Search Results

Archer^R PSI System is indicated as an orthopedic instrument to assist the physician in the intraoperative positioning of total shoulder replacement components and in guiding the drill and the cut of the bone.

Archer^R PSI System must only be used conjointly with Archer™ CSR Total Shoulder (K152825, K173812, K181287, K182500, K191811), Catalyst EA Convertible Stemmed Shoulder (K222317) and Archer™ R1 Reverse (K202611, K211991, K213349, K223655, K232583) components in the context of primary total shoulder replacement and following a delto-pectoral approach only. Archer^R PSI System is manufactured from a pre-operative planning validated by the surgeon in the 'Archer™ 3D Targeting' platform (K213779). Archer^R PSI System is indicated for patient population fulfilling the Archer™ CSR Total Shoulder, Catalyst EA Convertible Stemmed Shoulder and Archer™ R1 Reverse indications and for which CT images are available with identifiable placement anatomical landmarks and compliant with imaging protocol provided by Archer 3D Targeting.

The device is intended for single use only.

The device is intended for adult patients.

The device has to be used by a physician trained in the performance of surgery.

The "Archer PSI System" device is a patient-matched additively manufactured single use surgical instrument (PSI). Archer PSI System is an instrument set containing a glenoid guide and its bone model and/or a humeral guide and its bone model. This patient-specific medical device is designed to fit the patient's anatomy to transfer a patient-specific pre-operative plan to the operating room. It is intended for surgical interventions in orthopaedic procedures for total shoulder arthroplasty.

The Archer PSI system instruments are designed from a draft treatment plan available via the Archer™ 3D Targeting' platform. Based on computed tomography (CT) of the shoulder anatomy, 3D CAD models of the bones and positioning and sizing of the glenoid and humeral components are submitted for evaluation to the surgeon. Upon the surgeon's approval, the guides and bone models are designed based on the validated planning and are manufactured using additive manufacturing.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the "Archer PSI System" does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or the specific study that directly proves the device meets those criteria in a quantitative manner as typically expected for medical device performance studies involving sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc. However, it does outline the types of non-clinical and cadaveric testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on the request, extracting what is available and noting what is not:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not overtly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" (e.g., "accuracy must be > 95%") nor does it provide "reported device performance" in terms of explicit metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or error rates. Instead, the "performance" is described in terms of demonstrating "substantial equivalence" through various engineering and cadaveric tests.

A more accurate representation, based on the provided text, would be:

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Cadaveric Testing: The document states that "Cadaveric testing was executed" but does not specify the sample size (number of cadavers or procedures) used for this testing.
• Data Provenance: The cadaveric testing is implied to be prospective in nature, as it was "executed to demonstrate the substantial equivalence." There is no information provided regarding the country of origin of the cadaveric data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• Number of Experts: The document states that "a pre-operative planning validated by the surgeon" is part of the process. For the cadaveric testing, it does not explicitly state the number of experts (e.g., surgeons) involved in establishing the "ground truth" or assessing the "substantial equivalence."
• Qualifications of Experts: The document mentions that the device is to be used by a "physician trained in the performance of surgery." For the validation of the pre-operative plan, the expert is identified as "the surgeon." While this indicates a medical professional, specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, subspecialty) are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the cadaveric testing or any other performance evaluation. The "validation by the surgeon" for the pre-operative plan suggests a form of single-expert consensus at the planning stage, but not for the overall performance assessment.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Was an MRMC study done? No.
• Effect Size: As no MRMC study was performed, no effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance is reported. The Archer PSI System is a patient-specific instrument, not an AI diagnostic or assistive tool in the MRMC sense. The comparison was between manual surgical techniques and PSI-assisted techniques in cadavers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Was a standalone study done? Not explicitly in terms of an "algorithm only" performance study. The device itself is a physical, patient-specific instrument derived from a digital plan. The document describes "Cadaveric testing" which evaluates the combined PSI system (planning software output + physical guide) in a simulated surgical environment, not just the planning algorithm in isolation from its physical manifestation or use.
• The "Intra- and Inter-Designer Variability testing" and "Mechanical Integrity" tests are standalone evaluations of aspects of the device's design and manufacturing, but not of the surgical guidance algorithm's performance on its own.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Pre-operative Planning: The ground truth for the design of the PSI System is based on a "pre-operative planning validated by the surgeon" using CT images and anatomical landmarks. This can be considered a form of expert consensus/validation on the desired surgical outcome/instrument design.
• For Cadaveric Testing: The "ground truth" for the cadaveric study would be the actual anatomical targets and the achieved drill/cut placements, compared to the planned placements and traditional manual techniques. While experts (surgeons) would perform and assess these, the ultimate "truth" is the physical reality within the cadaver. The document implies comparison to "manual techniques" as a reference.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information regarding a "training set sample size." The Archer PSI System is described as being "designed from a draft treatment plan" and "manufactured from a pre-operative planning validated by the surgeon." This suggests a patient-specific design process rather than a machine learning model trained on a large dataset. The underlying "Archer™ 3D Targeting' platform (K213779)" (a separate cleared device) would be the system performing the planning, and its own 510(k) might contain training data details if it uses AI/ML. However, for the Archer PSI System itself, no training set information is present.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

As no training set is mentioned for the Archer PSI System in this document, no information is provided on how its ground truth would have been established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CORE Shoulder System is a handheld surgical instrument with computer-assisted instrument tracking and is intended to assist the surgeon with placement of the K-wire (central guide pin) used in the preparation of the glenoid and the positioning of the glenoid component during primary Anatomic or Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The CORE Shoulder System tracks the live position of the instruments relative to an untracked virtual anatomical model. It does not track the patient anatomy.

