RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is intended for the use in traumatic and orthopedic surgery for the fixation of bone fractures (osteosynthesis) and for the fixation after osteotomies, e.g., for the correction of deformities or malalignments. The absorbable implants serve as temporary fixation and stabilization by osteosynthesis of bone fractures and osteotomies until bony fusion has occurred. The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is intended to be used for skeletally mature adults. The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is indicated for the fixation of the medial malleolus.
Device Story
RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is an absorbable metallic bone fixation fastener composed of magnesium, zinc, and calcium alloy. Used in orthopedic surgery for medial malleolus fracture fixation; provides temporary stabilization until bony fusion occurs. Implant corrodes in vivo into magnesium, calcium, and zinc oxides/hydroxides, releasing hydrogen gas as a byproduct. Device is a 3.5 mm diameter partially threaded solid-headed screw. Operated by surgeons in clinical settings. Output is mechanical fixation of bone fragments. Benefits include avoidance of secondary hardware removal surgeries, reduced long-term pain, and elimination of permanent metal implants. Clinical decision-making relies on radiographic monitoring of fracture healing and screw absorption progress.
Clinical Evidence
Prospective, non-randomized first-in-man study (MGAS) of 20 adults (mean age 40.1) with unstable medial malleolus fractures. Primary endpoints: clinical and radiographic healing. Results: 90% healed within 6 weeks; 100% healed by 12 weeks. AOFAS scores improved from 90.8 (52 weeks) to 93.7 (130 weeks). Adverse events were mild/moderate and non-device related. CT scans confirmed linear screw absorption over 149 weeks. Serum Mg2+, Ca2+, and renal function remained normal.
Indicated for fixation of medial malleolus fractures in skeletally mature adults requiring osteosynthesis or fixation following osteotomies.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An absorbable metallic bone fixation fastener is an implant, such as a bone screw, pin, or Kirschner wire, composed of one or more absorbable metal or metal alloys and intended to provide rigid bone fixation suitable for osteosynthesis. The device is designed to fully absorb after steosynthesis is achieved.
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
#### DE NOVO CLASSIFICATION REQUEST FOR REMEOS™ SCREW LAG SOLID
#### REGULATORY INFORMATION
FDA identifies this generic type of device as:
Absorbable metallic bone fixation fastener. An absorbable metallic bone fixation device is an implant, such as a bone screw, pin, or Kirschner wire, composed of one or more absorbable metal or metal alloys and intended to provide rigid bone fixation suitable for osteosynthesis. The device is designed to fully absorb after osteosynthesis is achieved.
NEW REGULATION NUMBER: 21 CFR 888.3041
CLASSIFICATION: Class II
PRODUCT CODE: QJD
#### BACKGROUND
DEVICE NAME: RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid
SUBMISSION NUMBER: DEN220030
DATE DE NOVO RECEIVED: May 4, 2022
#### SPONSOR INFORMATION:
Bioretec Ltd. Yrittäjänkulma 5 FI-33710 TAMPERE FINLAND
#### INDICATIONS FOR USE
RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is intended for the use in traumatic and orthopedic surgery for the fixation of bone fractures (osteosynthesis) and for the fixation after osteotomies, e.g., for the correction of deformities or malalignments. The absorbable implants serve as temporary fixation and stabilization by osteosynthesis of bone fractures and osteotomies until bony fusion has occurred.
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is intended to be used for skeletally mature adults.
{1}------------------------------------------------
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is indicated for the fixation of the medial malleolus.
# LIMITATIONS
The sale, distribution, and use of the RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is restricted to prescription use in accordance with 21 CFR 801.109.
PLEASE REFER TO THE LABELING FOR A COMPLETE LIST OF WARNINGS, PRECAUTIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS.
# DEVICE DESCRIPTION
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is an absorbable metallic bone fixation fastener. The product is manufactured from an absorbable magnesium-based alloy containing magnesium, zinc (0.55% (w/w)) and calcium (0.45% (w/w)). The material corrodes under physiological conditions into magnesium, calcium and zinc oxides and hydroxides, while producing hydrogen gas as byproduct. The implant serves as temporary fixation and stabilization by osteosynthesis of bones and fragments until bonv fusion has occurred.
