Search Results

Hardware: The BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides are patient-specific drill guides. They have been specially designed to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total anatomic or reversed shoulder arthroplasty procedures using anatomic landmarks that are identifiable on patient-specific preoperative CT scans.

Software: Blueprint® is a medical device for surgeons. Blueprint® is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for shoulder replacement surgery. Blueprint® requires CT scan images showing the anatomical shoulder structure in a DICOM format. Blueprint® allows surgeons to visualize, measure, reconstruct, and annotate anatomic data. Blueprint® allows surgeons to design patient specific instruments and Tornier Perform patient-matched primary reversed glenoid*) based on the pre-surgical plan. Blueprint® leads to the generation of a planning report. Blueprint® is to be used for adult men and women patients only whose bone maturity is reached and should not be used for diagnostic purpose.

BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation is composed of two components: BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides (hardware) and Blueprint® (software).

Hardware: The BLUEPRINT ™ Glenoid Guides are patient-specific instruments specially designed to facilitate the implantation of glenoid prostheses. The BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides are designed and manufactured based on a pre-operative plan generated only by the software Blueprint®.

Software: Blueprint® is a software connected to an Online Management System (OMS). The user interface software is installed on a computer is intended to be used by orthopedic surgeons, as a preoperative planning software for shoulder arthroplasty surgery (anatomic and reversed). It is intended to help to plan an operation by allowing surgeons to: Plan for shoulder arthroplasty cases, Position and select glenoid and humeral implants, Simulate the prosthetic range of motion, Interact with implants and different computed measurements, Generate information required to design a patient-specific glenoid components when appropriate.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for the BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation, which includes both hardware (Glenoid Guides) and software (Blueprint®). While it describes the device, its intended use, and comparison to predicate devices, it does not contain the detailed performance data or acceptance criteria typically found in a study report.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC study details. The document states that "Technological differences between the subject and predicate software devices are supported by software verification and validation activities. These activities include functional tests, validation and compatibility for new implant integration, as well as the validation and reproducibility of anatomical measures, planning measures, planning features, and segmentation." However, it does not present the results or specific criteria of these activities.

In the absence of a detailed study report within the provided text, I can only state that the document asserts that:

• Differences in design specifications do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness over the predicate device as demonstrated in validation testing.
• The subject device, the BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation, does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Differences in technological characteristics have been addressed by software verification and validation activities.

To answer your request, a more detailed study report or validation protocol would be necessary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Aequalis Shoulder Fracture System & Aequalis Resurfacing Head:
Aequalis Range :
Prosthetic replacement with this device may be indicated to relieve severe pain or significant disability caused by:

• Degenerative pathologies: arthrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthrosis. Primary and secondary necrosis of the humeral head
• Displaced 4-part upper humeral fracture i
• Humeral head fracture
• Other pathologies where arthrodesis or resectional arthroplasty of the humeral head are not acceptable
• Revision surgery when other treatments or devices have failed. .
  Aequalis monobloc stem is for uncemented use only. The Aequalis press-Fit stem is for uncemented use only. The glenoid component is for cemented use only.
  Aequalis Fracture range:
• Traumatic or pathologic conditions of the shoulder resulting in fracture of the glenohumeral joint, including humeral head fracture and displaced 3-or 4-part proximal humeral fractures. - Revisions when other devices or treatments have failed.
  The Aequalis fracture stem is for cemented use only. The glenoid component is for cemented use only.
  Aequalis Resurfacing Head range:
  The resurfacing implant is indicated as a total or hemi shoulder joint replacement where the humeral head and neck are of sufficient bone stock and the rotator cuff is intact or reconstructable.
  The replacement of the joint with this device is indicated to relieve severe pain or significant disability caused by degenerative pathologies: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, primary and secondary necrosis of the humeral head.
  The resurfacing implant is intended for uncemented use only. The glenoid component is for cemented use only.
  Aequalis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis
  Cemented Aequalis Reversed prosthesis:
  It is indicated for patients with a functional deltoid muscle as a total shoulder replacement for the relief of pain and significant disability following arthropathy associated with the massive and non repairable rotator cuff-tear. This device is also indicated for the prosthetic revisions with massive and non repairable rotator cuff-tear. Only the humeral components are for cemented use. The glenoid implant is anchored to the bone with 4 screws and is for non-cemented fixation.
  When during the primary surgery the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to bear the reversed glenoid components or when glenoid bone fracture occurs during the surgical procedures, the hemiprosthesis adaptor and the union screw can be adapted to the humeral components in order to transform the Aequalis Reversed prosthesis into a non reversed hemi-prosthesis.
  When, in case of revision of a Aequalis Reversed prosthesis, the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to again implant a base plate and a sphere of Aequalis Reversed range, the hemiprosthesis adaptor and the union screw allows for the transformation of the Aequalis Reversed prosthesis in to a non reversed hemi-prosthesis in order to avoid the revision of the humeral components.
  Uncemented Aequalis Reversed prosthesis:
  It is indicated for patients with a functional deltoid muscle as a total shoulder replacement for the relief of pain and significant disability following arthropathy associated to massive and non repairable rotator cuff-tear. This device is also indicated for the prosthetic revisions with massive and non repairable rotator cuff-tear. The humeral components are for non-cemented use. The glenoid implant is anchored to the bone with 4 screws and is for non-cemented fixation.
  When during the primary surgery the glenoid stock appears to be insufficient to bear the reversed glenoid components or when glenoid bone fracture occurs during the surgical procedures, the hemiprosthesis adaptor and the union screw can be adapted to the humeral components in order to transform the Aequalis Reversed prosthesis into a non reversed hemi-prosthesis.
  When in case of revision of an Aequalis Reversed prosthesis, the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to again implant a base plate and a sphere of Aequalis Reversed range, the use of the hemiprosthesis adaptor and the union screw allows for the transformation of the Aequalis Reversed prosthesis in to a non reversed hemi-prosthesis in order to avoid the revision of the humeral components.
  Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis
  The Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis is indicated for patients with a functional deltoid muscle as a total shoulder replacement for the relief of pain or significant disability following arthropathy associated to a grossly deficient rotator cuff joint:
• in case of traumatic or pathologic conditions of the shoulder resulting in fracture of the glenohumeral joint, including humeral head fracture and displaced 3-or 4-part proximal humeral fractures, or
• in case of bone defect in proximal humerus.
  The Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis is also indicated for prosthetic revisions with a grossly deficient rotator cuff joint when other treatments or devices have failed.
  When during the primary surgery the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to bear the reversed glenoid components or when glenoid bone fracture occurs during the surgical procedures, the hemiprosthesis adaptor and the union screw can be adapted to the humeral components in order to transform the Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis into a non reversed hemi-prosthesis.
  When, in case of revision of a Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis, the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to implant a base plate and a sphere of Aequalis Reversed range again, the use of the hemi-prosthesis adaptor and the union screw allows for the transformation of the Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis into a non reversed hemi-prosthesis in order to avoid the revision of the humeral components.
  The Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder humeral stem is used in association with the glenoid components of the Aequalis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis.
  The Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder humeral stem is for cemented use only.

For the Aequalis Shoulder Fracture System:
The usual goal of total shoulder replacement and hemi-arthroplasty of the shoulder is to restore the shoulder joint to its best working condition and to reduce or eliminate pain. The Aequalis Shoulder Fracture System is intended to accomplish these goals. With the Aequalis Shoulder Fracture System, the natural glenoid elements of the shoulder may be conserved or replaced as warranted by the state of disease or injury. Thus the Aequalis Shoulder Fracture System is intended for use as a total shoulder replacement system, or as a hemi-shoulder. The modular nature of the system allows for the later conversion of a primary hemi-arthroplasty to a total shoulder replacement.
For the Aequalis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis:
The Aequalis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis is intended to relieve pain and significant disability following massive and non repairable cuff-lear associated to arthropathy and following massive cuff-lear arthropathy. In this case, the rotator muscles of the shoulder (supraspinatus. infraspinatus, teres minor and long head of the biceps) are no more useful for mobility, and only the deltoid (for abduction and external rotation) and the subscapularis (for internal rotation) are functional. Therefore, the usual goal of such surgery is to restore the shoulder joint to facilitate its working condition and to reduce or eliminate pain. The Aequalis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis is intended to accomplish these goals. Its reversed design allows to medialize the center of rotation of the shoulder, lengthening the deltoid muscle lever arm.
The Acqualis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis is a semi-constrained system composed of a humeral and a glenoid parts.
For the Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis:
The Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis is intended to be used to relieve pain or significant disability following massive cuff-tear associated to arthropathy and following massive cuff-tear arthropathy. In this case, the rotator nuscles of the shoulder (supraspinatus. teres minor and long head of the biceps) are no more useful for mobility and only the deltoid (for abduction and external rotation) and the subscapularis (for internal rotation) are functional.
.Therefore, the usual goal of such surgery is to restore the shoulder joint to facilitate its working condition and to reduce or eliminate pain. The Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis is intended to accomplish these goals. Its reversed design allows to medialize the center of rotation of the shoulder. lengthening the deltoid muscle lever arm and its Aequalis Fracture Shoulder humeral stemlike design allows to facilitate the bone reconstruction and improve the tuberosity healing and fixation. The Acqualis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis is a semi-constrained system composed of a humeral and a glenoid parts.
For the Aequalis Resurfacing Head:
The Aequalis Resurfacing Head is a humeral head resurfacing device. It requires less bone and cartilage removal, which makes it much more conservative than total joint implants. Revision or arthrodesis can be undertaken easily because the bone stock has been maintained with no loss of length. The main advantages of humeral head resurfacing are preservation of bone and the relatively simple surgical technique.
With the Aequalis Resurfacing Head the natural glenoid elements of the shoulder may be conserved or replaced as warranted by the state of disease or injury.
The present submission corresponds to the following modification:

• Addition of a new coating subcontractor (hydroxylapatite coating and titanium + hydroxylapatite coating): Eurocoating S.p.A on cobalt chromium and titanium components.
  All the prostheses of this application are strictly identical to the previously cleared devices except for the coating supplier. The indications for use of each device are not modified.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for orthopedic devices, specifically shoulder prostheses, and it details the substantial equivalence of a new coating subcontractor rather than presenting a study proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria based on performance. Therefore, the requested information, such as a table of accuracy metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, and human-in-the-loop study results, is not available in the provided text.

The core of this submission is to demonstrate that changing the coating subcontractor for existing, previously cleared devices (Aequalis Shoulder Fracture System, Aequalis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis, Aequalis Reversed Fracture Shoulder Prosthesis, Aequalis Resurfacing Head) does not alter the safety or effectiveness of the devices.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, focusing on what is available:

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

This document does not present quantitative performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for the device's diagnostic or therapeutic efficacy. Instead, it focuses on the performance of the coating from the new subcontractor meeting established standards.

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

No specific sample sizes for a "test set" in the context of device performance (e.g., clinical outcomes) are mentioned. The testing described (shear fatigue, static shear, static tensile, abrasion, and coating characterization) would have involved laboratory samples of the materials and coatings. The document does not specify the number of samples for these non-clinical tests, nor does it provide details on data provenance in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective nature, as it's a technical submission for material equivalence.

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 applicable to the type of submission. Ground truth, in the context of diagnostic accuracy, is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for the coating tests would be the established material standards (ASTM, ISO) and the specifications set by the device manufacturer.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in studies involving human interpretation or clinical outcomes. The non-clinical tests performed on the coating materials and their characterization are objective measurements against established 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 submission is for orthopedic prostheses and relates to a material change (coating subcontractor), not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithmic device.

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

The "ground truth" for this submission are the established material and performance standards (e.g., ASTM F 1185 for hydroxylapatite coating, ISO 5832-3 for titanium alloy, ISO 5832-4 for cobalt-chromium alloy, ISO 5834-2 for UHMWPE) and the manufacturer's internal specifications for the coating properties (thickness, pore size, pore volume), which are stated to be "identical to the previously cleared devices."

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

Not applicable.

Summary of the Study:

The study described is a non-clinical equivalency assessment. The purpose was to demonstrate that a new coating subcontractor (Eurocoating S.p.A) produces coatings that are substantially equivalent in terms of material properties and performance to the previously approved coatings from BioCoat Company.

• Objective: To show that the change in coating subcontractor does not introduce any new or higher risks and that the devices remain substantially equivalent to their predicates.
• Methodology:
  • Non-clinical testing: Shear fatigue strength, static shear strength test, static tensile strength, and abrasion tests were performed on the coating materials.
  • Coating characterization: Measurements of thickness, pore size, and pore volume were conducted.
  • Material Conformity: Verification that the materials used (titanium alloy, cobalt-chromium alloy, UHMWPE) and the coating (hydroxylapatite, titanium plasma spray) conform to relevant ISO and ASTM standards.
  • Comparison: The specifications and performance of Eurocoating S.p.A's coatings were compared to those previously requested from BioCoat Company.
• Conclusion (from the document): The results of the evaluation allowed the conclusion that the proposed new coating subcontractor Eurocoating S.p.A does not induce any new or higher risk compared to the predicate coating subcontractor BioCoat Company, and therefore both coating subcontractors are substantially equivalent. The indications for use, other technical characteristics (design, materials, manufacturing, sizing, method of fixation), and covered zones of the implants remain unchanged.