The CORE Shoulder System is designed for use with the following LINK Implant systems:

• · LINK Embrace Shoulder System Reverse Configuration (K200368, K212992, K231445)
• · LINK Embrace Shoulder System Anatomic Configuration (K210899)

The CORE Shoulder System is a handheld surgical instrument with computer-assisted instrument tracking and is intended to assist the surgeon with placement of the K-wire (central guide pin) used in the preparation of the glenoid and the positioning of the glenoid component during primary Anatomic or Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. CORE Shoulder assists the surgeon in placing the K-wire according to the preoperatively planned location. The CORE Shoulder System tracks the live position of the instruments relative to an untracked virtual anatomical model. It does not track the patient anatomy.

It allows the surgeon to visually compare the planned and placed position/trajectory of the guide pin (K-wire) by referencing a virtual 3D model of the pre-operative plan and the measured location of the K-wire. The system components include the Workstation (tablet, AC adapter, stand), the handheld COREmote (single-use Power Unit and reusable Sensor Unit), and reusable stainless-steel probes of different sizes.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the CORE Shoulder System, a surgical instrument with computer-assisted instrument tracking. It does not describe an AI/ML-based medical device. Therefore, it does not contain the specific information required to answer the prompt regarding AI/ML device performance.

The document focuses on the substantial equivalence of the CORE Shoulder System to a predicate device, based on non-clinical performance testing. It explicitly states that "Clinical performance testing was not required to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of this device." This implies that there was no study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in terms of clinical outcomes or human reader performance with AI assistance, as would be expected for an AI/ML device.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device, the study proving it meets those criteria, sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, or ground truth establishment for the training set, as these details are not present in the provided 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Software: The Precision AI Planning Software is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder joint arthroplasty. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components by creating a 3D bone construct of the joint and allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit presurgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Precision AI Shoulder Guide and Biomodels.

Hardware: The Precision AI Planning System Guides and Biomodels are intended to be used as patient-specific surgical instruments to assist in the intraoperative positioning of shoulder implant components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans. The Glenoid Guide is used to place the k-wire and the Humeral Guide is used to place humeral pins for humeral head resection. The Precision AI Guides and Biomodels are indicated for single use only. The Precision AI Surgical Planning System is indicated for use on adult patients that have been consented for shoulder joint arthroplasty. Both humeral and glenoid guides are suitable for a delto-pectoral approach only. The Precision AI Surgical Planning System is indicated for total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the following implant systems and their compatible components: Enovis and Lima.

The Precision AI Surgical Planning System is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific guides and models to transfer the plan to surgery. The subject device is a system composed of the following: The Precision AI Surgical Planning System Software will create a 3D construct/render of the patient's shoulder joint for the surgeon to plan the operatively then create a physical Patient Specific Instrument (or Guide), using 3D printing by selective laser sintering. The patient's CT scan images are the design input for this to be created and are auto segmented via a locked, or static, artificial intelligence algorithm. The surgeon can visualise the deformity of the diseased joint, on this 3D render and CT scan images, and determine the inherent deformity of the joint. They are then able to virtually place the artificial implants in an optimal position to correct the measured deformity for that specific patient. The Precision AI Guides, which are a patient-specific guide and models that are based on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patient-specific guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the plan to surgery.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) summary for the Precision AI Surgical Planning System (PAI-SPS). It describes the device and its intended use, but it does NOT contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study designs, or performance results in terms of metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or effect sizes for human reader improvement.

The document states that "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices.' This includes verification against defined requirements and validation against user needs." It also mentions that "Design verification and validation testing demonstrated that the PAI-SPS meets all design requirements and is as safe and effective as its predicate device (K233992)."

However, it does not explicitly lay out the acceptance criteria (e.g., "model must achieve 90% accuracy") or the results against those criteria. It focuses more on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (PAI-SPS K233992) by showing that the technology and intended use are similar, with the main differences being the addition of compatibility with more implant systems.

Therefore, I cannot fully complete the requested table and answer all questions based solely on the provided text. I will provide information based on what is available and indicate where information is missing.

Description of Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Criteria

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary, the PAI-SPS device is being cleared primarily through demonstrating substantial equivalence to an already cleared predicate device (PAI-SPS, K233992). The key claim for equivalence rests on similar intended use, fundamental scientific technology, design, functionality, operating principles, and materials, with the primary difference being expanded compatibility with additional implant systems.

The document implicitly suggests that the "acceptance criteria" are tied to demonstrating that these technological differences "do not raise any different questions of safety and effectiveness." The studies cited are primarily focused on software verification and validation, ensuring the new compatible implant systems do not negatively impact the established safety and effectiveness.

