Published clinical literature; Clinical case history
A literature review and analysis of clinical case history were used to demonstrate that the augmented implant design is clinically successful in addressing persistent temporal hollowing (PTH) and that the new indication does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
Literature review; Clinical case history; Persistent temporal hollowing; Augmented implant design
Clinical Evidence
Study Design
Population
Comparator
Key Endpoints
Literature review and case history analysis; Retrospective literature review and clinical case history review
Patients with persistent temporal hollowing (PTH)
Not applicable for this study
Clinical success in addressing PTH and safety/effectiveness of augmented implant contours
Indications for Use
The PEEK Customized Cranial Implant Kit is indicated for the augmentation of bony and/or soft tissue deformities in the cranial and craniofacial skeleton (orbital rim, zygoma, and adjacent bone); including but not limited to, the correction and prevention of persistent temporal hollowing (PTH) in patients 12 years of age and older.
Device Story
Device consists of patient-specific cranial/craniofacial implants manufactured from PEEK Optima LT1. Implants are customized based on patient CT data and surgeon input to address bony voids, defects, contour irregularities, and persistent temporal hollowing (PTH). Implants are milled from PEEK blocks; designed for 'drop-in-fit' in non-load bearing regions. Used in surgical settings by surgeons; fixated to native bone using standard self-tapping screws and drill bits. Augmented contour design compensates for soft tissue deficiency (temporalis muscle/fat pad) associated with PTH. Provides structural restoration and aesthetic correction; potentially counteracts asymmetry.
Clinical Evidence
No new clinical testing performed. Evidence leveraged from clinical literature and case history regarding persistent temporal hollowing (PTH) and surgical outcomes of augmented implant designs. Literature confirms PTH is caused by temporalis muscle/fat pad deficiency and that augmented implant contours are clinically successful in addressing this condition.
Technological Characteristics
Material: Medical grade PEEK Optima LT1. Manufacturing: Industrial milling from PEEK blocks. Fixation: Self-tapping screws and standard drill bits. Form factor: Patient-specific, customized 'drop-in-fit' design. Energy source: None (mechanical). Connectivity: None. Sterilization: Not specified (no change from predicate).
Indications for Use
Indicated for augmentation/restoration of bony and/or soft tissue deformities in cranial and craniofacial skeleton (orbital rim, zygoma, adjacent bone), including correction and prevention of persistent temporal hollowing (PTH) in patients 12 years of age and older.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A preformed alterable cranioplasty plate is a device that is implanted into a patient to repair a skull defect. It is constructed of a material, e.g., tantalum, that can be altered or reshaped at the time of surgery without changing the chemical behavior of the material.
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/1 description: The image is a black and white seal for the Department of Health & Human Services - USA. The seal is circular with the text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" arranged around the perimeter. In the center of the seal is a stylized image of three human profiles facing right, with flowing lines extending from the profiles.
Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Document Control Center - WO66-G609 Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
March 10, 2016
Stryker Craniomaxillofacial Mr. Jonathan Schell Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist 750 Trade Centre Way, Suite 200 Portage, Michigan 49002
Re: K153248
Trade/Device Name: Stryker PEEK Customized Cranial Implant Kit Regulation Number: 21 CFR 882.5320 Regulation Name: Preformed Alterable Cranioplasty Plate Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: GWO Dated: February 8, 2016 Received: February 9, 2016
Dear Mr. Schell:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food. Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices. good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you; however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801); medical device reporting (reporting of medical devicerelated adverse events) (21 CFR 803); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820); and if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
{1}------------------------------------------------
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801), please contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/default.htm. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm for the CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics/Division of Postmarket Surveillance.
You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Industry and Consumer Education at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/default.htm.
Sincerely yours,
William J.
Heetderks -A
Digital
DN=
ou=
0.9
cn=
Date
for Carlos L. Peña, PhD, MS Director Division of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
# Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K153248
Device Name
Stryker PEEK Customized Cranial Implant Kit
#### Indications for Use (Describe)
The PEEK Customized Cranial Implant Kit is indicated for the augmentation of bony and/or soft tissue deformities in the cranial and craniofacial skeleton (orbital rim, zygoma, and adjacent bone); including but not limited to, the correction and prevention of persistent temporal hollowing (PTH) in patients 12 years of age and older.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| <div> <span>☑</span> Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) </div> |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| <div> <span>☐</span> Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) </div> |
#### CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
#### *DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW.*
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
> Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
{3}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/3/Picture/0 description: The image shows the word "stryker" in a bold, sans-serif font. The letters are black, and the background is white. There is a registered trademark symbol to the right of the word.
# 510(k) Summary
This section provides a summary of 510(k) information in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR 807.92.