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is provided in one design (Figure 1). The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is a partially threaded solid headed screw with a diameter of 3.5 mm and is offered from lengths 24 to 40 mm in 2 mm increments.
Image /page/1/Picture/7 description: The image shows a close-up of a metal screw. The screw has a flat head with a slot for a screwdriver. The shaft of the screw is smooth for most of its length, but the end of the screw has threads. The screw appears to be made of a shiny metal, possibly steel or aluminum.
Figure 1: RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid
# SUMMARY OF NONCLINICAL/BENCH STUDIES
# BIOCOMPATIBILITY/MATERIALS
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is manufactured from the following patient-contacting material:
Table 1: Manufactured Materials of Patient-Contacting Device Components
| Description | Material | Direct Patient<br>Contact | Contact<br>Duration |
|-------------|-----------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|
| Implant | Magnesium-alloy | Yes | Permanent<br>(>30 days) |
Biocompatibility evaluation has been completed according to 2020 FDA Guidance, Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, "Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process."
{2}------------------------------------------------
For this permanent implant, the following table shows the biocompatibility testing that was performed and the results, which were deemed acceptable for a permanent implant in contact with bone/tissue.
| Table 2. Biocompatibility Testing Performed | |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Test Description | Result |
| Cytotoxicity (per ISO 10993-5 (Biological<br>evaluation of medical devices — Part 5: Tests for<br>in vitro cytotoxicity)) | Non-cytotoxic |
| Sensitization (ISO 10993-10 (Biological evaluation<br>of medical devices — Part 10: Tests for irritation<br>and skin sensitization)) | Non-sensitizing |
| Irritation (per ISO 10993-10 (Biological evaluation<br>of medical devices — Part 10: Tests for irritation<br>and skin sensitization) | Non-irritant |
| Implantation Effects (per ISO 10993-6 (Biological<br>evaluation of medical devices — Part 6: Tests for<br>local effects after implantation)) | Null to minimal reactivity |
| Material Mediated Pyrogenicity (per ISO 10993-11<br>(Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part<br>11: Tests for systemic toxicity)) | Non-pyrogenic |
| Acute/Subacute/Subchronic/Chronic Systemic<br>Toxicity, (addressed through animal testing<br>(Biological evaluation of medical devices —Part<br>11:Tests for systemic toxicity) and chemical<br>characterization and toxicological risk assessment<br>per ISO 10993-18 (Biological evaluation of<br>medical devices — Part 18: Chemical<br>characterization of medical device materials within<br>a risk management process)/ISO 10993-17<br>(Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part<br>17: Establishment of allowable limits for leachable<br>substances)) | Does not elicit systemic toxicity |
| Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity (addressed<br>through chemical characterization and<br>toxicological risk assessment per ISO 10993-18<br>(Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part<br>18: Chemical characterization of medical device<br>materials within a risk management process)/ISO<br>10993-17 (Biological evaluation of medical<br>devices — Part 17: Establishment of allowable<br>limits for leachable substances) | Non-genotoxic/non-carcinogenic |
Table 2: Biocompatibility Testing Performed
### PACKAGING, STERILIZATION, AND SHELF LIFE
# Sterility
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is provided clean and sterile to the end-user.
{3}------------------------------------------------
Sterilization method (Dry Heat) of the device has been validated in accordance with ISO 20857, "Sterilization of health care products - Dry heat - Requirements for the development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices" to ensure a minimum sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10-9.
## Packaging and Shelf-Life
The product packaging consists of an inner protective barrier made of silicone and outer sterile barrier system (SBS) made of nylon, which is placed into a protective cardboard box. Package performance and package integrity testing were performed in accordance with FDA recognized standard ISO 11607.
Accelerated and real time aging of the dry-heat sterilized device to support a 12-month shelf-life were performed in accordance with ASTM F1980, "Standard Guide for Accelerated Aging of Sterile Medical Device Packages" and supported a 12-month shelflife. The expiration date of 12 months was verified by demonstrating package stability through visual inspection, seal width, dye penetration, and seal strength testing on the stored packaging.
