Search Results

Materialise TKA Guide System consists of hardware (Materialise TKA Guides and Models) and software (SurgiCase Knee Planner) components.

Hardware

• Pin Placement Guides
The Materialise TKA Guides are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intra‐operative positioning of Total Knee Replacement components and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting.

The Materialise TKA Guides must be used in conjunction with the Zimmer NexGen® CR-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen® CR fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen® LPS-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen® LPS fixed bearing, Zimmer Gender Solutions® Natural-Knee® fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona® CR fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona® PS fixed bearing, Vanguard® Complete Knee System, Vanguard® SSK 360, Vanguard® SSK Revision Knee System, Regenerex® Primary Tibial System, Offset & Microplasty® Tibial Systems, Maxim® Complete Knee System, Ascent™ Total Knee System, AGC® Complete Knee system, Lima Physica PS System Knee System, Lima Physica CR Knee System, Lima Physica KR Knee System, Omni Apex CR, Omni Apex PS, Ortho Development BKS CR, Ortho Development BKS PS, Ortho Development BKS TriMax CR and Ortho Development BKS TriMax PS prostheses families only.

The Materialise TKA Guides are intended for single use only.

• Cut-Through Guides
The Materialise TKA Guides are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intra‐operative positioning of Total Knee Replacement components and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting and cutting of the bone.

The Materialise TKA Guides must be used in conjunction with the Vanguard® Complete Knee System, Vanguard® SSK 360, Vanguard® SSK Revision Knee System, Regenerex® Primary Tibial System, Offset & Microplasty® Tibial Systems, Maxim® Complete Knee System, Ascent™ Total Knee System and AGC® Complete Knee system prostheses families only

The Materialise TKA Guides are intended for single use only.

• Models
The Materialise TKA Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intra‐operative positioning of Total Knee Replacement components.

The Materialise TKA Models must be used in conjunction with Zimmer NexGen® CR-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen® CR fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen® LPS-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen® LPS fixed bearing, Zimmer Gender Solutions® Natural-Knee® fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona® CR fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona® PS fixed bearing, Vanguard® Complete Knee System, Vanguard® SSK 360, Vanguard® SSK Revision Knee System, Regenerex® Primary Tibial System, Offset & Microplasty® Tibial Systems, Maxim® Complete Knee System, Ascent™ Total Knee System, AGC® Complete Knee system, Lima Physica PS System Knee System, Lima Physica CR Knee System, Lima Physica KR Knee System, Omni Apex CR, Omni Apex PS , Ortho Development BKS CR, Ortho Development BKS PS, Ortho Development BKS TriMax CR and Ortho Development BKS TriMax PS prostheses families only.

The Materialise TKA Models are intended for single use only.

Software
The SurgiCase Knee Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for knee orthopedic surgery. The software is used to pre-operatively plan the positioning of knee components. The SurgiCase Knee Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which is used as input data to design the Materialise Knee Guides and Models.

The Materialise TKA Guide System is a medical device designed to be used to implant total knee prosthesis components during a total knee arthroplasty surgical procedure. This can be done by generating a presurgical knee plan and by manufacturing a patient-specific knee guide and models to transfer the knee plan to surgery.

The subject device is a system that consists of the following two functional components:

• A software component branded as SurgiCase Knee Planner. This software is a planning tool used to generate a personalized pre-surgical TKA plan according to either a mechanical or a restricted kinematic alignment philosophy based on patient anatomy. This initial plan can then be further edited by the surgeon.

• Hardware components branded as Materialise TKA Guides and Models: which are patient-specific guides and models that are based on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Materialise TKA Guides and Models is an instrument set containing a femur and/or tibia guide(s) and bone models (optional). Both femoral and tibial guides are designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. If the surgeon requests it, a bone model of the femur and/or tibia are delivered with the Materialise TKA Guides. The Materialise TKA Guides and Models assist in the intra-operative positioning of total knee replacement components. The guides assist in guiding the marking of bone before cutting and to guide cutting of the bone. The patient-specific models serve as a visual reference for the surgeon in the operating room. The Materialise TKA Guides and Models must only be used within the intended use of the compatible components (510(k) cleared, legally marketed prosthesis).

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Materialise TKA Guide System describes the device and its indications for use, but it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or the details of a study (like a clinical study or specific performance data) that proves the device meets those criteria.

Instead, the document primarily focuses on establishing "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device (Materialise TKA Guide System K221337) and a reference device (Materialise PKA Guide System K202207). It states that "The non-clinical performance testing indicates that the subject device is as safe and effective as the predicate device." However, it does not provide the actual results of this non-clinical performance testing in terms of specific acceptance criteria and detailed study outcomes.

