FDA 510(k) Search - By Innolitics (SaMD and AI Experts)

A replacement of shoulder joints in primary anatomic or in primary reverse. .
A replacement of other shoulder joints devices in case of revisions if sufficient bone stock remains. .
The Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System also allows for conversions from anatomic to reverse shoulder . prosthesis in case of revision.

IN ANATOMIC: The stem and head may be used by themselves, as a hemiarthroplasty, if the natural glenoid provides a sufficient bearing surface, or in conjunction with the glenoid, as a total replacement.
The Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System is to be used only in patients with an intect or reconstructable rotator cuff, where it is intended to provide increased mobility and stability and to relieve pain.
The Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints disabled by:

Rheumatoid arthritis with pain .
Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (i.e. osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis) .
Correction of functional deformity .
. Fractures of the humeral head
Traumatic arthritis .
Revision of other devices if sufficient bone stock remains .

The Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints IN REVERSE: for patients with a functional deltoid muscle and with massive and non-repairable rotator cuff-tear with pain disabled bv:

Rheumatoid arthritis .
Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (i.e. osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis) .
Correction of functional deformity .
. Fractures of the humeral head
. Traumatic arthritis
Revision of the devices if sufficient bone stock remains

The reversed adapter is indicated for use as components of the Shoulder System total shoulder replacement and for transformation of the Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System into a reverse shoulder prosthesis without the removal of the humeral stem during revision surgery for patients with a functional deltoid muscle. The components are permitted to be used in the transformation from anatomic to reverse if the humeral stem is well fixed, the patient has a functional deltoid muscle; the arthropathy is associated with a massive and non-repairable rotator cufftear.

Device Description

The Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System consists of:

In a Anatomic configuration: A titanium humeral stem offered in Titanium Plasma . Spray (Ti PS) coated and un-coated stem versions, a compatible humeral head (CoCr) with a compatible UHMWPE Aequalis glenoid; or UHMWPE Affiniti Anatomic glenoid. The Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System stem and head may be used by themselves, as a hemiarthroplasty, if the natural glenoid provides a sufficient bearing surface, or in conjunction with a glenoid, as a total shoulder joint replacement.
. In a Reversed configuration: a titanium humeral stem offered in Titanium Plasma Spray (Ti PS) coated and un-coated stem versions, a reversed adapter with compatible Aequalis Reversed glenoid implants.
The reversed adapter is comprised of two components: a titanium tray and a UHM WPE reversed insert.
The Aequalis Reversed glenoid implants is comprised of four components: Baseplate: made from Titanium: Glenoid sphere: made from of CoCr: Screw (baseplate/to glenoid sphere): made from CoCr and Fixation screws: made from Titanium.
The Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints for patients with a functional deltoid muscle and with massive and non-repairable rotator cuff-tear.
The present device submission corresponds to modifications made to the version of the device cleared in 510(k) K121493 (most recent) and K112615.

AI/ML Overview

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Tornier Aequalis™ Ascend™ Flex Shoulder System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than describing a study to prove acceptance criteria for a new device's performance in a clinical setting.

Therefore, the information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as it would typically be presented for a diagnostic or AI-based device is not present in this document. This document describes a medical implant where "acceptance criteria" are related to mechanical and material performance and "proof" comes from non-clinical testing and comparison to existing devices.

Here's a breakdown of what is available based on your request, adapted to the context of a medical implant submission:

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

The document does not provide a formal table of explicit acceptance criteria with numerical performance results in the way a diagnostic device would (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, "acceptance criteria" are implied by the non-clinical tests performed, demonstrating the device's mechanical integrity and material properties meet established standards, and its design is comparable to predicates.

The "reported device performance" is summarized as:

Non-clinical testing: "stem strength evaluation in Anatomic/Reverse configurations; taper evaluation; reverse adapter evaluation; head glenoids mismatch evaluation; system range of motion evaluation; and Titanium Plasma Spray coating validation per FDA guidance."
Conclusion: "The results of these nonclinical tests allow us to conclude that the Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System described in this submission is substantially equivalent and as safe and effective as the predicate device."

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. The "test set" here refers to the physical devices (prototypes or production samples) that underwent non-clinical mechanical and material testing, not a dataset of patient information. The document focuses on demonstrating physical and functional equivalence to predicate devices through engineering tests.

