Search Results

Prosthetic replacement with this device may be indicated to relieve severe pain or significant disability in degenerative, rheumatoid, or traumatic disease of the glenohumeral joint; non-union humeral head fracture; displaced 4-part proximal humeral fractures; avascular necrosis of the humeral head; or other difficult management problems where arthrodesis or resectional arthroplasty are not acceptable.

The present Device Modification submission corresponds to the addition of humeral heads made from Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloy according to the standard ISO 5832-12 to the previous range with the same indications for use already covered by the previous 510(k) clearance. The hunteral stem and the glenoid component are unchanged.

The manufacturing methods, intended use, packaging and sterilization of the subjected device are identical to the predicate device.

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) submission for a device modification to the AEQUALIS Shoulder System. This document focuses on regulatory approval based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a clinical study evaluating the performance of the device against specific acceptance criteria.

The submission is specifically for the addition of humeral heads made from Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloy (ISO 5832-12) to the existing AEQUALIS Shoulder System. The manufacturing methods, intended use, packaging, and sterilization of the modified device are stated to be identical to the predicate device.

Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study information typically associated with evaluating a device's performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, reader studies) are not present in this document. This is because the regulatory pathway chosen (Special 510(k) for device modification) relies on demonstrating that the changes do not alter the fundamental safety and effectiveness of the device compared to its already cleared version.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not applicable. The document does not describe performance metrics or acceptance criteria for the modified device in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy. It focuses on material equivalence and manufacturing processes.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. No "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation is mentioned. The submission is based on engineering and material equivalence.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No ground truth establishment for a test set is described.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable. This type of study is for evaluating diagnostic performance, which is not the focus of this submission.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a medical implant, not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary of what is available in the document regarding the "study" (which is essentially the justification for substantial equivalence):

• Device Type: Aequalis Shoulder System (humeral heads made from Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloy).
• Regulatory Pathway: Special 510(k): Device modification - Premarket Notification.
• Basis for Acceptance: Substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (the previous Aequalis Shoulder System).
• Key Argument for Equivalence:
  • The modification is the addition of humeral heads made from a different but suitable alloy (Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloy according to ISO 5832-12).
  • The intended use remains the same.
  • The humeral stem and glenoid component are unchanged.
  • Manufacturing methods, packaging, and sterilization are identical to the predicate device.
  • Materials for other components (stem, glenoid) are specified (Cobalt Chromium alloy according to ISO 5832-4, UHMWPE according to ISO 5834-2).

In essence, the "study" demonstrating the device "meets the acceptance criteria" in this context is the technical and material comparison to the predicate device, arguing that the new material for the humeral head is equally safe and effective for the stated indications. The acceptance criteria are implicit in the FDA's "substantial equivalence" determination, meaning the modified device performs as safely and effectively as, and is as technologically advanced as, existing legally marketed devices.

Ask a specific question about this device