The information given is typical for a 510(k) summary, which generally affirms that V&V (Verification and Validation) was done and that the device performs as intended, but it doesn't usually include the granular details of the V&V studies themselves, especially not in a public-facing clearance letter. These details would be contained within the full 510(k) submission, which is not publicly accessible in its entirety.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria and reported performance, nor can I provide answers to most of your specific questions (sample size, data provenance, expert details, adjudication, MRMC study, ground truth type, training set details) because this information is not present in the provided text.

The document mentions:

• Software verification and validation: "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices.' This includes verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs." This implies acceptance criteria were defined (as "defined requirements" and "user needs") and met, but the specific metrics and results are not listed.
• Hardware testing: "Previous testing for biocompatibility, sterility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability and packaging are applicable to the subject device and demonstrate substantial equivalence with the predicate device (no changes have been applied to the Hardware)." Again, this confirms testing occurred and was successful, but the specific criteria and outcomes are omitted.

In summary, none of the specific data you requested (acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, etc.) are available in the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter.

To provide the information you're looking for, one would typically need access to the full 510(k) submission, specifically the V&V reports, which are proprietary and not released with the public clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hardware:
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans.

The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only.

The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components:

• · DePuy Synthes'
• GLOBAL® APG+ Shoulder System (K052472)
• DELTA XTEND™ Reverse Shoulder System (K120174, K062250, K183077, K203694)
• GLOBAL® STEPTECH® APG Shoulder System (K092122)
• INHANCE™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K202716)1
• INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System (K212737)
• INHANCE™ Hybrid Anatomic Glenoid Implant (K212933)
• INHANCE™ Reverse Glenoid Peripheral Posts (K221467)
• INHANCE Convertible Glenoid (K230831)
• · Enovis'2 (DJO)
• Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K111629, K092873)
• Turon® Shoulder System (K080402)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Augmented Glenoid (K213387, K222592)
• AltiVate™ Reverse Glenoid (K233481)
• · Smith+Nephew's3
• Titan™ Total Shoulder System (K100448, K112438, K142413, K152047)
• Titan™ Reverse Shoulder System (K130050, K161189, K173717, K181999)
• AETOS Total Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• AETOS Reverse Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• · Lima's
• SMR™ Shoulder System (K100858)
• SMR™ Reverse Shoulder System (K110598)
• SMR™ Modular Glenoid (K113254) (K143256)
• SMR™ 3-Pegs Glenoid (K130642)
• SMR™ TT Metal Back Glenoid (K133349)
• SMR TM 40mm Glenosphere (K142139)
• SMR™ TT Augmented 360 Baseplate (K220792)
• SMR™ TT Hybrid Glenoid (K220792)
• PRIMA TT Glenoid (K222427)

Software:
SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder System™ is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following:

• a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used . to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient.
• Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific quide and models that are based ● on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patientspecific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the pre-operative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary (K242813) for the Materialise Shoulder System™ describes a submission seeking substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device (K241143). This submission is primarily for adding compatibility with new implant components rather than introducing a completely new AI capability or significant software change that would necessitate extensive new performance data. Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information typically found in a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/ML product.

Specifically, the document states:

• "The non-clinical performance data has demonstrated that the subject software technological differences between the subject and predicate devices do not raise any different questions of safety and effectiveness." (Page 9)
• "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices.' This includes verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs." (Page 10)
• "Previous testing for biocompatibility, sterility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability and packaging are applicable to the subject device. Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended. The stability of the device placement, surgical technique, intended use and functional elements of the subject device are the same as that of the predicate device of Materialise Shoulder System™ K241143 and previously cleared devices... therefore previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559 are considered applicable to the subject device." (Page 10)

Given this, I cannot provide detailed answers to many of your questions as the submission relies on the substantial equivalence principle and prior testing rather than new, extensive performance studies for AI/ML.

However, I can extract what is available:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria and reported device performance for the current submission (K242813), as it relies on the previous clearance and the assessment that the changes (adding implant compatibility) do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.

The general acceptance criterion mentioned is that the "accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended." This was verified through previous testing, including "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing."

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

The document mentions "previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559." It does not specify the sample size for these tests, nor the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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 information is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

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 such MRMC study is mentioned. The device is a "pre-surgical planner" and "surgical instrument" designed to assist the surgeon, but the provided text does not detail comparative effectiveness studies of human readers (surgeons) with and without the AI (planning software) assistance.

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

The software (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner) generates a pre-surgical plan which the "qualified surgeon" can "visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate, edit and approve" (Page 9). This indicates a human-in-the-loop process. Standalone performance of the algorithm without human interaction is not discussed as it's not the intended use.

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

The document generally refers to "verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs" and "accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended" based on "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing." This suggests a ground truth established through expert-defined surgical planning parameters and comparison to physical outcomes in the simulated/cadaveric environment, but specifics on how this ground truth was formalized (e.g., expert consensus on optimal planning, precise measurement validation) are not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

This device is a surgical planning tool and guides, not a deep learning AI model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense for image classification or similar tasks. It is based on algorithms that process CT-imaging scans and anatomical landmarks to generate personalized plans and guides. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" for AI/ML is not applicable here in the way it would be for a pattern recognition AI. The software's robustness and accuracy are likely validated through extensive testing against various patient anatomies and surgical scenarios.