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)

This is not applicable to this type of device submission. Ground truth is not established by human experts in the context of mechanical testing of an implant; rather, it's defined by engineering specifications, material standards, and biomechanical principles.

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

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for human interpretation of patient data, not for the mechanical testing of an implant.

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

This is not applicable. This device is a shoulder implant, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted system. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

This is not applicable. This is a medical implant, not an algorithm.

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

For this type of device (a medical implant), the "ground truth" for proving performance would be based on:

Engineering specifications and standards: Adherence to established mechanical, material, and biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO standards for implants, FDA guidance for specific tests).
Biomechanical principles: Ensuring the device functions appropriately within the human biomechanical system.
Material properties: Verifying that the materials used meet the required strength, durability, and biocompatibility criteria.
Predicate device performance: The "ground truth" for substantial equivalence is often the known safety and effectiveness profile of the legally marketed predicate device(s).

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of an implant's mechanical and material testing.

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

This is not applicable.

Summary of the K122698 Submission:

The document describes the Tornier Aequalis™ Ascend™ Flex Shoulder System, an implant intended for shoulder joint replacement in various configurations (anatomic and reverse).

The primary method for demonstrating its "acceptance" and safety/effectiveness for market clearance is substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices (Tornier Inc. Ascend Shoulder System K121493 and Tornier Inc. Aequalis Ascend Modular Reverse Shoulder System K112615, with K120739 as a reference).

The studies referenced are non-clinical tests designed to show that the modified device performs comparably to its predicates and meets necessary engineering and material standards. These tests include:

Stem strength evaluation (in Anatomic/Reverse configurations)
Taper evaluation
Reverse adapter evaluation
Head glenoids mismatch evaluation
System range of motion evaluation
Titanium Plasma Spray coating validation per FDA guidance.

The document states that the "results of these nonclinical tests allow us to conclude that the Aequalis Ascend Flex Shoulder System described in this submission is substantially equivalent and as safe and effective as the predicate device." This indicates that the "acceptance criteria" were met through these engineering and material tests, demonstrating that the device functions as intended and is as safe and effective as the predicate devices.

Summary

Regulation Number and Section

§ 888.3660 Shoulder joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis.

(a)
Identification. A shoulder joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a shoulder joint. The device limits translation and rotation in one or more planes via the geometry of its articulating surfaces. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a humeral resurfacing component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a glenoid resurfacing component made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, and is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).(b)
Classification. Class II. The special controls for this device are:(1) FDA's:
(i) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part I: Evaluation and Testing,’ ”
(ii) “510(k) Sterility Review Guidance of 2/12/90 (K90-1),”
(iii) “Guidance Document for Testing Orthopedic Implants with Modified Metallic Surfaces Apposing Bone or Bone Cement,”
(iv) “Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notification (510(k)) Application for Orthopedic Devices,” and
(v) “Guidance Document for Testing Non-articulating, ‘Mechanically Locked’ Modular Implant Components,”
(2) International Organization for Standardization's (ISO):
(i) ISO 5832-3:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 3: Wrought Titanium 6-aluminum 4-vandium Alloy,”
(ii) ISO 5832-4:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 4: Cobalt-chromium-molybdenum casting alloy,”
(iii) ISO 5832-12:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 12: Wrought Cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy,”
(iv) ISO 5833:1992 “Implants for Surgery—Acrylic Resin Cements,”
(v) ISO 5834-2:1998 “Implants for Surgery—Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene—Part 2: Moulded Forms,”
(vi) ISO 6018:1987 “Orthopaedic Implants—General Requirements for Marking, Packaging, and Labeling,” and
(vii) ISO 9001:1994 “Quality Systems—Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing,” and
(3) American Society for Testing and Materials':
(i) F 75-92 “Specification for Cast Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy for Surgical Implant Material,”
(ii) F 648-98 “Specification for Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene Powder and Fabricated Form for Surgical Implants,”
(iii) F 799-96 “Specification for Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy Forgings for Surgical Implants,”
(iv) F 1044-95 “Test Method for Shear Testing of Porous Metal Coatings,”
(v) F 1108-97 “Specification for Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium Alloy Castings for Surgical Implants,”
(vi) F 1147-95 “Test Method for Tension Testing of Porous Metal,”
(vii) F 1378-97 “Standard Specification for Shoulder Prosthesis,” and
(viii) F 1537-94 “Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy for Surgical Implants.”