Here is a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The provided document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum accuracy percentages, specific error bounds) or detailed performance metrics. The performance is largely framed as demonstrating that the device "meets all design requirements and is as safe and effective as its predicate device."

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• The document does not specify the sample size for any test set (e.g., for software validation or hardware accuracy).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for specific test sets. Given the company is "Precision AI Pty Ltd" in Australia, and the document discusses "previous cadaver testing and composite bone model testing," it's likely a mix of lab-based/simulated data and potentially some retrospective clinical imaging data for initial AI development/testing, but this is not detailed. The document implies that new testing was not extensively conducted for this submission, relying heavily on the predicate device's prior validation and the minor changes to compatibility.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

• The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications used to establish ground truth for any test set.
• It mentions that the software allows a "qualified surgeon" to approve pre-surgical plan data, implying that expert surgical review is part of the workflow.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not specify any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing ground truth or evaluating test results.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or described. The focus of this 510(k) is substantial equivalence based on technological similarity and expanded compatibility, not a comparative study against human readers or performance improvement with AI assistance.

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

• The document states that the AI algorithm performs "auto segmentation via a locked, or static, artificial intelligence algorithm." While this indicates a standalone AI component, the document does not provide standalone performance metrics for this AI segmentation. The overall system is described as a "pre-surgical planner" where the surgeon can "visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data," suggesting a human-in-the-loop workflow.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For software, the implicit ground truth appears to be expert consensus or approved surgical plans for judging the accuracy of the software's representations and planning capabilities. The document states "The software allows a qualified surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate, edit and approve pre-surgical plan data."
• For hardware, "previous cadaver testing and composite bone model testing" were used, implying physical measurements against a known standard or "true" position established in these models.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify the sample size used for the training set for the AI segmentation algorithm.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• The document does not specify how the ground truth for the AI training set was established. It only mentions that the AI algorithm for auto-segmentation is "locked, or static," implying it was trained previously.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hardware:
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans.

The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only.

The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components:

• · DePuy Synthes'
• GLOBAL® APG+ Shoulder System (K052472)
• DELTA XTEND™ Reverse Shoulder System (K120174, K062250, K183077, K203694)
• GLOBAL® STEPTECH® APG Shoulder System (K092122)
• INHANCE™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K202716)1
• INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System (K212737)
• INHANCE™ Hybrid Anatomic Glenoid Implant (K212933)
• INHANCE™ Reverse Glenoid Peripheral Posts (K221467)
• INHANCE Convertible Glenoid (K230831)
• · Enovis'2 (DJO)
• Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K111629, K092873)
• Turon® Shoulder System (K080402)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Augmented Glenoid (K213387, K222592)
• AltiVate™ Reverse Glenoid (K233481)
• · Smith+Nephew's3
• Titan™ Total Shoulder System (K100448, K112438, K142413, K152047)
• Titan™ Reverse Shoulder System (K130050, K161189, K173717, K181999)
• AETOS Total Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• AETOS Reverse Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• · Lima's
• SMR™ Shoulder System (K100858)
• SMR™ Reverse Shoulder System (K110598)
• SMR™ Modular Glenoid (K113254) (K143256)
• SMR™ 3-Pegs Glenoid (K130642)
• SMR™ TT Metal Back Glenoid (K133349)
• SMR TM 40mm Glenosphere (K142139)
• SMR™ TT Augmented 360 Baseplate (K220792)
• SMR™ TT Hybrid Glenoid (K220792)
• PRIMA TT Glenoid (K222427)

Software:
SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder System™ is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following:

• a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used . to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient.
• Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific quide and models that are based ● on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patientspecific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the pre-operative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary (K242813) for the Materialise Shoulder System™ describes a submission seeking substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device (K241143). This submission is primarily for adding compatibility with new implant components rather than introducing a completely new AI capability or significant software change that would necessitate extensive new performance data. Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information typically found in a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/ML product.

Specifically, the document states:

• "The non-clinical performance data has demonstrated that the subject software technological differences between the subject and predicate devices do not raise any different questions of safety and effectiveness." (Page 9)
• "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices.' This includes verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs." (Page 10)
• "Previous testing for biocompatibility, sterility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability and packaging are applicable to the subject device. Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended. The stability of the device placement, surgical technique, intended use and functional elements of the subject device are the same as that of the predicate device of Materialise Shoulder System™ K241143 and previously cleared devices... therefore previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559 are considered applicable to the subject device." (Page 10)

Given this, I cannot provide detailed answers to many of your questions as the submission relies on the substantial equivalence principle and prior testing rather than new, extensive performance studies for AI/ML.

However, I can extract what is available:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria and reported device performance for the current submission (K242813), as it relies on the previous clearance and the assessment that the changes (adding implant compatibility) do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.

The general acceptance criterion mentioned is that the "accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended." This was verified through previous testing, including "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing."

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

The document mentions "previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559." It does not specify the sample size for these tests, nor the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

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

No such MRMC study is mentioned. The device is a "pre-surgical planner" and "surgical instrument" designed to assist the surgeon, but the provided text does not detail comparative effectiveness studies of human readers (surgeons) with and without the AI (planning software) assistance.