Device packaging maintenance of sterility when subjected to the rigors of real-world shipping and handling was demonstrated by testing conducted in accordance with ASTM D4169, "Standard Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems"
## MAGNETIC RESONANCE (MR) COMPATIBILITY
To support MR conditional labeling for the RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid implant, the following MR testing was conducted to evaluate device safety and compatibility:
- . Magnetically Induced Displacement Force per ASTM F2052-15, "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Displacement Force on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment";
- Magnetically Induced Torque per ASTM F2213-17, "Standard Test Method for ● Measurement of Magnetically Induced Torque on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment";
- Radiofrequency Induced Heating per ASTM F2182-19e, "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating On or Near Passive Implants During Magnetic Resonance Imaging"; and
- Image Artifact as per ASTM F2119-07 (2013), "Standard Test Method for Evaluation of MR Image Artifacts from Passive Implants".
In magnetic field interaction tests, the RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid implant showed a translational attraction of 1.53 Tesla, the spatial gradient magnetic field was 466 gauss/cm and no torque. In image artifact testing, the maximum image artifact was
{4}------------------------------------------------
measured for both spin echo and gradient echo pulse sequences in a 3.0 T MR scanner, and the maximum artifact size, on the gradient echo pulse sequence, extends a linear distance of 5 mm relative to the size and shape of the cannulated screw. In MRI-related heating testing, test results and in vivo modeling show that, the maximum temperature rise after 60 minutes continuous exposure is less than 6°C under the condition of the whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR) at 2 W/kg.
# PERFORMANCE TESTING – BENCH
A summary of non-clinical mechanical performance evaluations is provided in Table 3:
| Test | Purpose | Method | Performance<br>Criteria | Results |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Torsional<br>Testing | The aim of this test<br>was to evaluate the<br>maximum torsional<br>strength of the<br>RemeOs™ Screw<br>LAG Solid prior to<br>degradation when<br>considering worst-<br>case screw<br>dimensions.<br>Absorbable<br>polymer bone<br>screws were used<br>as a comparator<br>device. | Testing was conducted in<br>accordance with ASTM<br>F543-17 (Standard<br>Specification and Test<br>Methods for Metallic<br>Medical Bone Screws). | The torsional<br>yield strength<br>should be<br>statistically<br>equivalent or<br>greater to that of<br>the comparator<br>device. | All specimens<br>exceeded the<br>performance<br>criteria. |
| Axial Pullout<br>Testing | The objective of<br>this test was to<br>measure the axial<br>tensile force<br>required to fail or<br>remove a bone<br>screw from a<br>defined material<br>prior to implant<br>degradation.<br>Absorbable<br>polymer bone<br>screws were used<br>as comparator<br>devices. | Testing was conducted in<br>accordance with ASTM<br>F543-17 (Standard<br>Specification and Test<br>Methods for Metallic<br>Medical Bone Screws). | The torsional<br>yield strength<br>should be<br>statistically<br>equivalent or<br>greater to that of<br>the comparator<br>device. | All specimens<br>exceeded the<br>performance<br>criteria. |
| Driving<br>Torque<br>Testing | The aim of this test<br>was to measure the<br>torque required to<br>drive a bone screw<br>into a standard | Testing was conducted in<br>accordance with ASTM<br>F543-17 (Standard<br>Specification and Test | The maximum<br>insertion torque in<br>the driving torque<br>test (ASTM F543-<br>17 Annex 2) must | All specimens met<br>the acceptance<br>criteria. |
| Test | Purpose | Method | Performance<br>Criteria | Results |
