."
• Therefore, performance of the algorithm without human intervention is not the intended use or focus of this submission. The "software verification and validation" (Section 11) is the closest thing to an "algorithm-only" evaluation, but it's about software functionality, not standalone image interpretation performance.

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

• For the non-clinical performance tests of the physical outputs (Tensile & Bending, Biocompatibility, Sterilization, Pyrogenicity), the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering and scientific standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1, ISO 17665-1:2006, AAMI ANSI ST72, and internal specifications).
• For Software Verification & Validation, the "ground truth" is adherence to predefined software requirements and specifications (functional and non-functional, related to image transfer, manipulation, and output file generation). It is not based on medical "ground truth" like pathology or clinical outcomes.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This question is not applicable. The KLS Martin IPS Planning System is described as using "validated commercially off-the-shelf (COTS) software applications" for image manipulation. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI model development within this summary. It appears to be a rule-based or conventional algorithmic system rather than a deep learning/machine learning model that would require a distinct training set.

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

• This question is not applicable, as no training set for machine learning was mentioned or identified in the document (see point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions implant devices are in the stabilization and fixation of mandibular fractures and mandibular reconstruction.

KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions is comprised of patient-specific models and metallic bone plates used in conjunction with metallic bone screws for internal fixation of mandibular bone. The devices are manufactured based on medical imaging (CT scan) of the patient's anatomy with input from the physician during virtual planning and prior to finalization and production of the device. The physician only provides input for model manipulation and interactive feedback by viewing digital models of planned outputs that are modified by trained KLS Martin engineers during the planning session. For each design iteration, verification is performed by virtually fitting the generated device model over a 3D model of the patient's anatomy to ensure its dimensional properties allow an adequate fit. Implants are provided non-sterile, range in thickness from 1.0 - 3.0 mm, and are manufactured using traditional (subtractive) or rapid prototyping (additive) methods from either CP Titanium (ASTM F67) or Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136) materials. These patient-specific devices are fixated with previously cleared KLS Martin screws.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study information for the KLS Martin Individual Patient Solutions device, based on the provided document:

This document focuses on the mechanical and material performance of the device rather than the performance of an AI algorithm in a diagnostic or clinical decision support context. Therefore, many of the typical AI/ML study questions (like effect size of human readers with/without AI, standalone algorithm performance, number of experts for ground truth, etc.) are not applicable here.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of physical devices or specific data points for performance testing. The document refers to "the subject plates" for mechanical testing, implying a representative sample was tested.
• Data Provenance: The studies are non-clinical bench tests and conducted by the manufacturer, KLS Martin LP. The data originates from these laboratory tests, not from patient data or clinical settings. It is a retrospective analysis of device performance against established standards.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• This device is a medical implant, not a diagnostic AI device. There is no concept of "ground truth" established by human experts in the context of diagnostic interpretation for its performance testing. The "ground truth" for its performance is derived from established engineering and materials science standards (ASTM, ISO, etc.).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. The performance tests are objective measurements against engineering standards, not subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

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 implant, not an AI diagnostic or decision support tool. No human reader studies with or without AI assistance were conducted or are relevant.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• Not applicable. This is a medical implant. The "algorithm" in this context refers to the manufacturing process driven by patient CT data and physician input for design, not an AI algorithm for diagnosis or interpretation. The device itself is "standalone" in that it performs its mechanical function once implanted, but its pre-market testing does not involve "algorithm-only performance" as would be understood for an AI/ML product.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering Standards and Specifications: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is derived from compliance with established international standards for medical devices and materials, specifically:
  • ASTM F382 (Standard Specification for Metallic Bone Plates) for mechanical performance.
  • ISO 17665-1:2006 (Sterilization of health care products — Moist heat — Part 1: Requirements for the development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices) for sterilization.
  • ISO 10993 (Biological evaluation of medical devices) for biocompatibility.
• For the patient-specific design process, the "ground truth" for dimensional fit is a virtual fitting against a 3D model of the patient's anatomy derived from a CT scan.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Although the device design is patient-specific and involves a "virtual planning" phase, this is not an AI/ML product that learns from a "training set" in the conventional sense. Each device is unique to a patient based on their CT scan. The "training" for the manufacturing process (both traditional and additive) happens through engineering validation and quality control procedures, not through a data-driven training set for an algorithm.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable, as there is no traditional "training set" for an AI/ML algorithm. The "ground truth" for the device's manufacturing and material properties is established through adherence to design specifications, material standards (ASTM F67, ASTM F136), and manufacturing quality control processes. The patient's CT scan provides the anatomical data for each individual device's design.