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

The software (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner) generates a pre-surgical plan which the "qualified surgeon" can "visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate, edit and approve" (Page 9). This indicates a human-in-the-loop process. Standalone performance of the algorithm without human interaction is not discussed as it's not the intended use.

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

The document generally refers to "verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs" and "accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended" based on "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing." This suggests a ground truth established through expert-defined surgical planning parameters and comparison to physical outcomes in the simulated/cadaveric environment, but specifics on how this ground truth was formalized (e.g., expert consensus on optimal planning, precise measurement validation) are not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

This device is a surgical planning tool and guides, not a deep learning AI model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense for image classification or similar tasks. It is based on algorithms that process CT-imaging scans and anatomical landmarks to generate personalized plans and guides. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" for AI/ML is not applicable here in the way it would be for a pattern recognition AI. The software's robustness and accuracy are likely validated through extensive testing against various patient anatomies and surgical scenarios.

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

As explained above, the concept of a training set as typically understood for AI/ML models is not directly applicable to this device based on the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device

VIP Web Portal:
The VIP Web Portal is intended for use as a software interface and for the transfer of imaging information from a medical scanner such as a CT scanner. It is also intended as software for displaying/editing implant placement and surgical treatment options that were generated in the OrthoVis desktop software by trained Arthrex technicians.

The VIP Web Portal is intended for use with the VIP glenoid instrumentation and with the OrthoVis preoperative plan. It is indicated for use with the following implant lines: Univers™ Apex total shoulder systems, keeled or pegged glenoid components, the Univers VaultLock® glenoid component, as well as the Univers Revers™ baseplate component (Universal Glenoid), Univers Revers™ modular glenoid system (MGS) baseplates, and Arthrex humeral implants compatible with these implant lines.

OrthoVis Preoperative Plan:
The OrthoVis Preoperative Plan is a preoperative plan created via the OrthoVis software that facilitates accurate preoperative planning of glenoid and humeral components in total shoulder replacement, and intraoperative placement of the glenoid component in total shoulder replacement.

The VIP Glenoid Targeter is indicated for use with the Univers™ II and Univers™ Apex total shoulder systems, keeled or pegged glenoid components, the Univers VaultLock® glenoid component, as well as the Univers Revers™ baseplate component (Universal Glenoid) and Univers Revers™ modular glenoid system (MGS) baseplates.

The VIP Glenoid Reamer is indicated for use with the Univers VaultLock® glenoid component and the Univers Revers™ modular glenoid system (MGS) baseplates.

The indications for use of the Arthrex shoulder systems with which the OrthoVis Preoperative Plan is intended to be used are the same as those described in the labeling for these shoulder systems.

Arthrex Virtual Implant Positioning (VIP) System software comprises VIP Web Portal software and OrthoVis Preoperative Plan software. The VIP Web Portal is web-based software intended for use to facilitate the upload of medical images, preoperative planning, and plan approval of placement and orientation of total shoulder replacement components. Each surgeon user's uploaded images are grouped into cases and associated with that user's profile. Uploaded images can be downloaded from the VIP Web Portal by Arthrex technicians and used to create preoperative plans in OrthoVis (a desktop application). Once created, the preoperative plans are uploaded back to the VIP Web Portal, where the surgeon user is then able to login and review the preoperative plan. Subsequently, the surgeon user may either approve the plan, or modify the type, size, location and/or orientation of the joint replacement component and then approve the plan. The approved plan is then made available for download by the surgeon user.

The provided text contains a K241097 510(k) summary for the Arthrex Virtual Implant Positioning (VIP) System Software. It describes the device, its indications for use, and a summary of technological characteristics. However, it does not include detailed information regarding the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the format requested.

Specifically, the "Performance Data" section states: "Software verification and validation testing were conducted and Enhanced Level documentation was provided as recommended by FDA's Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff 'Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions' dated June 14, 2023. Activities included software validation/verification, regression testing, unit testing, code reviews and checks and integration testing." This is a general statement about software testing but does not provide specific acceptance criteria or study results for device performance, especially in relation to human reader improvement with AI assistance, standalone algorithm performance, or details about the ground truth establishment.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what the document does not include from your request:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not provided. The document mentions "software verification and validation testing" but no specific performance metrics or acceptance thresholds are listed.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not provided.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not provided.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not provided.
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 provided. The device description focuses on planning software, not an AI to assist human readers in a diagnostic setting.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not provided.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not explicitly stated for performance testing. For the planning software, the "ground truth" would likely be the accurate simulation/prediction of implant placement, which is established by comparing the software's output to engineering/anatomical specifications and possibly surgical outcomes, but this is not detailed.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable based on the information provided, as this is software for preoperative planning, not a machine learning model that typically involves a "training set" in the sense of clinical image analysis. The "OrthoVis desktop application" is where technicians create plans.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable for the reasons above. The "ground truth" for this type of software would be based on validated anatomical models and biomechanical principles used to develop the software's algorithms for implant positioning.

Ask a specific question about this device

Software

The Precision Al Planning Software is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder ioint arthroplasty. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components by creating a 3D bone construct of the joint and allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Precision Al Shoulder Guide and Biomodels.

