(144 days)
When used in the Humelock II Reversible Shoulder System: The Humelock II Reversible Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.
The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.
The humeral stems are intended for cemented or cementless use. The metaglene baseplate is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.
When used in the Humelock Reversed Shoulder System:
The Humelock Reversed Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable cuff tear.
The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.
During primary or revision surgery, if the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to bear the reversed glenoid components or the glenoid bone fractures during the procedure, a taper adapter can be used to convert the Humelock Reversed Shoulder to an anatomic hemi-shoulder prosthesis.
The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cemented Shoulder Prothesis is intended for cemented use only. The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cementless Shoulder Prothesis is lockable with two cortical bone screws and is intended for cementless use only. An optional anti-rotational spoiler can be used with either the cementless or the cemented stems.
The glenoid baseplate and post extension are intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.
When used in the Humeris Shoulder System:
In an anatomic shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder System is indicated for use in total and hemi-shoulder replacement to treat:
-
A severely painful and/or disabled joint resulting from osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis;
-
Other difficult clinical problems where shoulder arthrodesis or resection arthroplasty are not acceptable (e.g. revision of a previously implanted primary component, a humeral plate or a humeral nail).
In a reverse shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder is indicated for primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.
The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.
The humeral stem of the Humeris Cementless Shoulder is intended for cementless use only. The humeral stem of the Humeris Cemented Shoulder is intended for cemented use only. The glenoid components of the Humeris Shoulder System are intended for cemented use only. The glenoid baseplate component is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.
The Glenoid Baseplate with Screw is a new component added to the Humelock II® Reversible Shoulder System, Humelock Reversed® Shoulder System, and Humeris® Shoulder System, when used for a reverse shoulder construct. Compatible components for use with the Glenoid Baseplate with Screw are the same as those previously cleared compatible components for use as a component in the primary predicate device, K150488, K162455 Humelock Reversed Shoulder System and K163669 Humeris Shoulder System, when used for a reverse shoulder construct.
This FDA 510(k) clearance document for the "Glenoid Baseplate with Screw" does not describe a study that involves software, AI, or human readers, or that uses acceptance criteria based on metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.
Instead, this document is for a medical device (a shoulder implant component). The "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" discussed relate to mechanical testing of the implant, not diagnostic or predictive performance.
Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details, because this type of information is simply not present in this document.
Here's what I can extract related to the mentioned "acceptance criteria" which is limited to mechanical performance:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Torque properties per ISO 6475-1 | Results demonstrated "greater than the acceptance criteria per the standard." |
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 Test Set: Not specified. Standard mechanical testing typically uses a specific number of samples for each test, but the exact number is not detailed here.
- Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is FX Solutions in Viriat, France (01440). It's reasonable to infer the testing was conducted by or for the manufacturer, potentially in France or a certified testing facility elsewhere. The testing is non-clinical, meaning it's conducted in a lab setting, not on 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. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to the mechanical properties of the device as defined by a standard. Experts are typically involved in setting the standard and performing the tests, but no specific number or qualifications are mentioned as this isn't a diagnostic performance study.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical outcomes, not for mechanical testing of a physical device.
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, an MRMC study was not done. This document is for a physical medical implant, not an AI device or software.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. This document is for a physical medical implant, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
The "ground truth" for the device's mechanical performance is based on the specifications outlined in the ISO 6475-1 standard for torque properties.
8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI or machine learning device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable as there is no training set.
§ 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.”