| | material prior to<br>degradation. | Methods for Metallic<br>Medical Bone Screws). | be statistically<br>equal to or less<br>than 80% of the<br>minimum<br>allowable yield<br>torque of the<br>corresponding<br>screw type in the<br>torsional strength<br>test to allow for<br>safe insertion. | |
| Mass Loss<br>Testing | The aim of this test<br>was to characterize<br>the <i>in vitro</i><br>degradation profile<br>of the RemeOsTM<br>Screw LAG Solid<br>by evaluating mass<br>loss and<br>dimensional<br>measurements over<br>time. | <i>In vitro</i> degradation testing<br>was performed in<br>accordance with ASTM<br>F3268-18 (Standard Guide<br>for <i>in vitro</i> Degradation<br>Testing of Absorbable<br>Metals). Test specimens<br>(screws, rods, and discs)<br>were tested in solution or<br>mounted in artificial bone<br>blocks. | The test<br>specimens<br>degrade in a<br>controlled manner<br>achieving steady<br>or declining state<br>( <i>in vitro</i> mass loss<br>rate is steady or<br>decreasing) by the<br>end of the study<br>(i.e., 26 weeks). | All specimens met<br>the acceptance<br>criteria. The<br>results of this<br>study were used to<br>perform an <i>in</i><br><i>vitro</i> – <i>in vivo</i><br>correlation<br>analysis. |
| Longitudinal<br>Flexural<br>Static Testing | The objective was<br>to study the <i>in vitro</i><br>static bending<br>properties of the<br>RemeOsTM Screw<br>LAG Solid as the<br>product is degraded<br><i>in vitro</i> .<br>Absorbable<br>polymer bone<br>screws were used<br>as comparator<br>devices. | <i>In vitro</i> degradation was<br>adapted from methods<br>described in ASTM F3268-<br>18 (Standard Guide for <i>in</i><br><i>vitro</i> Degradation Testing<br>of Absorbable Metals),<br>ASTM F1635-16 (Standard<br>Test Method for <i>in vitro</i><br>Degradation Testing of<br>Hydrolytically Degradable<br>Polymer Resins and<br>Fabricated Forms for<br>Surgical Implants) and<br>ASTM D790-17 (Standard<br>Test Methods for Flexural<br>Properties of Unreinforced<br>and Reinforced Plastics and<br>Electrical Insulating<br>Materials). The <i>in vitro</i><br>fatigue resistance to cyclic<br>bending forces of the<br>RemeOsTM Screw Lag Solid<br>material must be at least<br>statistically equivalent or<br>better compared to that of<br>the comparator device. | The <i>in vitro</i><br>flexural fatigue<br>performance of<br>the RemeOsTM<br>Screw LAG Solid<br>test specimens<br>must be at least<br>statistically<br>equivalent or<br>better compared to<br>that of the<br>comparator device<br>after <i>in vitro</i><br>degradation. | All specimens<br>exceeded the<br>performance<br>criteria. |
| Test | Purpose | Method | Performance<br>Criteria | Results |
| Longitudinal<br>Flexural<br>Fatigue<br>Testing | The aim of this<br>study was to<br>evaluate the fatigue<br>performance of the<br>RemeOs™ Screw<br>LAG Solid as the<br>product is degraded<br><i>in vitro</i> .<br>Absorbable<br>polymer bone<br>screws were used<br>as a comparator<br>device. | <i>In vitro</i> degradation and<br>flexural fatigue testing were<br>adapted from methods<br>described in ASTM F3268-<br>18 (Standard Guide for <i>in<br/>vitro</i> Degradation Testing<br>of Absorbable Metals),<br>ASTM F1635-16 (Standard<br>Test Method for <i>in vitro</i><br>Degradation Testing of<br>Hydrolytically Degradable<br>Polymer Resins and<br>Fabricated Forms for<br>Surgical Implants) and<br>ASTM F1264-16 (Standard<br>Specification and Test<br>Methods for Intramedullary<br>Fixation Devices).<br>Cylindrical test rods were<br>used as representative test<br>specimens. Specimens were<br>degraded <i>in vitro</i> in<br>artificial bone blocks.<br>Fatigue performance was<br>evaluated at 0, 4, and 8<br>weeks of <i>in vitro</i><br>degradation. | The <i>in vitro</i><br>fatigue resistance<br>to cyclic bending<br>forces of the<br>RemeOs™ LAG<br>Solid test<br>specimen must be<br>at least<br>statistically<br>equivalent or<br>better compared to<br>that of the<br>comparator device<br>after <i>in vitro</i><br>degradation. | All specimens<br>exceeded the<br>performance<br>criteria. |
