(232 days)
The Shoulder Innovation's InSet Total Shoulder System, when used with the Inset Stem, 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;
- Fractures of the humeral head
- Fractures of the proximal humerus, where other methods of treatment are deemed inadequate.
- Avascular necrosis of the humeral head
- Revision where other devices or treatments have failed.
The assembled humeral component may be used alone for hemiarthroplasty or combined with the glenoid component for total shoulder arthroplasty.
The InSet 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 peqged design intended for cemented fixation only.
This document concerns the 510(k) premarket notification for the "InSet Total Shoulder System" and specifically a product line extension to add the "InSet 95 Humeral Stem." This is a medical device approval and not an AI/ML software approval.
Therefore, the information requested about acceptance criteria and studies proving the device meets those criteria, particularly aspects related to AI/ML such as ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and training/test set sample sizes, are not applicable to this document.
The document states under "Clinical Testing Summary": "Clinical testing was not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the InSet Total Shoulder System InSet 95 Humeral Stem to the predicate device." This indicates that the approval was based on non-clinical testing and comparison to predicate devices, rather than a clinical study with human subjects or an AI/ML model's performance evaluation.
Here's a breakdown of what is relevant from the document in relation to the device's acceptance:
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on information provided, specifically for this medical device approval):
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied by FDA 510(k) pathway) | Reported Device Performance (Summary from Non-Clinical Testing) |
|---|---|
| Substantial Equivalence: Device must have the same intended use and similar technological characteristics as a legally marketed predicate device, or if there are differences, they must not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. | The InSet Total Shoulder System with InSet 95 Humeral Stem is determined to be substantially equivalent to the predicate devices (K192365, K212737, K060692). |
| Mechanical Strength/Durability: Device components should withstand anticipated physiological stresses. | Non-clinical testing included stem mechanical strength evaluation via cyclic fatigue testing. The conclusion is that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the legally marketed predicate device based on this evaluation. |
| Material Biocompatibility: Materials used must be biocompatible. | Materials are standard for medical implants (Titanium Alloy, CoCr, UHMWPE) and conform to ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136, ASTM F1580), implying accepted biocompatibility. |
| Design Compatibility/Functionality: Components must interface correctly and function as intended. | Features like identical taper connection design, stem body/contour, initial fixation, porous coating, base materials, sterilization, and compatibility with existing implant offerings were compared and found similar to predicates. |
Study Details (as per the document):
- Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This was not a data-driven AI/ML study but a medical device submission based on substantial equivalence and non-clinical engineering tests. No "test set" in the context of an AI/ML model's performance on patient data was used.
- Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for patient data is not established for this type of device approval. The "ground truth" relates to engineering specifications and performance against those specifications, which were assessed via non-clinical testing and comparison to predicates.
- Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
- 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: Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.
- If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical orthopedic implant, not an algorithm.
- The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for this device approval would be established engineering standards, material properties, and performance benchmarks derived from predicate devices and regulatory requirements. For example, mechanical strength is evaluated against established limits or performance of predicate devices.
- The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires training data.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.
In summary, the provided document details the FDA's clearance of a physical medical device (shoulder implant) based on its substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices and non-clinical engineering testing, not on the performance of an AI/ML algorithm or clinical studies involving human patient data.
§ 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.”