Search Results

The ExactechGPS is intended for use during preoperative planning and during orthopedic surgeon in locating anatomical structures and aligning the endoprosthesis with the anatomical structures provided that the required anatomical landmarks can be identified on the patient's preoperative CT scan.

The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Planning Application is specifically indicated for pre-operative planning of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty using the Equinoxe system. The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Planning Application permits to visualize, measure and reconstruct anatomical structures in order to select and place the glenoid and humeral components.

The Exacted GPS Total Shoulder Navigation is specifically indicated for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty using the Equinoxe system to aid the surgeon in locating anatomical structures and aligning the glenoid component with the anatomical structures.

The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application proposed in this submission is a modification of the ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application cleared per 510(k) #K173372.

The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application is an Image Guided Surgery, or Navigation, system designed to quide surgeons during the preparation of the glenoid as part of a total shoulder arthroplasty procedure. The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application also offers a preoperative planning feature that enables surgeons to plan a surgical intervention by evaluating implant size, type, and positioning using reconstructed patient bone models in a virtual environment. The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application requires patient CT-scan data to undergo segmentation prior to being imported into the software, as part of reconstructing the bone model, for both navigation and planning.

In the predicate device, the planning step was only indicated for pre-operative planning of the dlenoid part of the Equinoxe system. This submission proposes the addition of the humeral component. Therefore, the proposed ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Planning Application permits to visualize, measure and reconstruct anatomical structures in order to select and place the glenoid and humeral components.

The proposed ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Planning and Navigation Applications integrate some other modifications compared to the predicate device. These modifications are documented in Letter to Files.

The proposed modifications do not change the ExactechGPS System general intended use, general design features, or basic fundamental scientific technology. No changes to the hardware platform or system accessories are proposed by this submission.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application. It describes a medical device and its proposed modifications, claiming substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include detailed performance data, acceptance criteria, or study methodologies that would allow for a comprehensive description as requested. It only broadly states that "testing information demonstrating safety and effectiveness... is supported by testing that was conducted in-house" and lists general types of software testing (verification and validation).

Therefore, I cannot provide a complete answer to all parts of your request based solely on the provided document. I will focus on what can be inferred or directly stated from the text.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based on the provided document, highlighting where information is missing:

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

The document states: "Software verification testing to ensure all design outputs meet all specified requirements" and "Software validation to ensure software specifications conform to user needs and intended uses."
However, the specific acceptance criteria and the reported device performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, etc.) are not provided in this 510(k) summary.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The text only mentions "testing that was conducted in-house."

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 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

The document describes a "surgical navigation system" and "preoperative planning feature," but does not indicate that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed or that human readers' improvement with AI assistance was measured. The focus is on the device's functionality in aiding surgical planning and navigation. Therefore, this information is not applicable or not provided in the context of this 510(k) summary.

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

The document mentions "software verification testing" and "software validation" which would typically involve testing the algorithm's performance in a standalone manner (e.g., accuracy of bone model reconstruction, implant placement) before integration with the surgeon's input. However, the specific results or detailed methodology for these standalone tests are not provided.

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

This information is not explicitly provided. Given the nature of a surgical planning and navigation system, ground truth would likely involve highly accurate imaging (e.g., high-resolution CT scans), anatomical measurements, and potentially expert anatomical review for validation of the reconstructed bone models and implant placements. However, the specific method for establishing this ground truth (e.g., expert consensus based on imaging, cadaveric studies with known anatomical landmarks) is not detailed in this summary.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document describes modifications to an existing device and its functionalities (e.g., extending planning to the humeral component, extending segmentation capabilities). It does not explicitly mention a deep learning or machine learning system that would require a distinct "training set" in the common AI sense. If the "software" relies on rule-based programming or image processing algorithms, a traditional "training set" might not be applicable in the same way as for a neural network. If there was any machine learning involved, the training set size is not provided.

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

As the existence or nature of a training set is unclear, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ExactechGPS is intended for use during preoperative planning and during stereotaxic surgeon in locating anatomical structures and aligning the endoprosthesis with the anatomical structures provided that the required anatomical landmarks can be identified on the patient's preoperative CT scan.

The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application is specifically indicated for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty using the Equinoxe system to aid the surgeon in locating anatomical structures and aligning the glenoid component with the anatomical structures.

The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application is a modification of the Exactech GPS stereotactic navigation system designed to help guide surgeons during the preparation of the glenoid as part of a total shoulder arthroplasty procedure.

Like predicate Exactech GPS system software dedicated to use with total knee arthroplasty procedures, the ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application works with Exactech GPS hardware trackers that communicate intraoperative data to the Exactech GPS hardware station to provide surgeons with real-time information on the position of patient anatomical structures and of instrumentation used to prepare patient bone during stereotaxic surgery.