| Longitudinal<br>Axial Pullout<br>Strength | The aim of this<br>study was to<br>evaluate the axial<br>pullout strength of<br>the RemeOs™<br>Screw LAG Solid<br>as the product is<br>degraded <i>in vitro</i> .<br>Absorbable<br>polymer bone<br>screws were used | <i>In vitro</i> degradation and<br>axial pullout testing were<br>adapted from methods<br>described in ASTM F3268-<br>18 (Standard Guide for <i>in<br/>vitro</i> Degradation Testing<br>of Absorbable Metals),<br>ASTM F1635-16 (Standard<br>Test Method for <i>in vitro</i><br>Degradation Testing of<br>Hydrolytically Degradable<br>Polymer Resins and | The axial pullout<br>strength of the<br>RemeOs™ test<br>specimen must be<br>statistically<br>equivalent or<br>greater to that of<br>the comparator<br>device after <i>in<br/>vitro</i> degradation. | All specimens<br>exceeded the<br>performance<br>criteria. |
| Test | Purpose | Method | Performance<br>Criteria | Results |
| | as comparator<br>devices. | Fabricated Forms for<br>Surgical Implants) and<br>ASTM F543-17 (Standard<br>Specification and Test<br>Methods for Metallic<br>Medical Bone Screws).<br>Specimens were degraded<br><i>in vitro</i> in artificial bone<br>blocks for up to 26 weeks. | | |
Table 3: Summary of Non-clinical Mechanical Performance Evaluations
{5}------------------------------------------------
{6}------------------------------------------------
{7}------------------------------------------------
### SUMMARY OF CLINICAL INFORMATION
The 'Clinical application of Magnesium (Mg)-based biodegradable material for fracture fixation in the adult skeleton - First in man study' (MGAS) enrolled otherwise healthy adults between 18 and 65 years of age presenting to a Level I outside the United States (OUS) trauma center with an unstable ankle injury that included a displaced medial malleolus fracture (displaced was defined as diastasis of the fracture in any direction of 2 mm or more).
All subjects underwent surgery during which the medial malleolus fracture was reduced and stabilized with either one (2 subjects) or two (18 subjects) ZX00 bioresorbable magnesium screws (3.5 x 40mm solid LAG; scientifically denoted as ZX00 and marketed as RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid). Associated fractures, such as of the fibula, were treated with conventional titanium screws and plates. Outcomes were assessed by clinical (physical examination, talocrural motion, pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores), laboratory (serum Mg2+, Zn2+, and Ca2+ concentrations, renal function) and radiographic evaluations performed at approximately 2, 6, 12, 24, 52, 104, and 130 weeks after surgery. All subjects were followed for close to 130 weeks (2.5 years) with the exception of one subject, who was healed at 12 weeks, but was subsequently lost to follow-up.
Clinical and radiographic healing of 90% of subjects (18 patients) occurred within 6 weeks with stable consolidation observed for the remaining 2 subjects at the 12 weeks follow-up appointment. Differences in the talocrural joint range of motion (dorsal flexion/plantar flexion) between the operated site and the contralateral non-operated side averaged 39° ± 12° after 2 weeks and declined to 2° ± 11° by 1 year. VAS scores averaged 1.6 ± 0.6 points after surgery, 1.3 ± 0.5 points after 2 weeks, and 1.0 (no medial malleolus pain) thereafter. At the 52-week follow-up examination, the AOFAS score was 90.8 ± 7.1 points and improved to 93.7 ± 5.2 by 130 weeks.
The MGAS investigators reported 12 mild to moderate non-serious adverse events (AEs) during an average subject follow-up of 2.5 years. These self-limited, likely non-device-related, AEs included mild post-operative discomfort (8 subjects), knee pain (1 subject), mild localized swelling (1 subject) and moderate self-limited pain of unknown origin (2 subjects). Two likely non-device-related serious adverse events were also reported. One subject experienced a pulmonary embolism, and a second subject underwent an additional surgery, an osteochondral
{8}------------------------------------------------
autograft transfer system (OATS) procedure 1 year post-injury to treat a persistent osteochondral defect of the medial talus ridge.