Hardware

The Precision Al Planning System Guides and Biomodels are intended to be used as patientspecific surgical instruments to assist in the intraoperative positioning of shoulder implant components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans.

The Glenoid Guide is used to place the k-wire and the Humeral Guide is used to place humeral pins for humeral head resection.

The Precision Al Guides and Biomodels are indicated for single use only.

The Precision AI Surgical Planning System is indicated for use on adult patients that have been consented for shoulder joint arthroplasty. Both humeral and glenoid guides are suitable for a deltopectoral approach only.

The Precision Al Surgical Planning System is indicated for total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the following Enovis implant systems and their compatible components:

• AltiVate Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• AltiVate Anatomic Augmented Glenoid (K213387)
• Turon Shoulder System (K111629)
• Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K092873, K111629)

Precision Al Surgical Planning System (PAI-SPS) is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific guide and models to transfer the surgical plan to surgery.

The device is a system composed of the following:

• a software component, Precision Al Surgical Planning Software which will create a 3D construct of the patient's joint for the surgeon to plan the operatively. The surgeon will be able to visualise the movement of the diseased joint and determine mechanical failings. They will then be able to place the virtual shoulder replacement in different positions and decide which position gives the patient the best result. Once the surgeon has decided on the best position, the software will generate a CAD file for a Patient Specific Guide.
• Precision Al Surgical Guides, which are patient-specific guides and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the surgical plan to surgery. Once the CAD model is generated from the planning software, the model is sent to a 3D printer which will then print the guide out of a biocompatible medical grade Nylon material for sintering (Polyamide-12) which has an established usage for similar application. The specific design of the guide will be customised to the individual patient as well as depending on the particular anatomy it will be applied to. Precision Al Patient Specific Guides are intended for single use only.

The Precision AI Surgical Planning System (PAI-SPS) is a patient-specific medical device comprised of software and physical surgical guides, designed to assist in the placement of shoulder components during shoulder replacement surgery.

Here's an analysis of its acceptance criteria and the supporting study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state a table of acceptance criteria with specific numerical targets. However, based on the Performance Data section, the overall acceptance criterion is that the device is "as safe, as effective, and performs as well as the predicate device." The performance reported primarily focuses on the successful completion of various non-clinical and a clinical study.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

For the clinical study, the sample size used was 35 subjects.
The data provenance for this clinical study was Australia, and it was a post-market evaluation of a clinical case series, implying retrospective data collection or analysis, though the exact nature (e.g., only post-operative CT analysis from existing records versus a direct follow-up) isn't specified beyond "post-market evaluation." The study was conducted under ethics committee approval and according to GCP.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

The document does not specify the number of experts used to establish ground truth for the clinical test set or their qualifications. It only states that the measurement accuracy was evaluated "via post-operative CT." Assuming post-operative CT scans were the ground truth, their interpretation would typically involve radiologists or orthopedic surgeons, but this is not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the clinical test set.

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 does not mention a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with AI assistance versus without AI assistance. The clinical study focused on the measurement accuracy of the device itself.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, a standalone performance assessment was done for the software component of the PAI-SPS. The Performance Data section mentions "Software Verification and Validation Testing." Additionally, the clinical study evaluating "measurement accuracy of the subject device via post-operative CT" implicitly assesses the standalone accuracy of the planning output (which is generated by the software) as compared to the actual outcome. The software generates "a pre-surgical plan data file" and "[allows] the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data." The accuracy of these measurements would be a standalone performance metric.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the clinical study, the ground truth used for evaluating measurement accuracy was post-operative CT scans. For the non-clinical tests (e.g., biocompatibility, dimensional stability), established laboratory test standards and methods define the ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide the sample size for the training set used for the "non-adaptive machine or deep learning algorithms trained for the purpose of semi-automatic segmentation and landmark identification of image scans."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

The document does not specify how the ground truth for the training set was established for the machine/deep learning algorithms. It only states that the algorithms are trained for "semi-automatic segmentation and landmark identification." Typically, this would involve expert annotation of images, but this detail is not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hardware:
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans.
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only.
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components:

• DePuy Synthes'
• GLOBAL® APG+ Shoulder System (K052472)
• DELTA XTEND™ Reverse Shoulder System (K120174, K062250, K183077, K203694)
• GLOBAL® STEPTECH® APG Shoulder System (K092122)
• INHANCE™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K202716)1
• INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System (K212737)
• INHANCE Hybrid Anatomic Glenoid Implant (K212933)
• INHANCE Reverse Glenoid Peripheral Posts (K221467)
• Enovis'2 (DJO)
• Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K111629, K092873)
• Turon® Shoulder System (K080402)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Augmented Glenoid (K213387)
• Smith+Nephew's3
• Titan™ Total Shoulder System (K100448, K112438, K142413, K152047)
• Titan™ Reverse Shoulder System (K130050, K161189, K173717, K181999)
• AETOS Total Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• AETOS Reverse Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• Lima's
• SMR™ Shoulder System (K100858)
• SMR™ Reverse Shoulder System (K110598)
• SMR™ Modular Glenoid (K113254) (K143256)
• SMR™ 3-Pegs Glenoid (K130642)
• SMR™ TT Metal Back Glenoid (K133349)
• SMR™ 40mm Glenosphere (K142139)
• SMR™ TT Augmented 360 Baseplate (K220792)
• SMR™ TT Hybrid Glenoid (K220792)
• PRIMA TT Glenoid (K222427)

Software:
SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder System™ is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following:

• a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient.
• Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific guide and models that are based on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patient-specific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the pre-operative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Materialise Shoulder System™, Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, and SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. It indicates that this is a special 510(k) submission, meaning it's for a modification to a previously cleared device. Therefore, much of the performance data refers back to the predicate device and prior clearances.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting study information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a direct table showing "acceptance criteria vs. reported device performance" for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, for this special 510(k), the performance data mainly focuses on demonstrating that the changes (addition of new implant components to the software and hardware compatibility) do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate device.