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

As explained above, the concept of a training set as typically understood for AI/ML models is not directly applicable to this device based on the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hardware:
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans.
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only.
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components:

• DePuy Synthes'
• GLOBAL® APG+ Shoulder System (K052472)
• DELTA XTEND™ Reverse Shoulder System (K120174, K062250, K183077, K203694)
• GLOBAL® STEPTECH® APG Shoulder System (K092122)
• INHANCE™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K202716)1
• INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System (K212737)
• INHANCE Hybrid Anatomic Glenoid Implant (K212933)
• INHANCE Reverse Glenoid Peripheral Posts (K221467)
• Enovis'2 (DJO)
• Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K111629, K092873)
• Turon® Shoulder System (K080402)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Augmented Glenoid (K213387)
• Smith+Nephew's3
• Titan™ Total Shoulder System (K100448, K112438, K142413, K152047)
• Titan™ Reverse Shoulder System (K130050, K161189, K173717, K181999)
• AETOS Total Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• AETOS Reverse Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• Lima's
• SMR™ Shoulder System (K100858)
• SMR™ Reverse Shoulder System (K110598)
• SMR™ Modular Glenoid (K113254) (K143256)
• SMR™ 3-Pegs Glenoid (K130642)
• SMR™ TT Metal Back Glenoid (K133349)
• SMR™ 40mm Glenosphere (K142139)
• SMR™ TT Augmented 360 Baseplate (K220792)
• SMR™ TT Hybrid Glenoid (K220792)
• PRIMA TT Glenoid (K222427)

Software:
SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder System™ is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following:

• a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient.
• Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific guide and models that are based on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patient-specific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the pre-operative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Materialise Shoulder System™, Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, and SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. It indicates that this is a special 510(k) submission, meaning it's for a modification to a previously cleared device. Therefore, much of the performance data refers back to the predicate device and prior clearances.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting study information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a direct table showing "acceptance criteria vs. reported device performance" for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, for this special 510(k), the performance data mainly focuses on demonstrating that the changes (addition of new implant components to the software and hardware compatibility) do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate device.

The "performance data (non-clinical)" section highlights that:

• Hardware: Previous testing for biocompatibility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability, and packaging is applicable. Accuracy and performance of the system were "adequate to perform as intended." Previous simulated surgeries and cadaver testing on earlier cleared devices are considered applicable.
• Software: Software verification and validation were performed "against defined requirements" and "against user needs," following FDA guidance.

Since this is a special 510(k) for an incremental change (adding compatibility with specific new implants), it's implied that the acceptance criteria are met if these additions do not negatively impact the established safety and effectiveness of the existing device, and the software development process meets regulatory standards.

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

• Hardware (previous testing cited): The document mentions "previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models" and "previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559." It does not specify the sample size for these previous studies (e.g., number of bone models or cadavers) or their provenance (country of origin), nor does it state if they were retrospective or prospective.
• Software (verification and validation): The document states "Software verification and validation were performed," but does not specify a separate "test set" in the context of clinical data or specific performance metrics with sample sizes for this particular submission. The V&V activities would involve testing against requirements and user needs, which could include various test cases and scenarios, but these are not quantified here as a "test set" size.

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 information is not provided in the document. The studies cited for hardware ("simulated surgeries" and "cadaver testing") and software ("verification and validation") do not detail the involvement of experts in establishing ground truth, their number, or specific qualifications. The software's function is to assist surgeons in planning, implying surgeon input in its use, but not explicitly in establishing a ground truth for a test set described in this submission.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

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

The document does not mention any MRMC comparative effectiveness studies. The device (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner software component and Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models hardware component) is designed to assist surgeons in planning and component positioning, but the provided text does not contain data on whether human readers/surgeons improve with or without this specific AI assistance or effect sizes.

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

The document states that the SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is "intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components." It also mentions, "SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data." This indicates that the software is a human-in-the-loop device, where the surgeon is actively involved in the planning process and responsible for approving the plan. Therefore, a standalone (algorithm only) performance assessment, without human input, is unlikely to be the primary method of evaluation described or required for this type of device. The document does not provide such standalone performance data.

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

The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used for any specific test set related to this submission. For the hardware (guides and models), the "accuracy and performance" implies a comparison to a known standard or ideal, perhaps derived from anatomical models or surgical goals. For the software, "verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs" suggests that the ground truth for V&V would be the successful adherence to these requirements and user expectations, which could involve internal expert review or adherence to pre-defined medical/engineering specifications. However, specific types of ground truth like pathology or long-term outcomes data are not mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the document. As the submission is for a special 510(k) updating compatibility, it's possible that the core algorithms were developed and trained previously, and details of their original training are not part of this specific submission. The focus here is on the impact of the changes to the device.