The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application adds a preoperative planning feature, where surgeons use CT-scan images of patient bone with software models of Exactech Equinoxe implants to preoperatively plan procedures in a virtual environment prior to surgery.

The ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application is used with the same ExactechGPS V2 station, trackers, and disposable kit hardware as the predicate ExactechGPS. This submission includes new surgical instruments dedicated to total shoulder arthroplasty.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the ExactechGPS® Total Shoulder Application. It outlines the device's indications for use, its description, and references non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence. However, it does not contain the detailed information necessary to fully address all parts of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria.

Specifically, the document lacks specific quantitative acceptance criteria for accuracy, precision, or other performance metrics. It also does not detail a specific human-in-the-loop (MRMC) study or a standalone algorithm study with defined ground truth establishment, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods for the test set.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

Missing Information:

• A table of specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy +/- X mm, precision +/- Y degrees).
• Reported device performance against those specific numerical criteria.
• Sample sizes for the test set.
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth for the test set.
• Qualifications of those experts.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• Whether a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and if so, the effect size.
• Whether a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.) for quantitative performance evaluation.
• The sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

Information that can be extracted from the provided text:

1. Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance:

The document broadly states that "Software verification testing to ensure all design outputs meet all specified requirements" and "Software validation to ensure software specifications conform to user needs and intended uses, and that the particular requiremented through software can be consistently fulfilled" were performed.

Regarding device performance, it mentions:

• "System accuracy verification via bench testing to ensure the ExactechGPS Total Shoulder Application works with Exactech GPS hardware to display information to surgeons as intended"
• "System accuracy verification via comparison of system outputs to CT-scan data collected during simulated use via evaluation with cadaveric specimens"
• "Overall system validation through simulated use via evaluation with cadaveric specimens"

However, the specific numerical acceptance criteria for accuracy (e.g., in mm or degrees) and the quantitative results of these tests are NOT provided in this document. It implies that certain accuracy thresholds were met, but the specific values are absent.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. The phrase "evaluation with cadaveric specimens" is used, implying multiple specimens, but the exact number is not given.
• Data Provenance: The cadaveric specimens imply real anatomical data. The company is based in France ("6 Allée de Bethléem 38610 Gières France"), so it's reasonable to assume the studies were conducted there or in collaboration with institutions in other countries, but the specific country of origin for the cadaveric data is not stated. The studies were likely performed retrospectively on collected cadaveric data, not prospectively in a clinical setting.

3. Number and Qualifications of Experts:

• Number of experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of experts: Not specified. The testing involves "surgeons" in a simulated use context, but their experience or specific role in establishing ground truth is not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method:

• Not specified. Given the nature of the "system accuracy verification" tests, it's more likely that the "ground truth" was established through physical measurements on the cadaveric specimens and/or comparison to the source CT data, rather than through expert image review adjudication.

5. MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study:

• No specific MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned in the provided text. The testing described focuses on system accuracy and validation, not on how human readers/surgeons improve with the AI vs. without AI assistance. This device is a navigation system aiding a surgeon during a procedure, not primarily an AI algorithm for diagnostic image interpretation.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only):

• No specific standalone performance study is explicitly described in terms of an algorithm working without human interaction for a diagnostic or predictive task. The mentioned "System accuracy verification via comparison of system outputs to CT-scan data" relates to the device's ability to display information accurately based on CT data, which is a component of its overall function, but not typically reported as a "standalone algorithm" performance in the context of diagnostic AI. The device is intended for human-in-the-loop use (surgeon guidance).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For the "System accuracy verification via comparison of system outputs to CT-scan data collected during simulated use via evaluation with cadaveric specimens," the ground truth was likely established by:
  • High-resolution CT-scan data: Used as the reference for anatomical structures.
  • Physical measurements/known geometries: For bench testing and potentially for certain structures on the cadaveric specimens.
  • Simulated surgical outcomes: Comparing the system's guidance to a desired anatomical alignment.
  • It is not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the usual sense for a diagnostic AI.

8. Sample Size for Training Set:

• Not specified. The document does not describe the specific development of an AI algorithm with a training set. The device is a "stereotaxic navigation system" and "preoperative planning tool," which suggests a more traditional software engineering approach (rules-based, image processing, 3D reconstruction) rather than a deep learning model requiring vast training datasets and associated ground truth.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established:

• Not applicable / not specified. As above, the text doesn't describe a machine learning model that would require a "training set" with established ground truth in the typical AI sense. The "ground truth" here refers to the accuracy of the system's displayed information relative to real anatomy or CT data.

Ask a specific question about this device