The "performance data (non-clinical)" section highlights that:

• Hardware: Previous testing for biocompatibility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability, and packaging is applicable. Accuracy and performance of the system were "adequate to perform as intended." Previous simulated surgeries and cadaver testing on earlier cleared devices are considered applicable.
• Software: Software verification and validation were performed "against defined requirements" and "against user needs," following FDA guidance.

Since this is a special 510(k) for an incremental change (adding compatibility with specific new implants), it's implied that the acceptance criteria are met if these additions do not negatively impact the established safety and effectiveness of the existing device, and the software development process meets regulatory standards.

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

• Hardware (previous testing cited): The document mentions "previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models" and "previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559." It does not specify the sample size for these previous studies (e.g., number of bone models or cadavers) or their provenance (country of origin), nor does it state if they were retrospective or prospective.
• Software (verification and validation): The document states "Software verification and validation were performed," but does not specify a separate "test set" in the context of clinical data or specific performance metrics with sample sizes for this particular submission. The V&V activities would involve testing against requirements and user needs, which could include various test cases and scenarios, but these are not quantified here as a "test set" size.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not provided in the document. The studies cited for hardware ("simulated surgeries" and "cadaver testing") and software ("verification and validation") do not detail the involvement of experts in establishing ground truth, their number, or specific qualifications. The software's function is to assist surgeons in planning, implying surgeon input in its use, but not explicitly in establishing a ground truth for a test set described in this submission.

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 does not mention any MRMC comparative effectiveness studies. The device (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner software component and Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models hardware component) is designed to assist surgeons in planning and component positioning, but the provided text does not contain data on whether human readers/surgeons improve with or without this specific AI assistance or effect sizes.

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

The document states that the SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is "intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components." It also mentions, "SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data." This indicates that the software is a human-in-the-loop device, where the surgeon is actively involved in the planning process and responsible for approving the plan. Therefore, a standalone (algorithm only) performance assessment, without human input, is unlikely to be the primary method of evaluation described or required for this type of device. The document does not provide such standalone performance data.

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

The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used for any specific test set related to this submission. For the hardware (guides and models), the "accuracy and performance" implies a comparison to a known standard or ideal, perhaps derived from anatomical models or surgical goals. For the software, "verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs" suggests that the ground truth for V&V would be the successful adherence to these requirements and user expectations, which could involve internal expert review or adherence to pre-defined medical/engineering specifications. However, specific types of ground truth like pathology or long-term outcomes data are not mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the document. As the submission is for a special 510(k) updating compatibility, it's possible that the core algorithms were developed and trained previously, and details of their original training are not part of this specific submission. The focus here is on the impact of the changes to the device.

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

This information is not provided in the document. Similar to the training set size, the specifics of how the ground truth was established for the original training of any underlying algorithms are not included in this special 510(k).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Signature™ ONE System is indicated, based on patient-specific radiological images with identifiable placement anatomical landmarks, to assist in pre-operative planning and/or intra-operative guiding of surgical instruments for shoulder replacement surgical procedures on patients not precluded from being radiologically scanned.

The Signature™ ONE System is designed for use on a skeletally mature patient population. The targeted population has the same characteristics as the population that is suitable for the implants compatible with the Signature™ ONE System.

The Signature™ ONE System is to be used with the glenoid components of the following shoulder implant systems in accordance with their indications: Zimmer® Trabecular Metal Reverse Plus® Shoulder. Comprehensive® Total Shoulder System, Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder System, Comprehensive® Reverse Augmented Baseplates and Alliance® Glenoid System.

The Signature™ ONE System pre-operative planning is also compatible with the humeral components of the following shoulder implant systems in accordance with their indications: Comprehensive® Total Shoulder System, Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder System, and Identity™ Shoulder System.

The Signature™ ONE System Guides and bone models are intended for single use only.

The Signature™ ONE System is developed to assist in preoperative planning (using the Signature™ ONE Planner) and to accurately transfer a pre-operative plan to orthopedic surgical procedures (using the Signature™ ONE Guides and bone model) if desired in skeletally mature individuals for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Both anatomic and reverse (TSA and RSA respectively) approaches are supported.

The Signature ONE Guides and Bone Models are designed and manufactured of polyamide (nylon) using additive manufacturing selective laser sintering (SLS), based on the approved/finalized pre-surgical plan and shipped prior to surgery. The guides and bone models are provided nonsterile and sterilized at the hospital. They are used intraoperatively to assist the surgeon in reproducing the plan on the scapula. The Signature ONE System surgical technique remains close to the conventional shoulder arthroplasty workflow.