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

This information is not provided in the document. Similar to the training set size, the specifics of how the ground truth was established for the original training of any underlying algorithms are not included in this special 510(k).

Ask a specific question about this device

Mimics Cardiac Planner is intended to be used as a pre-procedural planning software to screen and plan structural heart and vascular procedures based on DICOM compliant medical images. Mimics Cardiac Planner allows the clinician to visualize, measure, annotate and edit pre-procedural plan data. The software can be used to evaluate the sizing, positioning and delivery pathway of structural heart and vascular devices.

Mimics Cardiac Planner should be used in conjunction with other diagnostic tools and expert clinical judgement.

The Mimics Cardiac Planner is an online planning software, which allows the clinician to review and adjust a plan for a structural heart or vascular procedures based on DICOM images, 3D models and landmarks. The software guides the clinician through different steps of the cardio-vascular workflow, where the relevant information, like 3D models of anatomy and devices, images, landmarks and measurements are presented.

The software enables the clinician to review the anatomy and relevant workflow specific predefined set of measurements, evaluate the device size and position, assess the delivery pathway and prepare the fluoroscopy angles for the procedure.

The software provides the tools to adjust all predefined measurements, and to perform custom measurements.

The software is integrated with a Medical Device Data System, which is responsible for the case management and user management.

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria and corresponding study results for the device's performance. It primarily focuses on the regulatory aspects of the 510(k) submission, including:

• Device Name: Mimics Cardiac Planner
• Intended Use: Pre-procedural planning software for structural heart and vascular procedures based on DICOM images, allowing visualization, measurement, annotation, and editing of pre-procedural plan data. It can evaluate sizing, positioning, and delivery pathway of devices.
• Regulatory Classification: Class II, Product Code LLZ (Medical Image Management And Processing System)
• Predicate Device: Mimics Enlight (K190874)
• Reference Device: SurgiCase Shoulder Planner (K220452)
• Technological Characteristics Comparison: Discusses similarities and differences with predicate and reference devices, particularly concerning functionality (e.g., input requirements, cloud vs. desktop software) and underlying technology.
• Performance Data Summary: States that "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the FDA guidance 'Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions.' This includes verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs."

However, it does not provide any specific acceptance criteria (e.g., numerical thresholds for accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity) or the quantitative results of any performance studies (e.g., clinical trials, reader studies, phantom studies).

Therefore, I cannot create the requested table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or answer the detailed questions about sample size, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details. The document only broadly states that verification and validation were performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but the specifics of those evaluations are not included here.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hardware: The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans. The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only. The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components: DePuy Synthes', Enovis' (DJO), Smith+Nephew's, Lima's, Stryker's.

Software: SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder System™ is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following: a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient. Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific guide and models that are based on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patient-specific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the pre-operative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for the Materialise Shoulder System™ and mentions performance data, but it does not contain a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the format requested.

The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than presenting a comprehensive standalone study with detailed effectiveness metrics.

Here's an analysis of the information that can be extracted, and what is missing based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in a quantitative manner for the performance of the AI component (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner) or the hardware (Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models) beyond ensuring it performs "as intended" and maintains accuracy.
• Reported Device Performance: The document states that "Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended." However, no specific performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, or error margins) are provided for either the software for planning or the hardware for guiding.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for the software component (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner).
• Data Provenance: Not specified for any software testing.
• For Hardware: It refers to "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing." No specific number of models or cadavers is provided, nor is the country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

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

• Not specified.

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 MRMC study is mentioned. The document focuses on the planning and guidance aspect for surgeons, but not on a comparative study of human readers (surgeons) with and without AI assistance for diagnosis or planning accuracy.

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

• A standalone performance evaluation of the software's planning functionality is implied through the statement "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices.'" However, no specific metrics or study details are provided. The software is described as a "planning tool used to generate a pre-surgical plan" and for "assisting the surgeon in positioning shoulder components," suggesting a human-in-the-loop workflow.

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

• Ground Truth Type: Not explicitly stated for the software. For the hardware, the use of "rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing" implies a physical ground truth for accuracy validation.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document does not mention a training set sample size, which is typical for AI/ML models. This suggests the software functionality described (planning, visualization, measurement) might not be based on deep learning/machine learning that requires explicit training data in the same way as, for example, an image classification algorithm. It seems to be a rules-based or physics-based planning software.

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

• As no training set is mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided.

In summary:

The provided text from the FDA 510(k) summary states that non-clinical performance testing indicates the device is as safe and effective as its predicate. It mentions software verification and validation and previous hardware testing (biocompatibility, sterility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability, packaging, simulated surgeries, cadaver testing). However, it lacks the specific quantitative acceptance criteria and detailed study results (such as sample sizes, expert qualifications, clear performance metrics, ground truth establishment for software, and formal comparative effectiveness study results) that are typically expected when describing a study proving specific acceptance criteria in detail. This information is usually found in separate, more detailed technical documentation submitted to the FDA, not in the public 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Materialise Mimics Enlight is intended for use as a software interface and image segmentation system for the transfer of DICOM imaging information from a medical scanner to an output file.