Although all fractures clinically and radiographically healed within 12 weeks of surgery, serial radiographs displayed radiolucent zones localized around the screws, attributed to absorption byproducts (i.e., hydrogen gas). In general, the radiolucencies increased up to post-operative week 6, remained constant until week 12, and then decreased. After 2.5 years (130 weeks average) bone loss was still visible on computed tomography (CT) scans; however, new bone formation was extensive. No refractures or new bone fractures were reported. Residual screw volume (y), as estimated from subject CT scans, linearly declined over time (x weeks) and approached 0 (full absorption) at 149 weeks (y = -1.4664x + 218.02 R2 = 0.976). Serum concentrations of Mg2+ and Ca2+ and estimated renal function remained within normal physiological limits throughout the study.
### Subject Demographics
A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the MGAS clinical study trial. Subjects' mean age and standard deviation was 40.1 ± 14.5 years. 11 subjects were male, and 9 subjects were female with an average Body Mass Index (BMI) of 26.25 ± 2.25 kg/m². Race and ethnicity data were not collected. Injury mechanisms and classification are provided in Table 4.
| Fracture Characterization | Patient # |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|
| Mechanism of Injury | |
| Walking | 9 |
| Fall | 3 |
| Sport Injury | 4 |
| Traffic Accident | 4 |
| Type of Ankle Fracture | |
| Isolated Fibular | 7 |
| Bimalleolar (total) | 13 |
| Bimalleolar with posterior (Trimalleolar) | 10 |
| Medial Malleolus Fracture<br>Classification<br>(Herscovici) | |
| A | 1 |
| B | 6 |
| C | 13 |
| Medial Malleolus Fracture Type | |
| Stable | 0 |
| Unstable | 20 |
### Table 4: Injury and Fracture Characteristics
{9}------------------------------------------------
| Tscherne Classification of soft-tissue<br>injury | |
|--------------------------------------------------|----|
| Grade 0 | 20 |
| Grade I | 0 |
| Grade II | 0 |
| Grade III | 0 |
### References:
Holweg P, Herber V, Ornig M, Hohenberger G, Donohue N, Puchwein P, Leithner A, Seibert F. A lean bioabsorbable magnesium-zinc-calcium alloy ZX00 used for operative treatment of medial malleolus fractures: early clinical results of a prospective non-randomized first in man study. Bone Joint Res. 2020 Aug 19:9(8):477-483. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.98.BJR-2020-0017.R2. PMID: 32874554; PMCID: PMC7437522.
Herber V, Labmayr V, Sommer NG, Marek R, Wittig U, Leithner A, Seibert F, Holweg P. Can Hardware Removal be Avoided Using Bioresorbable Mg-Zn-Ca Screws After Medial Malleolar Fracture Fixation? Mid-Term Results of a First-In-Human Study. Injury. 2022 Mar;53(3):1283-1288. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.10.025. Epub 2021 Oct 30. PMID: 34758916.
Note: As stated above, race and ethnicity data were not collected for this clinical dataset. For other patient demographics, such as gender and age, that were collected, the clinical dataset was insufficiently powered to evaluate the effect of these patient demographics on device performance.
### Pediatric Extrapolation
In this De Novo request, existing clinical data were not leveraged to support the use of the device in a pediatric patient population.
### LABELING
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid labeling includes the following: product description. indications for use, instructions for use, contraindications, warnings, precautions, shelf-life, material composition, absorption byproducts, time to complete absorption, summary of clinical data and surgical technique instructions. The labeling meets the requirements of 21 CFR 801.109. The labeling also includes additional information related to the time for complete product absorption and absorption byproducts.
#### RISKS TO HEALTH
The table below identifies the risks to health that may be associated with use of an absorbable metallic bone fixation fastener and the measures necessary to mitigate these risks.