In essence, this document is a regulatory submission focused on proving the material equivalency of a component (the coating) from a different supplier, rather than a study on the clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy of the entire medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Univers Revers Shoulder Prosthesis is indicated for use in a grossly rotator cuff deficient glenohumeral joint with severe arthropathy or a previous failed joint replacement with gross rotator cuff deficiency. The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implant(s), and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The glenoid baseplate is CaP coated and is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

The uncoated cup and stem are intended for cemented use, all other components are for cementless use only.

The Arthrex Univers Revers Shoulder Prosthesis System has an articular design that is inverted compared to traditional total shoulder prosthesis. The system is comprised of two main components; the Arthrex Univers Revers Shoulder Prosthesis and the Universal Glenoid Shoulder Prosthesis. The Arthrex Univers Revers Shoulder Prosthesis is a titanium humeral stem and epiphysis or humeral cup, a titanium spacer, and an UHMWPE humeral cup liner. The humeral stem and epiphysis are available uncoated or with CaP coating. The Universal Glenoid Shoulder Prosthesis consists of a TPS/CaP coated titanium glenoid baseplate, a cobalt chrome glenosphere, and titanium screws.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Arthrex Univers Revers Shoulder Prosthesis System. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through clinical studies in the same way a novel AI algorithm might. Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, specific study design for device performance, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and reader studies (MRMC, standalone AI) are not applicable to a 510(k) for a medical device like a shoulder prosthesis.

The core of a 510(k) submission is to show that the new device is as safe and effective as a predicate device and does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. This is typically done through a comparison of technological characteristics, materials, design, and often, mechanical testing.

Here's the information that can be extracted or deduced from the document, organized according to your request, with explanations for why certain aspects are not present in this context:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Arthrex Univers Revers Shoulder Prosthesis System (K130129)

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of a 510(k) submission for a shoulder prosthesis. The "test set" here refers to the mechanical tests conducted on the device itself, not clinical data from patients. The number of samples for mechanical testing would be based on engineering standards and statistical requirements for device strength and durability specific to the tests performed (e.g., fatigue, static strength testing), but these numbers are not given in this summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data. For mechanical testing, the data originates from laboratory testing of the manufactured device components.

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

• Not applicable. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to the true state of a patient, which is not evaluated in a 510(k) for a medical implant like this. The "truth" for mechanical testing is derived from controlled laboratory environments. The experts involved would be engineers and material scientists conducting the tests, but their specific numbers and qualifications are not part of this summary.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1 for clinical interpretations) are not relevant for mechanical testing of a medical implant.

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 medical device (shoulder prosthesis), not an AI diagnostic or interpretive tool. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI-driven performance improvements are irrelevant.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Mechanical Performance: The "ground truth" is established through objective engineering measurements and standards for material properties, fatigue life, and static strength of the device components. This involves direct physical testing of the device under simulated physiological conditions.
• For Substantial Equivalence: The "ground truth" is a comparison against the characteristics and performance of the predicate devices, which have already been deemed safe and effective by the FDA.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning algorithm. There is no concept of a "training set" in this context.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device submission.

Summary of 510(k) Approach:

The key to this 510(k) submission is establishing "Substantial Equivalence" to predicate devices (K053274: Zimmer Anatomical Shoulder System; K100142: Torneir Aequalis Revers Shoulder Prosthesis). The manufacturer (Arthrex) demonstrated this through:

• Comparison of Intended Use.
• Comparison of Technological Characteristics (design, size ranges, materials, components).
• Submitted mechanical testing data to show equivalent fatigue strength, ensuring the device is adequate for its intended use.

The document explicitly states: "Clinical data and conclusions are not needed for this device." This confirms that no clinical patient studies involving "test sets," "ground truth" derived from patient outcomes, or expert adjudication of clinical data were part of this submission for market clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device