It is also intended as a software to aid interpreting DICOM compliant images for structural heart and vascular treatment options. For this purpose. Materialise Mimics Enlight provides additional visualisation and measurement tools to enable the user to screen and plan the procedure.

The Materialise Mimics Enlight output file can be used for the fabrication of physical replicas of the using traditional additive manufacturing methods. The physical replica can be used for diagnostic purposes in the field of cardiovascular applications.

Materialise Mimics Enlight should be used in conjunction with other diagnostic tools and expert clinical judgement.

Materialise Mimics Enlight for structural heart and vascular planning is a software interface that is organized in a workflow approach. High level, each workflow in the field of structural heart and vascular will follow the same kind of structure of 4 steps which will enable the user to plan the procedure:

• 1. Analyse anatomy
• 2. Plan device
• 3. Plan delivery
• 4. Output

To perform these steps the software provides different methods and tools to visualize and measure based on the medical images.

The user is a medical professional, like cardiologists or clinical specialists. To start the workflow DICOM compliant medical images will need to be imported. The software will read the images and convert them into a project file. The user can now start the workflow and follow the steps visualized in the software. The base of the workflow is to create a 3D reconstruction of the anatomy based on the medical images to use this further together with the 2D medical images in the workflow to plan the procedure.

The provided text describes the Materialise Mimics Enlight device and its 510(k) submission for FDA clearance. However, it does not contain specific details about acceptance criteria, numerical performance data, details of the study (sample sizes, ground truth provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone performance), or training set information.

The document mainly focuses on:

• Defining Materialise Mimics Enlight's intended use and indications.
• Establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices (Mimics Medical, 3mensio Workstation, Mimics inPrint).
• Describing general technological similarities and differences between the subject device and predicates.
• Stating that software verification and validation were performed according to FDA guidance, including bench testing and end-user validation.
• Mentioning "geometric accuracy" assessments for virtual models and physical replicas, and interrater consistency for the semi-automatic neo-LVOT tool, with the conclusion that "deviations were within the acceptance criteria."

Therefore, based only on the provided text, I cannot complete the requested tables and descriptions with specific numerical values for acceptance criteria or study results.

Here's a summary of what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance

Missing Information: Specific numerical values for the acceptance criteria for geometric accuracy (e.g., tolerance in mm) and for interrater consistency of the neo-LVOT tool.

2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance

• Sample size for test set: Not specified. The document mentions "Bench testing" and "a set of 3D printers" for physical replicas, but no case numbers.
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective): Not specified.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications

• Number of experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of experts: Not specified. The document mentions "medical professional, like cardiologists or clinical specialists" as intended users, but not specifically for ground truth establishment in a test set.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication method: Not specified.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size

• The document implies general "end-user validation" and mentions the neo-LVOT tool showing "higher interrater consistency/repeatability," which suggests some form of human reader involvement. However, it does not explicitly state that a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was performed in the context of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance.
• Effect size: Not specified.

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

• "Software verification and validation were performed... This includes verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs. Both end-user validation and bench testing were performed." This implies that the device's performance was evaluated, potentially including standalone aspects, but it doesn't separate out a clear standalone performance study result. The "semi-automatic" nature of the Neo-LVOT tool means it's not purely algorithmic.

7. The type of ground truth used

• While not explicitly stated, the context of "geometric accuracy of virtual models" and "physical replicas" suggests ground truth would be based on:
  • Geometric measurements: Reference measurements from the original DICOM data or CAD models for virtual models, and precise measurements of the physical replicas for comparison.
  • For the neo-LVOT tool, ground truth for "interrater consistency/repeatability" would likely be derived from expert measurements.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample size for training set: Not specified. The document focuses on verification and validation, not development or training data.

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

• Ground truth for training set: Not specified. As above, the document does not detail the training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Materialise TKA Guide System is intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the positioning of total knee replacement components intra-operatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting provided that anatomic landmarks necessary for alignment and positioning of the implant are identifiable on patient imaging scans.

The Materialise TKA Guide System is to be used with Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen CR fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen LPS fixed bearing, Zimmer Gender Solutions Natural - Knee Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona™ CR fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona™ PS fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona™ Trabecular Metal™, Vanguard® Complete Knee System, Vanguard® SSK 360, Vanguard® SSK Revision Knee System, Regenerex® Primary Tibial System, Offset & Microplasty Tibial Systems, Maxim® Complete Knee System, Ascent™ Total Knee System, and AGC® Complete Knee system, and Consensus Knee System prostheses families only.

The Materialise TKA Guides are intended for single use only.