The Signature™ ONE System uses a Non-Device Medical Device Data System (MDDS) called the Zimmer Biomet Portal for the interaction with external users (i.e. imaging technician and the surgeon). The internal users (i.e. the Zimmer Biomet operators) use manufacturing software applications to prepare the patient cases for the surgeon.

The purpose of this submission is to introduce new hardware kits for the existing compatible Comprehensive Reverse Augment implants and to include the addition of pre-operative planning of humeral components. A Rotational Guide component will be available as part of these two kits. Modifications have been made to the software applications to accommodate the new guide ordering option. The overall manufacturing process, materials, sterilization methods, have not changed from the previous primary predicate and principal of operation remains similar.

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study report with the specific performance metrics typically found in such documents. The "Summary of Performance Data (Nonclinical and/or Clinical)" section is quite generic, listing categories of tests rather than specific results or acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all components of your request with the information provided. However, I can extract what is available and highlight what is missing.

Here's a summary of the available information and what is absent:

Missing Information:

• Specific Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Table): The document lists categories of tests (Performance Tests, Engineering Analysis, Usability Engineering, Validation, Software V&V) but does not provide quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy thresholds, precision targets) or the actual reported performance values for the device against these criteria.
• Sample size for the test set and data provenance: The document mentions "Verification and Validation Testing" but does not specify the number of cases or subjects in the test set, nor the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications: No information is provided about the experts involved in establishing ground truth for any test sets.
• Adjudication method for the test set: No information is provided regarding adjudication methods.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: The document does not mention an MRMC study or any results regarding human reader improvement with AI assistance.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance: While software verification and validation are mentioned, specific standalone performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for the algorithm are not provided.
• Type of ground truth used: The description of "Validation... to validate related user needs, intended use and safety and effectiveness" is generic and does not specify how ground truth was established (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, outcome data).
• Sample size for the training set: There is no mention of a training set or its size.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Since a training set is not mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided.

Available Information (Indirectly related to performance):

The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K212560 and K211359) by demonstrating that the new device, the Signature™ ONE System, does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness despite new features.

The performance data mentioned in the document is categorized as:

• Device Performance Testing:
  • Performance Tests: Documented to ensure performance of implemented features and verify related design inputs.
  • Engineering Analysis: Documented to ensure performance of implemented features and verify related design inputs.
  • Usability Engineering: Performance of the system in regards to human factors engineering.
  • Validation: Performed to validate related user needs, intended use, and safety and effectiveness.
• Software Verification and Validation Testing: Conducted to satisfy requirements of the "Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions Guidance" and IEC 62304. This testing aims to demonstrate the system "does not raise any new issues of safety and effectiveness as compared to the predicate devices."

Conclusion from the document:

The conclusion drawn by the submitter is that "any differences between the subject and predicate devices do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness and the proposed device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed predicate devices." This implies that the performance data (though not detailed here) was sufficient to demonstrate this equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hardware: The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans. The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only. The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components: DePuy Synthes', Enovis' (DJO), Smith+Nephew's, Lima's, Stryker's.

Software: SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder System™ is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following: a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient. Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific guide and models that are based on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patient-specific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the pre-operative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for the Materialise Shoulder System™ and mentions performance data, but it does not contain a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the format requested.

The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than presenting a comprehensive standalone study with detailed effectiveness metrics.

Here's an analysis of the information that can be extracted, and what is missing based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in a quantitative manner for the performance of the AI component (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner) or the hardware (Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models) beyond ensuring it performs "as intended" and maintains accuracy.
• Reported Device Performance: The document states that "Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended." However, no specific performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, or error margins) are provided for either the software for planning or the hardware for guiding.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for the software component (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner).
• Data Provenance: Not specified for any software testing.
• For Hardware: It refers to "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing." No specific number of models or cadavers is provided, nor is the country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

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

• Not specified.

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:

• No MRMC study is mentioned. The document focuses on the planning and guidance aspect for surgeons, but not on a comparative study of human readers (surgeons) with and without AI assistance for diagnosis or planning accuracy.

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

• A standalone performance evaluation of the software's planning functionality is implied through the statement "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices.'" However, no specific metrics or study details are provided. The software is described as a "planning tool used to generate a pre-surgical plan" and for "assisting the surgeon in positioning shoulder components," suggesting a human-in-the-loop workflow.

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

• Ground Truth Type: Not explicitly stated for the software. For the hardware, the use of "rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing" implies a physical ground truth for accuracy validation.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document does not mention a training set sample size, which is typical for AI/ML models. This suggests the software functionality described (planning, visualization, measurement) might not be based on deep learning/machine learning that requires explicit training data in the same way as, for example, an image classification algorithm. It seems to be a rules-based or physics-based planning software.

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

• As no training set is mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided.