Ask a specific question about this device

Internal Distraction - Sterile includes devices intended as bone stabilizers and lengthening (and or transport) devices for correction of congenital deficiencies or post traumatic defects of the cranial bones that require gradual distraction.

Internal Distraction - Sterile consists of sterile internal distraction devices intended for the correction of cranial bones that are comprised of several different designs and components intended for bone stabilization and elongation through distraction osteogenesis. It is composed of multiple sizes and shapes of distractor footplates and either fixed or detachable activator arms. The devices are positioned internally with a connected activation arm extending through the soft tissue for external activation. Some devices, due to their anatomical positioning, are directly activated using a patient activation driver, eliminating the need for attaching an activation arm to the device. The distractor footplates are fixated to the bone on either side of the osteotomy using previously cleared bone screws (K943347, K944561, K944565, K971297, K060177). Distraction is achieved by rotating the distractor threaded drive screws with the patient driver, often with an activation arm, which causes a separation of the distractor footplates and induces the body to grow bone and expand soft tissue as a response. Various lengths of distractor drive screws are available to achieve the desired distraction length. Upon completion of distraction and consolidation of the bone, the screws are removed from the footplates and the distractor is explanted.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Internal Distraction - Sterile" device. The acceptance criteria and supporting studies are based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the "Zurich Distraction System (K010139)".

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

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

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

The document primarily relies on non-clinical performance data (bench testing) and comparison to the predicate device.

• Biocompatibility: No new testing was performed; it relied on the predicate device's clearance.
• Pyrogenicity: The sample size for Bacterial Endotoxins testing is not specified.
• Mechanical Performance: The sample size for axial load, bending torsion, axial-torsion, and transverse shear testing is not specified. This was bench testing, not clinical data, so provenance like "country of origin" or "retrospective/prospective" is not applicable in the typical sense for 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)

Not applicable. The study is a 510(k) submission based on non-clinical bench testing and demonstration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device. There was no test set requiring expert ground truth for clinical cases.

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

Not applicable. No clinical test set or adjudication for diagnostic ground truth was performed or required.

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 device is a medical implant (internal distraction system), not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic tool. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an algorithm, so the concept of standalone performance does not apply.

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

Not applicable in the context of clinical ground truth for diagnostic accuracy. The "ground truth" for this submission is based on:

• Predicate Device Equivalence: The safety and effectiveness profile of the legally marketed predicate device (Zurich Distraction System, K010139).
• Engineering Standards: Compliance with recognized standards for biocompatibility (ISO 10993-1), pyrogenicity (ANSI/AAMI ST72:2011, USP , EP 2.6.14), and mechanical performance through bench testing against design requirements.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a medical device clearance, not an AI model. There is no concept of a "training set" for the device itself.

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

Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Internal Distraction - Sterile includes devices intended as bone stabilizers and lengthening (and or transport) devices for correction of congenital deficiencies or post traumatic defects of the mandible (including ramus, body, alveolar ridge, palate, symphysis) and mid-face bones that require gradual distraction.

Internal Distraction - Sterile consists of sterile internal distraction devices intended for the correction of the mandible and mid-face bones that are comprised of several different designs and components intended for bone stabilization and elongation through distraction osteogenesis. It is composed of multiple sizes and shapes of distractor footplates and either fixed or detachable activator arms. The devices are positioned internally with a connected activation arm extending through the soft tissue for external activation. Some devices, due to their anatomical positioning, are directly activated using a patient activation driver, eliminating the need for attaching an activation arm to the device. The distractor footplates are fixated to the bone on either side of the osteotomy using previously cleared bone screws (K943347, K944561, K944565, K971297, K060177). Distraction is achieved by rotating the distractor threaded drive screws with the patient driver, often with an activation arm, which causes a separation of the distractor footplates and induces the body to grow bone and expand soft tissue as a response. Various lengths of distractor drive screws are available to achieve the desired distraction length. Upon completion of distraction and consolidation of the bone, the screws are removed from the footplates and the distractor is explanted.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Internal Distraction - Sterile" device. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, primarily by indicating that the new device is a sterile version of existing non-sterile devices.

Based on the provided document, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative, measurable sense for a clinical study. Instead, it describes general design requirements and performance evaluations for mechanical properties and biocompatibility. The "reported device performance" indicates that these requirements were met.

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

• Sample size for the test set: Not applicable (N/A). This submission did not involve a clinical study with a "test set" of patients. The performance data presented is from non-clinical bench testing and biocompatibility assessments of the device materials.
• Data provenance: N/A. The data provenance described is related to bench testing, not 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)

• Number of experts: N/A. No clinical test set with ground truth established by experts was used.