Materialise TKA Guides are patient-specific medical devices that are designed to implant the following knee prostheses:

Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen CR fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen LPS fixed bearing, Zimmer Gender Solutions Natural - Knee Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona™ CR fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona™ PS fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona ™ Trabecular Metal ™, Vanguard® Complete Knee System, Vanguard® SSK 360, Vanguard® SSK Revision Knee System, Regenerex® Primary Tibial System, Offset & Microplasty Tibial Systems, Maxim® Complete Knee System, Ascent™ Total Knee System, and AGC® Complete Knee system, and Consensus Knee System.

The Materialise TKA Guides must only be used in conjunction with the implants listed above. Consult the prosthesis labeling and instructions for use for specific patient indications, associated risks, information for use, warnings and precautions. Materialise TKA Guides is an instrument set containing a femur and/or tibia template(s).

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Materialise TKA Guide System. While it states that "non-clinical tests using saw bones" and "Cadaver testing" were performed to verify the system's adequacy and demonstrate equivalent product performance, it does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed results of a study designed to prove the device meets those criteria.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from this document.

Here's what can be inferred and what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

The document mentions "accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended" and "demonstrated equivalent product performance as the existing predicate devices," but it does not specify what those performance metrics or their acceptance criteria are.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size: Not specified for "saw bones" or "cadaver testing."
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The tests were non-clinical, so human patient data provenance is not applicable here.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

This information is not provided. The term "ground truth" as typically used for AI/ML validation (e.g., expert consensus) is not directly applicable to the non-clinical hardware testing described.

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

This information is not provided.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not mentioned. The studies described are non-clinical (saw bones, cadaver) rather than clinical studies involving human readers or decision-making.

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

The document mentions "non-clinical tests using saw bones" and "Cadaver testing." These tests evaluate the physical guide's accuracy in transferring the surgical plan (generated by the software) to the bone. This represents a form of standalone performance evaluation for the physical guide's output accuracy based on the plan. However, the performance of the software algorithm itself in producing the initial plan is not detailed as a separate standalone study with specific metrics. The software is used "pre-operatively by a qualified surgeon to inspect, fine-tune and approve the pre-surgical plan," implying human-in-the-loop for the planning phase.

7. The type of ground truth used:

For the "saw bones" and "cadaver testing," the ground truth would likely be based on physical measurements of the actual cut/drill locations relative to the intended surgical plan. This is a form of physical measurement/dimensional accuracy rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data typically used for diagnostic or predictive AI.

8. The sample size for the training set:

The document describes the Materialise TKA Guide System, which involves software for pre-surgical planning and 3D printed surgical guides. It doesn't explicitly mention an AI/ML component with a separate "training set" in the context of a typical AI/ML development pipeline. The "Materialise TKA Planner" is software device, but its development methodology (e.g., machine learning training) is not detailed.

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

Not applicable, as a discrete training set and its ground truth establishment are not described for an AI/ML model.

Ask a specific question about this device

Total Knee Replacement

The Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System is intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the positioning of Total Knee Replacement components intraoperatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting provided that anatomic landmarks necessary for alignment and positioning of the implant are identifiable on patient imaging scans.

The Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System is to be used with Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen CR fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen LPS-Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer NexGen LPS fixed bearing, Zimmer Gender Solutions Natural - Knee Flex fixed bearing, Zimmer Persona™ CR fixed bearing, Zimmer Persono™ PS fixed bearing and Zimmer Persona™ Trabecular Metal™ prostheses families only.

Unicompartmental Knee Replacement

The Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System is intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the positioning of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement components intra-operatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting and to guide cutting of the bone provided that anatomic landmarks necessary for alignment and positioning of the implant are identifiable on patient imaging scans.

The Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System is to be used with Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System prostheses families only.

The Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments are intended for single use only.

The subject device Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System 6.0 is a modification to the predicate device Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System 4.0 (K113829) to accommodate the new compatible implant system Zimmer® Persona'''' components, cleared via 510(k)s K113369, K122745 and K121771. A similar change was done for Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System 5.0 (K121640) where the Zimmer® Personal™ components, cleared via 510(k) K113369, were added to MRI image based system. Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments System 6.0 is designed to assist a surgeon in the placement of total knee replacement components for Zimmer® Persona'" components. The system consists of a software device, branded as Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments Planner (ZPSIP) and a hardware component, branded as Zimmer® Patient Specific Instruments (ZPSI).

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments System 6.0. It describes the device, its intended use, and its technological characteristics as compared to predicate devices. However, it does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, as typically found in clinical validation reports or detailed performance studies.