Table 5: Identified Risks to Health and Associated Mitigation Measures
{10}------------------------------------------------
| Risks to Health | Mitigation Measures |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Loss of bone fixation resulting from:<br>Premature device absorption and formation of absorption byproducts Device breakage Galvanic corrosion Device aging | Clinical data<br>Non-clinical performance testing<br>Shelf-life testing<br>Labeling |
| Adverse tissue reaction resulting from:<br>Device material Device absorption and absorption byproducts | Biocompatibility evaluation<br>Labeling |
| Infection | Sterilization validation<br>Shelf-life testing<br>Pyrogenicity testing<br>Labeling |
| Difficulties with revision surgery due to screw absorption | Clinical data<br>Labeling |
### SPECIAL CONTROLS
In combination with the general controls of the FD&C Act, the absorbable metallic bone fixation fastener is subject to the following special controls:
- (1) Clinical data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under the anticipated conditions of use. The absorption profile must be characterized to completion (e.g., full absorption). The difficulty of any revision surgeries must be documented.
- (2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the product performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must:
- Evaluate the complete degradation profile of the device; (i)
- Evaluate the initial mechanical performance; and (ii)
- (iii) Evaluate the mechanical performance as the device degrades.
- The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible. (3)
- The device must be demonstrated to be non-pyrogenic. (4)
- Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device. (ર)
- Performance data must support the labeled shelf-life of the device by demonstrating (6) continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality (i.e., degradation profile and mechanical performance) over the established shelf-life.
- (7) Labeling must include:
- Material composition; (1)
- (ii) Absorption byproducts;
- (iii) A detailed summary of the product's technical parameters;
- (iv) An expiration date/shelf life;
- Instructions for revision surgery; (v)
- (vi) Time to complete absorption; and
- (vii) A summary of clinical data with the device.
{11}------------------------------------------------
### BENEFIT-RISK DETERMINATION
The risks of the device are based on nonclinical laboratory as well as data collected in a clinical study described above.
BENEFITS:
- 1) Fracture fixation and osteosynthesis functionally equivalent to conventional (titanium or stainless steel) bone screws
- 2) Reduction in occurrence of long-term pain associated with permanently implanted hardware
- 3) Reduced second surgeries for screw removal and associated risks of additional surgical procedure
- 4) Avoidance of sensitivities to conventional metallic screws (i.e., nickel, titanium)
- 5) Improved clinical imaging (less metal artifact / no metal artifact post-absorption)
- 6) Reduced bone stress shielding
### RISKS:
- 1) Absorption-related screw structural weakness
- 2) Absorption-related bone toxicity / device-related fractures
- 3) Systemic toxicity
- 4) Difficulties with revision surgeries (loss of screw head during absorption)
- 5) Reduced fluoroscopic and X-ray visibility
- 6) Galvanic corrosion if in contact with non-magnesium hardware
Based on the totality of the evidence, the RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid demonstrated a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the device for its intended use/indications for use, and there is a low degree of uncertainty in this finding. In conclusion, the benefits of using the subject device for its intended use/indications for use outweigh the probable risks to health.
# Patient Perspectives
Patient perspectives considered for the RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Scale assessments as a secondary safety endpoint evaluated at 0, 2. 6, 12, 24, 52. 104. and 130 weeks. This patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment was used to demonstrate a clinically meaningful improvement in pain reduction.
### Benefit/Risk Conclusion
In conclusion, given the available information above, for the following indication statement:
RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is intended for the use in traumatic and orthopaedic surgery for the fixation of bone fractures (osteosynthesis) and for the fixation after osteotomies, e.g., for the correction of deformities or malalignments. The absorbable implants serve as temporary fixation and stabilization by osteosynthesis of bone fractures and osteotomies until bony fusion has occurred.
{12}------------------------------------------------
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is intended to be used for skeletally mature adults.
The RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is indicated for the fixation of the medial malleolus.
The probable benefits outweigh the probable risks for the RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid. The device provides benefits, and the risks can be mitigated by the use of general controls and the identified special controls.
### CONCLUSION
The De Novo request for the RemeOs™ Screw LAG Solid is granted, and the device is classified as follows:
Product Code: QJD Device Type: Absorbable metallic bone fixation fastener Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3041 Class: II
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
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.