Search Results

The Delta Xtend Shoulder Prosthesis is indicated for use in treatment of a grossly deficient rotator cuff joint with: · severe arthropathy and/or; · a previously failed joint replacement and/or: · fracture-dislocations of the proximal humerus where the articular surface is severely comminuted, separated from its blood supply or where the surgeon's experience indicates that alternative methods of treatment are unsatisfactory The patient's joint must be anatomically suited to receive the selected implant(s), and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device. Delta Xtend hemi-shoulder replacement is also indicated for hemi-arthroplasty if the glenoid is fractured intraoperatively or for the revision of a previously failed Delta Xtend Reverse Shoulder. The metaglene component is HA coated and is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation. The modular humeral stem and humeral epiphysis components are HA coated and intended for cementless use. All other metallic components are intended for cemented use only.

The Delta Xtend Reverse Shoulder System consists of humeral stem, modular epiphysis, humeral spacer, humeral cup, glenosphere, metaglene and metaglene screws. The glenosphere and metaglene are used for total reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The humeral spacer can be added between the epiphysis and the humeral cup if necessary. Humeral head can be used in hemi-shoulder arthroplasty in place of the humeral cup and glenoid components.

The provided document pertains to the 510(k) premarket notification for the DePuy Delta Xtend™ Reverse Shoulder System, specifically for the addition of lateralized glenosphere components. This document is a regulatory submission for a medical device (a shoulder prosthesis), NOT an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and study proving device performance for an AI/ML device (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth sources) is not applicable here.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the new components to predicate devices based on:

1. Biocompatibility: Confirmed per ISO10993-1.
2. Range of Motion: Theoretical simulated range of motion analyses showed an increase compared to the predicate non-lateralized glenosphere.
3. Glenoid Loosening/Disassociation: A study demonstrated substantial equivalency of glenoid fixation performance to the predicate.

The document explicitly states:

• "Summary of animal study: Animal study was not necessary."
• "Summary of clinical study: Clinical study was not necessary."

This indicates that clinical trials or studies that would involve human patient data, ground truth establishment by experts, or detailed statistical analysis of performance (as would be typical for AI/ML device validation) were not required for this specific 510(k) submission, as it focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance and design comparisons.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required for an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and study results from this document.

Ask a specific question about this device