Instead, the document states: "Results of software verification and validation testing demonstrated the device's safety and effectiveness is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." This indicates that the device's performance was evaluated against the predicate device, Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments System 4.0 (K113829) and 5.0 (K121640), rather than against pre-defined, quantitative acceptance criteria for new performance claims.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for the following points:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications
4. Adjudication method for the test set
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
6. If a standalone performance (algorithm only) was done
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices through technological similarity and general software verification and validation, rather than presenting a standalone performance study with specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SurgiCase Orthopaedics system is intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in pre-operative planning and/or in guiding the marking of bone and/or guide surgical instruments in non-acute, non-joint replacing osteotomies for upper extremity orthopedic surgical procedures and osteotomies around the knee.

The system is to be used for adult patients.

SurgiCase Guides are intended for single use only.

The SurgiCase Orthopaedics system is intended to be used as a surgical instrument to transfer a pre-surgical plan to the surgery with osteotomies on upper extremity orthopedic procedures anound the knee.

The SurgiCase Orthopaedics system is components: SurgiCase Connect (software) and SurgiCase Guides (hardware).

SurgiCase Connect is a medical device for Materialise and a surgeon for pre-surgical simulation of surgical treatment options. This includes transfering, visualizing, measuring, annotating and editing medical data.

The SurgiCase Guides are patient specific templates that are designed and manufactured based on a pre-surgical software plan for a specific patient. In surgery these guides are used to assist a surgeon in guiding the marking of bone and/or guiding surgical instruments to cut and drill according to the pre-surgical plan.

All guides are individually designed and manufactured for each patient using a design and manufacturing process with strict procedures and work instructions to guarantee guides that consistently perform in a safe and effective way. Part of this process is a scientific Stability Model which measures the sensitivity of a guide to movement during surgery. The use of this Stability Model ensures a stable position on the patient's anatomy for accurate guiding of surgical instruments. The Stability Model is anatomy independent, thus it can be applied to any bony structure in upper extremity surgical procedures and osteotomies around the knee.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Test/Study | Reported Device Performance and Acceptance |
| :--------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------ |
| Accuracy | Bone Model Tests | "All results were within the preset acceptance criteria." (Specific numerical criteria not provided) |
| Accuracy | Cadaveric Tests | "All results were within the preset acceptance criteria." (Specific numerical criteria not provided) |
| Safety & Effectiveness | Biocompatibility Test | "Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the device is adequate to perform as intended." |
| Safety & Effectiveness | Sterilization Dimensional Stability Test | "Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the device is adequate to perform as intended." |
| Safety & Effectiveness | Cleaning Validation Test | "Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the device is adequate to perform as intended." |
| Safety & Effectiveness | Packaging and Shipment Test | "Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the device is adequate to perform as intended." |
| Stability/Fit | Scientific Stability Model | "Ensures the most stable position on the patient's anatomy for accurate guiding of surgical instruments." |
| Software Functionality | Internal and External User Testing & Observations | "Results from this verification and validation testing demonstrate the device's safety and effectiveness is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." |
| Clinical Efficacy | Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Cases (Europe) | "Confirms the subject device's safety and effectiveness is substantially equivalent to the predicate device for use as intended based on surgeon evaluation of expected outcome." |

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Bone Model Tests: "On a series of femoral and tibial models" (Specific number of models not provided).
• Cadaveric Tests: "On a series of cadaveric specimens" (Specific number of specimens not provided).
• Retrospective Clinical Cases: "Retrospective analysis of clinical cases performed in Europe" (Specific number of cases not provided).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• For the bone model and cadaveric tests, the "pre-operative planned versus achieved corrected models/specimens were compared." This implies a comparison to a pre-defined plan or standard, rather than a consensus among external experts. The qualifications of who established the "pre-operative plan" and conducted the comparison are not explicitly stated, but it would typically be engineers or qualified personnel involved in the device development.
• For the retrospective clinical cases, "surgeon evaluation of expected outcome" was used. The number and specific qualifications of these surgeons are not provided, other than them being clinical users in Europe.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document implies a comparison of achieved results against "preset acceptance criteria" for the non-clinical tests. This suggests a direct measurement against a standard, rather than a multi-expert adjudication process.
• For the retrospective clinical cases, the ground truth was based on "surgeon evaluation of expected outcome," which might implicitly involve some level of individual surgeon judgment rather than a formal adjudication panel. No specific adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 is mentioned.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned that assesses how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance. The device is a surgical planning and guiding system, not an AI for image interpretation that would typically involve human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• A standalone performance was implicitly conducted for the SurgiCase Connect software component through "internal and external user testing and observations" and verification against specifications.
• The SurgiCase Guides were validated through "bone model tests" and "cadaveric tests," which involved applying the guides according to a pre-operative plan and comparing the achieved corrected models/specimens to the planned ones. This represents a standalone performance assessment of the guide's accuracy in transferring the surgical plan.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Non-clinical tests (Bone models, Cadavers): "Pre-operative planned" outcomes served as the ground truth against which the achieved corrected models/specimens were compared. This is an engineered or defined ground truth.
• Retrospective Clinical Study: "Surgeon evaluation of expected outcome" served as the ground truth. This is a form of expert clinical judgment/outcome data.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not provide explicit information on the sample size used for a "training set." The device is primarily a software system for planning and physical guides for execution, rather than a machine learning algorithm that typically undergoes a separate supervised training phase with a dedicated training set. The descriptions focus on verification and validation against specifications and clinical use.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• As no explicit training set is mentioned in the context of a machine learning algorithm, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable or described in this document. The "training" for such a system would involve software development, engineering, and iterative testing/refinement against design specifications and user feedback, rather than a formal ground truth for a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device