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

• Adjudication method: N/A. No clinical test set to adjudicate was utilized.

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

• MRMC study done: No. This is a medical device (bone plate/distractor) submission, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) submission. An MRMC study would not be relevant in this context.
• Effect size: N/A.

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

• Standalone done: No. This submission is for a physical medical device.

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

• Type of ground truth: N/A. For the mechanical and biocompatibility testing, the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering and biological standards and specifications (e.g., design requirements, ANSI/AAMI ST72:2011, USP , EP 2.6.14 for endotoxins). No clinical ground truth (like expert consensus or pathology) was used as there was no clinical study.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample size for the training set: N/A. There was no "training set" in the context of an algorithm or AI. The design and manufacturing processes for the device are well-established based on existing predicate devices.

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

• How ground truth was established for the training set: N/A. This concept is not applicable to the type of device and submission described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KLS Martin Drill Free® MMF Screws is intended for use in maxillomandibular fixation to provide stabilization of fractures of the maxilla, mandible, or both.

The KLS-Martin Drill Free® MMF Screw provides temporary occlusal and fracture stabilization. These screws may be applied prior to or after exposure of the fracture.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the KLS Martin Drill Free® MMF Screw.

Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria. The document is a 510(k) summary and the FDA's clearance letter for the KLS Martin Drill Free® MMF Screw. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing performance data from a specific study against predefined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot populate most of the requested sections. Here's what I can extract from the provided text based on the limited information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample size for test set: Not specified.
• Data provenance: Not specified.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

• Not applicable as no specific study data or ground truth establishment is described in the provided document.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable as no specific study data or adjudication is described in the provided document.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Was an MRMC study done? No, there is no mention of an MRMC study.
• Effect size of human reader improvement with AI vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as this is a medical screw, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Was a standalone study done? No, there is no mention of a standalone performance study. This device is a physical medical implant, not an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Not applicable as no specific study data or ground truth is described in the provided document.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable as no "training set" is relevant for this type of medical device submission.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable as no "training set" is relevant for this type of medical device submission.

Summary of Document's Content:

The provided documents describe the submission of a 510(k) premarket notification for the KLS Martin Drill Free® MMF Screw. The core of the submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on:

• Identical intended use: For maxillomandibular fixation to stabilize fractures of the maxilla, mandible, or both.
• Similar application: Compared to other drill-free and anchorage systems.
• Key difference: The new device is "drill-free" (self-tapping), while its primary predicate required a pilot hole.

The FDA's clearance letter confirms their determination of substantial equivalence, allowing the device to be marketed. This type of submission relies on comparisons to already cleared devices rather than a de novo study with acceptance criteria for a novel device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MODUS System Self-drilling Screws are intended for use in the internal fixation in the craniofacial skeleton, secondary to trauma, reconstruction, or surgical correction of dento-facial deformations. The MODUS System Self-drilling Screws are intended for use in the internal fixation in the craniofacial skeleton, secondary to trauma, reconstruction, or surgical correction of dento-facial deformations which require positional and functional stability.

The MODUS® System Self-drilling Screws are self-tapping self drilling screws for use with the cleared MODUS plates and mesh fixation components. The screws are made from CP titanium, Grade 4 or titanium alloy. The screws are available in lengths ranging from 3 mm to 8 mm and diameters ranging from 1.2 to 2.0 mm.

This document is a 510(k) Summary for the MODUS® System Self-drilling Screws, seeking clearance from the FDA. It does not describe acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets acceptance criteria.

Instead, it asserts substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on:

• Intended Use: The MODUS Self-drilling Screws have the same intended use as predicate devices: internal fixation in the craniofacial skeleton due to trauma, reconstruction, or surgical correction of dento-facial deformations.
• Material: The screws are composed of commercially pure Grade 4 titanium or titanium alloy, similar to predicate devices.
• Design: The design, including a tapered thread for self-drilling capability, is stated to be the same as several predicate self-drilling screws.

The FDA's letter (pages 2-3 of the provided text) confirms that the device is deemed "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, allowing it to be marketed. This clearance process for medical devices often relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices rather than requiring new clinical trials that establish acceptance criteria and prove performance against them, especially for devices and indications that are well-established.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, performance studies, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, and standalone performance studies cannot be extracted from the provided text because these types of studies were not conducted or reported for this 510(k) submission. The basis for clearance was a comparison to predicate devices, not de novo testing against specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device