Search Results

When used in the Humelock II Reversible Shoulder System: The Humelock II Reversible Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The humeral stems are intended for cementless use. The metaglene baseplate is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

When used in the Humelock Reversed Shoulder System:

The Humelock Reversed Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

During primary or revision surgery, if the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to bear the reversed glenoid components or the glenoid bone fractures during the procedure, a taper adapter can be used to convert the Humelock Reversed Shoulder to an anatomic hemi-shoulder prosthesis.

The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cemented Shoulder Prosthesis is intended for cemented use only. The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cementless is lockable with two cortical bone screws and is intended for cementless use only. An optional anti-rotation spoiler can be used with either the cemented stems.

The clenoid baseplate and post extension are intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

When used in the Humeris Shoulder System:

In an anatomic shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder System is indicated for use in total and hemi-shoulder replacement to treat:

A severely painful and/or disabled ioint resulting from osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: -

Other difficult clinical problems where shoulder arthrodesis or resection arthroplasty are not acceptable (e.g. revision . of a previously implanted primary component, a humeral plate or a humeral nail).

In a reverse shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder is indicated for primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The humeral stem of the Humeris Cementless Shoulder is intended for cementless use only. The humeral stem of the Humeris Cemented Shoulder is intended for cemented use only. The glenoid components of the Humeris Shoulder System are intended for cemented use only. The glenoid baseplate component is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

The Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates are new components for the Humelock II Reversible Shoulder System. They are also components added to the Humelock Reversed (K162455) and Humeris Shoulder (K163669), when used for a reverse construct. The Lateralized Baseplate can be used to increase the offset and as needed the Lateralized baseplate with augmentation has an added wedge and may be used with an asymmetric bone defect when there is no possibility to correct this defect without graft or excessive reaming.

This FDA 510(k) summary describes a device, "Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates," that is a modification of existing shoulder prosthesis components. The review focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through clinical studies of the new components.

Therefore, the information provided does not fully answer all sections of your request regarding detailed acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria are met for the new device. However, I can extract the relevant information about the non-clinical testing performed and the general approach to demonstrating equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the available information based on your request:

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

The document does not provide a formal table of acceptance criteria with specific thresholds for the new Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates. Instead, it refers to prior bench testing conducted for the predicate devices and states that new non-clinical testing for the subject device met acceptance criteria based on those established standards.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes for the Range of Motion or Glenoid Loosening tests for the new Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates. It refers to "all samples" for the glenoid loosening test without specifying the number.
The data provenance is not explicitly mentioned as country of origin, but the manufacturer is FX Solutions in Viriat, France. The studies are non-clinical (bench testing).

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

Not applicable. This device assessment relies on established engineering standards (ASTM F-1378-18, ASTM F2028) for non-clinical bench testing, not expert-derived ground truth.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically for clinical studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessment. This involved objective measurements against engineering standards.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (implant), not an AI/software device that would involve human readers or image interpretation.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device.

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

The "ground truth" for non-clinical testing of the Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates was adherence to established engineering standards (ASTM F-1378-18 for Range of Motion and ASTM F2028 for Glenoid Loosening).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set in the context of AI or machine learning. Its design and performance are based on engineering principles and testing.

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

Not applicable.

Summary of the Study Proving Acceptance Criteria:

The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria referred to in this 510(k) is a set of non-clinical bench tests. These tests were performed to demonstrate that the Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates, which are design modifications of previously cleared components, perform similarly to their predicates and meet relevant ASTM standards for mechanical performance.

• Range of Motion (ROM) Analysis: This analysis was conducted based on the same parameters and assumptions as previously submitted ROM analyses for the primary predicate devices. It concluded that the subject device demonstrated substantial equivalence in ROM and "exceeding ASTM F-1378-18."
• Glenoid Loosening Test: Performed according to ASTM F2028. The report states that "all samples ran to 100,000 cycles with no loosening of glenosphere or baseplate," indicating the device met the acceptance criteria for this standard.

The FDA concluded that "Clinical testing was not necessary to determine substantial equivalence of the Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates to the predicate devices," based on the non-clinical testing and assessment of other factors like materials, manufacturing, and indications for use. This means the non-clinical tests were deemed sufficient to support the substantial equivalence claim.

Ask a specific question about this device