Pin Placement Guides: Signature Personalized Patient Care System is intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the positioning of total knee replacement components intra-operatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting provided that anatomic landmarks necessary for alignment and positioning of the implant are identifiable on patient imaging scans. The Signature Personalized Patient Care System can be used with the following Biomet® Knee Systems and their respective components: Vanguard™ Complete Knee System, Vanguard™ SSK 360, Vanguard™ SSK Revision Knee System, Regenerex™ Primary Tibial System, Offset & . Microplasty™ Tibial Systems, Maxim™ Complete Knee System, Ascent™ Total Knee System, AGC™ Complete Knee system and Vanguard™ XP Knee system. Cut-Through Guides: Signature Personalized Patient Care System is intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the positioning of total and partial knee replacement components intra-operatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting and to guide cutting, provided that anatomic landmarks necessary for alignment and positioning of the implant are identifiable on patient imaging scans. The Signature Personalized Patient Care System can be used with the following Biomet® Knee Systems and their respective components: Vanguard™ Complete Knee System, Vanguard M1™ Unicompartmental Knee System, Vanguard™ SSK 360, Vanguard™ SSK Revision Knee System, Regenerex™ Primary Tibial System, Offset & Microplasty™ Tibial Systems, Maxim™ Complete Knee System, Ascent™ Total Knee System, AGC™ Complete Knee system and Vanguard™ XP Knee system. The Signature Personalized Patient Care System is compatible for use with the Oxford® Partial Knee System as approved in P010014/S31. The Signature guides are intended for single use only.

The Signature Personalized Patient Care System consists of a software component, Signature Planner and a hardware component, Signature guides and is designed to assist the surgeon in the placement of Biomet total knee replacement components. The Signature guides are patient specific devices that are based on a pre-operative plan which is generated using the Signature Planner software. The Signature guides are produced based on the pre-operative plan and are manufactured to fit a specific patient. The Signature Planner software functions essentially the same as in K102795 and K110415, but is adapted to allow the use of Biomet Vanguard™ XP Knee system (K122160) for total knee arthroplasty procedures. The subject guides are intended for the total knee arthroplasty procedures and represent a combination of design and functionality of those in K102795 and K110415. The Vanguard XP-CR tibial tray will utilize the guides cleared in K102795/K110415 as they have the same profile/bone interface as the predicates. The Vanguard XP-XP tibia guide have similar vertical cut slots as partial tibia guide in K110415. The vertical cut-through slots allow for preliminary cuts of the bone, before final cuts are made and the implant is placed.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the Signature Personalized Patient Care System, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Information

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: Two cadaveric trials were used for accuracy performance testing.
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the cadaveric trials. It's a non-clinical study, so "retrospective or prospective" designation isn't directly applicable in the same way it would be for patient data.

2. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

   • The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth in the cadaveric trials. Given that the study involves "accuracy performance testing," the ground truth would likely be based on precise physical measurements of instrument placement, rather than expert interpretation of images.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • The document does not describe an adjudication method. For cadaveric accuracy testing, the "ground truth" would be established through direct measurement and comparison to the pre-operative plan, rather than expert consensus on interpretations.

4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or described. The performance data focuses on non-clinical testing (software validation, cadaveric trials for accuracy, guide deformation, and debris rationale). The submission states "Clinical data: Not applicable."

5. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

   • Yes, a standalone performance study was done for the software compomenent, though not described in detail. The "Signature Planner software has been validated for its intended use" indicates a standalone assessment of the software's capabilities to generate a pre-operative plan. The subsequent cadaveric trials would then integrate this software's output with the physical guides.

6. Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • For the software validation, the ground truth would likely be based on predefined anatomical landmarks and measurements.
   • For the cadaveric trials, the ground truth for accuracy would be based on direct physical measurements (e.g., using a coordinate measuring machine or similar precision tools) to compare the actual placement of the guides/cuts with the pre-operative plan generated by the Signature Planner software.

7. Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document does not specify a sample size for a training set. The device is described as inheriting functionality from previously cleared devices (K102795 and K110415) and adapting for new implant systems. Software validation often involves internal testing against specifications rather than a separate "training set" in the machine learning sense, especially for earlier medical device software.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

   • Not applicable, as a distinct training set (in the machine learning context) with established ground truth is not described in the document. Software validation typically involves testing against predefined output specifications and adherence to design requirements, rather than a separate training process for an algorithm that learns from data.

Ask a specific question about this device