Search Results

The Equinoxe Shoulder System is indicated for use in skeletally mature individuals with degenerative diseases or fractures of the glenohumeral joint where total or hemi- arthroplasty is determined by the surgeon to be the preferred method of treatment.

The cemented primary humeral stem, long/revision stems and all Equinoxe glenoids are intended for cemented fixation.
The press-fit humeral stems are intended for press-fit applications but may be used with bone cement at the discretion the surgeon.
The reverse humeral components are intended to be used in cemented applications or in revision cases when the humeral component is well-fixed/stable, as deemed by the orthopaedic surgeon.
Humeral Heads are intended for use in cemented and press-fit applications.

Clinical indications for the PRIMARY (P), LONG/REVISION (L), and FRACTURE (F) humeral components are as follows:

P	L	F	Indications
√	√		Rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis or post-traumatic degenerative problems
√	√		Congenital abnormalities in the skeletally mature
√			Primary and secondary necrosis of the humeral head.
√		√	Humeral head fracture with displacement of the tuberosities
√	√		Pathologies where arthrodesis or resectional arthroplasty of the humeral head are not acceptable
√	√		Revisions of humeral prostheses when other treatments or devices have failed (where adequate fixation can be achieved)
		√	Displaced three-part and four-part upper humeral fractures
			Spiral and other fractures of the mid-humerus (in combination with glenohumeral degenerative diseases)
	√		Revision of failed previous reconstructions when distal anchorage is required
√	√		To restore mobility from previous procedures (e.g. previous fusion)

The Equinoxe Reverse Shoulder System is indicated for use in skeletally mature individuals with degenerative diseases of the glenohumeral joint and a grossly deficient, irreparable rotator cuff. The Equinoxe Reverse Shoulder is also indicated for a failed glenohumeral joint replacement with loss of rotator cuff function resulting in superior migration of the humeral head.

The Equinoxe Platform Fracture Stem is indicated for use in skeletally mature individuals with acute fracture of the proximal humerus and displacement of the tuberosities, displaced 3- and 4part fractures of the proximal humerus (hemi-arthroplasty), or acute fracture of the proximal humerus with failure of the glenohumeral joint (primary total shoulder arthroplasty). The Equinoxe Platform Fracture Stem is also indicated for acute fracture of the proximal humerus in combination with degenerative diseases of the glenohumeral joint and a grossly deficient, irreparable rotator cuff resulting in superior migration of the humeral head (reverse total shoulder arthroplasty). The Equinoxe Platform Fracture Stem is indicated for cemented use only.

Device Description

This submission proposes modifying the Exactech Equinoxe Replicator Plates and Fixed Angled Replicator Plates cleared under 510(k) #K042021 and #K102951. The proposed modifications are as follows:

1. The proposed replicator plates and the fixed angled replicator plates will attach to the humeral head using a morse taper that is half the height of the morse taper of the anatomic replicator plates and fixed angled replicator plates cleared in 510(k) #K042021 and 510(k) #K102951.
  The proposed Exactech Equinoxe Replicator Plates, and Fixed Angled Replicator Plates are intended to be used with the same Equinoxe Shoulder system components described in 510(k). #K042021 and #K102951 as cited predicates.

AI/ML Overview

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device: the Exactech® Equinoxe® Shoulder System Short Replicator Plates.

The document discusses the device's equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria and proving the device meets them through clinical studies in the way a new, high-risk device might. This 510(k) is specifically for modifications to an already cleared device, focusing on "short replicator plates." Therefore, the "study" described is a non-clinical performance data assessment to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a clinical trial to establish efficacy or safety for a novel device.

Given this context, I will address your points to the best of my ability based on the provided text.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" are not framed as clinical performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, etc.) but rather as successful demonstrations of substantial equivalence in non-clinical tests. The "reported device performance" refers to the results of these non-clinical tests.

Acceptance Criteria (Demonstration of Substantial Equivalence)	Reported Device Performance
Identical intended use / indications for use	Proposed and predicate devices have identical indications for use.
Identical biocompatible materials conforming to recognized industry standards	Proposed and predicate devices are composed of identical biocompatible materials.
Same key design features; mates with all existing implant and instruments of the Equinoxe shoulder system	Proposed and predicate devices have the same key design features, and mate with all existing implant and instruments of the Equinoxe shoulder system.
Same dimensions and taper geometry; mates with all existing humeral heads (except for shortened taper height)	Proposed and predicate devices have the same dimensions, same taper geometry, and mate with all existing humeral heads; with the exception of the shortened taper height.
Same packaging and sterilization materials and processes	Proposed and predicate devices are packaged and sterilized using the same materials and processes.
Same device shelf life	Proposed and predicate devices have the same shelf life.
Humeral head pull-off strength meets standard (ASTM F2009-00)	Humeral head pull-off to determine taper engagement strength per ASTM F2009-00 was performed, implying it met the standard for substantial equivalence. (Specific numerical result not provided, but conclusion of equivalence implies success).
Humeral head can be impacted on axis (cadaveric validation)	Cadaveric validation confirmed humeral head can be impacted on axis, implying successful demonstration for substantial equivalence. (Specific results not provided, but conclusion of equivalence implies success).

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The "test set" in this context refers to the samples used in the non-clinical performance data.

Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. For mechanical tests like "humeral head pull-off," multiple samples would typically be tested, but the exact number is not provided in this summary. For "cadaveric validation," the number of cadavers used is not specified.
Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but these are engineering/biocompatibility tests conducted by the manufacturer (Exactech, Inc.) likely in a lab setting. It is not patient data from a specific country, retrospective, or prospective.

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

This type of submission (510(k) for device modification based on substantial equivalence) does not involve expert review panels to establish "ground truth" in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnoses. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the specifications and requirements of the ASTM standard (for mechanical testing) and the functional success of the device in cadaveric validation, evaluated by engineers and biomechanical experts involved in the device's development and testing. No specific number or qualifications of "experts" are noted in this summary with regard to establishing ground truth for testing.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This is not a clinical study involving human readers or diagnoses that would require an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1. The tests are engineering and biomechanical assessments against established standards.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No. An MRMC study is a clinical study designed to evaluate how human readers' performance (e.g., in diagnosis) changes with and without AI assistance across multiple cases. This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for shoulder system components, focusing on non-clinical data for substantial equivalence, not a clinical study of AI-assisted diagnostic effectiveness.

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

No. This document concerns physical medical devices (shoulder implant components), not algorithms or AI software. Therefore, "standalone" algorithm performance is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests mentioned is:

Engineering Standards: For the humeral head pull-off test, the "ground truth" is defined by the specific requirements and performance metrics outlined in ASTM F2009-00.
Functional Success: For the cadaveric validation, the "ground truth" is the successful functional demonstration that the humeral head can be impacted on axis, indicating proper mechanical interaction and fit.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This submission does not involve machine learning or AI, so there is no "training set." The focus is on the physical properties and functional aspects of a modified medical implant.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device submission.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1