- SUBMITTER I.
| 510(k) Owner: | Stryker Leibinger GmbH& Co. KG<br>Boetzinger Strasse 41<br>D-79111 Freiburg, Germany |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Submitter/ Contact<br>Person: | Jonathan Schell<br>Sr. Regulatory Affairs Specialist<br>Stryker Craniomaxillofacial<br>750 Trade Centre Way<br>Portage, MI 49002<br>Phone: 269-389-5596<br>Fax: 877-648-7114 |
| Date prepared: | November 6, 2015 |
| II.<br>DEVICE | |
| Trade Name: | Stryker PEEK Customized Cranial Implant Kit |
| Common or Usual<br>name: | Customized Cranial Implant |
| Classification<br>name: | Preformed alterable cranioplasty plate 21 CFR §882.5320 |
| Regulatory Class: | Class II |
| Product Code: | GWO |
### III. PREDICATE DEVICE
Predicate: Stryker PEEK Customized Cranial Implant Kit – K121153
This predicate has not been subject to a design-related recall.
## IV. DEVICE DESCRIPTION
{4}------------------------------------------------
The Stryker PEEK Customized Cranial Implant (CCI) product offerings provide customized cranial or craniofacial (craniofacial region is defined as the orbital rim, zygoma, and adjacent bone) patient specific implants based on CT data and surgeon input. This traditional 510(k) is submitted to add an additional indication for use to augment and/or restore soft tissue deformities in the cranial and craniofacial skeleton; including but not limited to, the correction and prevention of persistent temporal hollowing (PTH).
#### INDICATIONS FOR USE V.
The PEEK Customized Cranial Implant Kit is indicated for the augmentation and/or restoration of bony and/or soft tissue deformities in the cranial and craniofacial skeleton (orbital rim, zygoma, and adjacent bone); including but not limited to, the correction and prevention of persistent temporal hollowing (PTH) in patients 12 years of age and older.
The Indications for Use statement of the PEEK CCI with the PLUS design is different than the predicate device, but this difference does not constitute a new Intended Use. Both the PEEK CCI with the PLUS design and the predicate device have the same Intended Use to fill bony voids, defects, and contour irregularities in non-load bearing regions of the cranial skeleton. Also, this difference does not alter the intended therapeutic use of the device nor does the difference affect the safety and effectiveness of the device relative to the predicate device.
A literature review was performed to identify relevant clinical literature with applicable data to show that, when compared to the predicate device, the new Indication for use added to the subject device does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. The results of this review provides evidence of this fact.
#### COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE VI. PREDICATE DEVICE
The PEEK CCI with the PLUS design is compared to its predicate device for substantial equivalence based on the following criteria:
- A. Principle of Operation
- B. Technological Characteristics
#### A. Principle of Operation
The basic operational principle of the PEEK CCI with the PLUS design remains the same as the predicate: the PEEK Customized Cranial Implant is intended to be used to fill bony voids, defects, and contour irregularities in non-load bearing regions of the cranial skeleton.
#### B. Technological and Operational Characteristics
{5}------------------------------------------------
The addition of a new indication for use to the PEEK CCI does not alter the technological characteristics of the actual customized cranial or craniofacial implant. The technological characteristics remain the same as the predicate:
- Same operating principle: to fill bony voids, defects, and contour irregularities in non-load bearing regions of the cranial skeleton.
- Same mode of fixation: fixated to the native bone with Stryker Neuro, Midface, and, or, Upperface self-tapping screws. The Stryker Neuro, Midface, and, or, Upperface standard drill bits are used to drill the pilot hole.
- Same material: Implants are made of medical grade PEEK Optima LT1. Both predicate and subject devices are milled out of a block using industrial milling machines.
- Same design: Provides a "drop-in-fit" without a need for intra-operative modifications. If minor intra-operative size reduction is required, the implant can be trimmed with standard surgical burrs by the surgeon.
#### VII. PERFORMANCE DATA
#### Biocompatibility Testing
Biocompatibility and sterility testing of the device is not required as a basis for substantial equivalence. There is no change in the material, duration or location of contact, or reprocessing methods for the PEEK CCI. The same manufacturing processes and identical materials are used in the predicate device and the Subject device.
#### Performance Bench Testing
Performance Bench testing was not required as a basis for substantial equivalence.
# Animal Testing
Animal testing was not required as a basis for substantial equivalence.
# Clinical Testing
To support the inclusion of the PLUS design option, and the corresponding indication for use, Stryker has leveraged clinical literature and case history. A summary of the clinical literature verifies that PTH reflects a deficiency in the bulk of the temporalis muscle or overlying temporal fat pad. Surgical results with augmented implant designs have been published upon and shown to be clinically successful in addressing PTH.
To that end. Stryker has incorporated surgeon design input into a customized implant with an augmented contour. In all patient-specific reconstructions, the level of implant augmentation may be adjusted based on surgeon clinical knowledge of the patient condition and the
{6}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/6/Picture/0 description: The image shows the word "stryker" in a bold, sans-serif font. The word is all lowercase except for the first letter, which is uppercase. A small registered trademark symbol is located to the right of the word. The text is black and the background is white.
surgical approach. This culmination of surgeon input and case history results in the CCI PLUS, which has shown that the augmented contour of the CCI PLUS potentially counteracts the asymmetry observed in PTH cases.
### VIII. CONCLUSIONS
According to the comparison based on the requirements of 21 CFR 807.87 and the information provided herein, it is concluded that the information included in this submission supports substantial equivalence.
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.