In summary:

The provided text from the FDA 510(k) summary states that non-clinical performance testing indicates the device is as safe and effective as its predicate. It mentions software verification and validation and previous hardware testing (biocompatibility, sterility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability, packaging, simulated surgeries, cadaver testing). However, it lacks the specific quantitative acceptance criteria and detailed study results (such as sample sizes, expert qualifications, clear performance metrics, ground truth establishment for software, and formal comparative effectiveness study results) that are typically expected when describing a study proving specific acceptance criteria in detail. This information is usually found in separate, more detailed technical documentation submitted to the FDA, not in the public 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hardware:
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans.
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only.
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components:

• Depuy Synthes'
• GLOBAL® APG+ Shoulder System (K052472)
• DELTA XTEND™ Reverse Shoulder System (K120174, K062250, K183077, K203694)
• GLOBAL® STEPTECH® APG Shoulder System (K092122)
• INHANCE™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K202716)1
• INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System (K212737)
• Enovis'2 (DJO)
• Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K111629, K092873)
• Turon® Shoulder System (K080402)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Augmented Glenoid (K213387)
• Smith+Nephew's 3
• Titan™ Total Shoulder System (K100448, K112438, K142413, K152047)
• Titan™ Reverse Shoulder System (K130050, K161189, K173717, K181999)
• Lima's
• SMR™ Shoulder System (K100858)
• SMRTM Reverse Shoulder System (K110598)
• SMRTM Modular Glenoid (K113254) (K143256)
• SMR™ 3-Pegs Glenoid (K130642)
• SMR™ TT Metal Back Glenoid (K133349)
• SMRTM 40mm Glenosphere (K142139)
• SMRTM TT Augmented 360 Baseplate (K220792)
• SMR™ TT Hybrid Glenoid (K220792)
• Stryker's
• ReUnion RSA Reverse Shoulder System (K183039)
• Reunion TSA Total Shoulder Arthroplasty System (K183039)

Software:
SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a pre-surgical plan data file which can be used as input data to design the Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder System™ is a patient-specific medical device that is designed to be used to assist the surgeon in the placement of shoulder components during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. This can be done by generating a pre-surgical shoulder plan and, if requested by the surgeon, by manufacturing a patient-specific glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following:

• a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient.
• Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific guide and models that are based on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patient-specific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patientspecific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the preoperative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Materialise Shoulder System™, Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, and SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. It asserts substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (K220452).

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or the specific study that proves the device meets those criteria for the software component (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner) in the context of AI/ML performance metrics.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence based on:

• Intended Use: The device is a patient-specific medical device to assist in shoulder component placement during total anatomic and reverse shoulder replacement surgery. The software component, SurgiCase Shoulder Planner, is a pre-surgical planner for simulation and assistance in positioning shoulder components.
• Technological Characteristics: The subject device has similar fundamental technologies, device functionality, and software technology (same code base, design, verification, and validation methods) as the predicate device.
• Performance Data (Non-Clinical):
  • Hardware: States previous testing for biocompatibility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability, and packaging are applicable and demonstrate substantial equivalence. Mentions testing verified accuracy and performance, and applicability of simulated surgeries and cadaver testing from previous clearances.
  • Software: States that "Software verification and validation were performed, and documentation was provided following the 'Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices.' This includes verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs."

Therefore, it is not possible to extract the requested information regarding AI/ML-specific acceptance criteria and performance study details from this document. The document describes a traditional 510(k) clearance process, not one with specific AI/ML performance metrics as would be expected for an AI-driven diagnostic or prognostic device. The software "assists" in planning and visualization, it does not appear to perform automated diagnostic or prognostic functions for which detailed performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, AUC) would typically be required for FDA clearance.

Based on the provided text, I can only provide the following information as much as possible:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
* Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document in terms of quantitative performance metrics for the software's "assistance" function. The acceptance criteria seem to be related to demonstrating substantial equivalence in intended use, technological characteristics, and non-clinical performance (including verification and validation against defined requirements and user needs for the software).
* Reported Device Performance:
* Hardware: "Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended." No quantitative metrics are provided.
* Software: "Software verification and validation were performed... This includes verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs." No quantitative metrics are provided. The document highlights that the software technology differences (addition of one implant component, easier visualization of muscle elongation) "do not affect the safety or effectiveness, or that they do not raise any new issues regarding to the safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate device."

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
* Sample Size: Not specified for software performance validation.
* Data Provenance: Not specified.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
* Not specified. The software is a planning tool to which a surgeon provides input and approves. Ground truth in the context of AI/ML models (e.g., for diagnosis) is not applicable here as the software's function is not a diagnostic one based on the description.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
* Not applicable as no such study is described for the software.

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 described. The software's role is described as assisting in planning and visualization, not as an AI providing interpretations that would be compared to human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
* Not applicable. The software is explicitly described as a "pre-surgical planner" that "allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data." It's a human-in-the-loop system for planning, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
* Not applicable in the AI/ML diagnostic sense. The "ground truth" for the software's functionality would be its adherence to specified design requirements and user needs, ensuring it accurately represents anatomical structures and allows for proper planning as intended, rather than a clinical ground truth for a diagnostic output.

8. The sample size for the training set:
* Not specified. The document does not describe a machine learning model that would require a distinct training set in the conventional sense. The "training" for such software would typically involve its development and internal testing against requirements.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
* Not applicable, as no external training set with established ground truth (e.g., clinical labels) is mentioned for a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device