Search Results

The nucleus, humeral head coupler and humeral head are used in conjunction with a glenoid implant as a total replacement.

The Tornier Perform® Humeral System - Stemless is to be used only in patients with an intact or reconstructable rotator cuff, where it is intended to provide mobility, stability, and to relieve pain. The Tornier Perform Humeral System -Stemless is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints disabled by:

• · Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (i.e. osteoarthritis) and avascular necrosis
• · Post-traumatic arthritis

Titanium humeral heads are intended for patients with suspected cobalt alloy material sensitivity. The wear properties of titanium and titanium alloys are inferior to that of cobalt alloy. A titanium humeral head is not recommended for patients without a suspected material sensitivity to cobalt alloy.

All components are single use and intended for cementless use.

The Tornier Perform Humeral System - Stemless is intended to be used with cemented polyethylene glenoid components, in an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

The Tornier Perform Humeral System - Stemless is metaphyseal humeral system intended for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The Perform Humeral System - Stemless is implanted with existing Tornier anatomic glenoid systems.

The Tornier Perform Humeral System – Stemless includes new titanium nucleus components and previously-cleared modular humeral heads (K201315). The system also includes reusable instruments used to implant the shoulder prosthesis.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Tornier Perform Humeral System - Stemless. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical testing rather than clinical studies proving acceptance criteria through device performance.

Therefore, the requested information on acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning human performance, is largely not applicable to this document. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed."

However, I can extract information about the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, which serves a similar purpose in the context of a 510(k) by showing the device performs comparably to an already cleared device.

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

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

Since no clinical studies were performed to establish performance against pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of human-in-the-loop performance or diagnostic accuracy, such a table cannot be created from this document. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing predicate device through non-clinical performance testing.

The types of "performance" mentioned are related to mechanical and material properties:

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

Not applicable. No "test set" in the context of clinical or AI performance evaluation was used. The testing was non-clinical (laboratory/mechanical).

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" for a test set based on expert review was established or required for this type of submission focused on mechanical device equivalence.

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

Not applicable. No "test set" requiring adjudication by experts was used.

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 mechanical orthopedic implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic device that would involve human "readers" or AI assistance in that context.

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

Not applicable. This is a mechanical orthopedic implant, not an algorithm or AI.

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

Not applicable. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would have been established engineering specifications, material standards, and performance of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is a mechanical orthopedic implant, not an AI or algorithm that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device