(91 days)
The Shoulder Innovations Total Shoulder System is intended for use as an orthopedic implant for partial or total shoulder arthroplasty to treat the following:
- significant disability in degenerative, rheumatic disease of the glenohumeral joint;
- avascular necrosis of the humeral head.
The assembled humeral component may be used alone for hemiarthroplasty or combined with the glenoid component for total shoulder arthroplasty.
The Total Shoulder System components are intended for single use only. The glenoid component is intended for cemented fixation only; the humeral stem may be implanted by press-fit or cement fixation.
The Shoulder Innovations Total Shoulder System consists of modular humeral stems and heads that articulate with a glenoid component. The humeral stems are collarless and manufactured from Titanium Alloy (Ti6-4) with fins to provide rotational stability. The collarless stems allow the humeral head to prevent stem subsidence. The stems have a female Morse-type taper to interface with the modular humeral heads. The proximal body and fins are coated with a rough, porous coating for un-cemented fixation or for use with bone cement.
The humeral heads are manufactured from CoCr and are available in standard and offset configurations. The heads have a male Morse-type taper to interface with the humeral stems.
The glenoid components of the Total Shoulder System are manufactured from Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE). The glenoid implant is a multi-pegged design intended for cemented fixation only.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Shoulder Innovations Total Shoulder System, and specifically a line extension to add "Augmented Glenoids." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a study proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria based on performance data.
Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this type of regulatory submission. The document relies on non-clinical testing and comparison to predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not a clinical study with detailed performance metrics against predefined acceptance criteria.
Here's an analysis based on the available information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
This information is not provided in the document in the format of a typical acceptance criteria table with performance results. The document explains that non-clinical testing was performed according to ASTM F2028-17 and cadaver testing, and these tests "demonstrated that the Augmented Glenoids are adequate for their intended use." However, specific numerical acceptance criteria and performance values are not reported.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for the non-clinical tests. For cadaver testing, a sample size is typically provided, but it's absent here.
- Data Provenance: The cadaver testing is generally considered prospective in its data collection for the specific purpose of the study. The location of testing or origin of cadavers is not mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
This is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical and cadaveric testing, not a study evaluating human interpretation or diagnosis where expert ground truth would be established.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
This is not applicable for the same reasons as #3.
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. The device is an orthopedic implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This is not applicable. The device is an orthopedic implant, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
For the non-clinical tests (ASTM F2028-17 and cadaver testing), the "ground truth" would be the physical measurements and observations from the tests themselves, demonstrating mechanical properties or performance under simulated conditions. This is not "expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data" in the typical sense for a clinical study.
8. The sample size for the training set
This is not applicable. The document describes a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This is not applicable for the same reasons as #8.
§ 888.3650 Shoulder joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis.
(a)
Identification. A shoulder joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a shoulder joint. The device limits minimally (less than normal anatomic constraints) translation in one or more planes. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a humeral 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 “Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium Alloy Castings for Surgical Implants,”
(vi) F 1147-95 “Test Method for Tension Testing of Porous Metal Coatings,”
(vii) F 1378-97 “Specification for Shoulder Prosthesis,” and
(viii) F 1537-94 “Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy for Surgical Implants.”