Search Results

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

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

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

In Anatomic:
The stem and head may be used by themselves, as a hemiathroplasty, if the natural glenoid provides a sufficient bearing surface, or in conjunction with the glenoid, as a total replacement.

The AETOS Shoulder System is to be used only in patients with an intact or reconstructable rotator cuff, where it is intended to provide increased mobility and to relieve pain. The AETOS Shoulder System is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints disabled by:

• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease
• Correction of functional deformity
• Fractures of the humeral head
• Traumatic arthritis
• Revision of other devices if sufficient bone stock remains

The coated humeral component is intended for uncement is intended for cement is intended for cemented use only.

In Reverse:
The AETOS Shoulder System is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints for patients with a functional deltoid muscle and with massive and non-repairable rotator cuff-tear with pain disabled by:

• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease
• Correction of functional deformity
• Fractures of the humeral head
• Traumatic arthritis
• Revision of devices if sufficient bone stock remains

The humeral liner component is indicated for use in the AETOS Shoulder System as a primary reverse total shoulder replacement and for use when converting an anatomic AETOS Shoulder System into a reverse shoulder construct. This facilitates the conversion without the removal of the humeral stem during revision surgery for patients with a functional deltoid muscle. The component is permitted to be used in the conversion from anatomic to reverse if the humeral stem is well fixed, the patient has a functional deltoid muscle; the arthroplasty is associated with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The coated humeral stem is indicated for uncemented use. The coated glenoid baseplate is intended for cementless application with the addition of screws for fixation.

Note: All implant components are single use.

The AETOS Shoulder System consists of:

In an anatomic configuration: A humeral stem (Titanium) with a plasma spray coating (Titanium), a compatible humeral head (CoCr) with a compatible glenoid (UHMWPE). The AETOS Shoulder System stem and head may be used by themselves for hemiarthroplasty.

In a reverse configuration: A humeral stem (Titanium) with a plasma spray coating (Titanium), a compatible liner (UHMWPE), glenoid baseplate (Titanium with Titanium plasma spray), glenosphere (CoCr with Titanium retaining component), peripheral screws (Titanium), center screw (Titanium), optional humeral spacer (Titanium), and optional post extension (Titanium with Titanium plasma spray).

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding the AETOS Shoulder System. It is primarily concerned with establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices based on non-clinical performance data and technological similarities/differences.

Therefore, a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria related to AI/algorithm performance (as described in your prompt, e.g., sensitivity, specificity, human reader improvement) was not performed nor is it relevant to this specific FDA submission.

The document explicitly states: "Clinical performance data were not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the subject device."

Instead, the acceptance criteria for this device are established through engineering and mechanical testing, ensuring the physical device components meet design specifications and performance standards comparable to legally marketed predicate devices.

Here's how to interpret the available information in the context of your request:

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

The acceptance criteria are implied by the non-clinical performance data testing listed, which assess the mechanical integrity and function of the shoulder system components. The "reported device performance" is that the device met these standards, demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate devices. This type of submission relies on the device performing as well as the predicate in relevant mechanical and material property tests to prove safety and effectiveness.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of patient data. The "test set" here refers to the physical components of the shoulder system subjected to mechanical testing. The sample size for these engineering tests would typically be a specific number of manufactured components.
• Data Provenance: This is not patient- or human-read data. It's likely from internal laboratory testing conducted by the manufacturer (Smith & Nephew, Inc. at Cordova, Tennessee). It's not retrospective or prospective clinical data.

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

This is not applicable. The "ground truth" for mechanical performance of an orthopedic implant is established through standardized engineering tests (e.g., ASTM standards) and material science principles, not expert consensus from medical professionals. The "experts" would be engineers, material scientists, and quality assurance personnel.

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

Not applicable, as this refers to human expert review of clinical data, which was not the basis of this submission. The "adjudication" is met by demonstrating compliance with established engineering and material standards through testing.

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 device is a physical orthopedic implant, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) that assists human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's acceptance is established through compliance with existing engineering standards and successful completion of specified mechanical and material property tests. These tests are designed to simulate physiological loads and conditions to ensure the device's durability and performance.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set for an algorithm.

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

Not applicable.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) clearance for a physical medical device (shoulder system). The "acceptance criteria" and "study" details you requested are tailored to AI/software products. For this device, acceptance is based on non-clinical (engineering) performance data demonstrating substantial equivalence to older, already cleared devices, rather than clinical trials or AI performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AETOS Shoulder System is intended for:
• Replacement of shoulder joints in primary anatomic or primary reverse arthroplasty.
• Replacement of shoulder joint devices in revision cases if sufficient bone stock is present.
• The AETOS Shoulder System also allows for conversions from anatomic to reverse in case of revision.

Indications for Use

In Anatomic:
The stem and head may be used by themselves, as a hemiarthroplasty, if the natural glenoid provides a sufficient bearing surface, or in conjunction with the glenoid, as a total replacement.

The AETOS Shoulder System is to be used only in patients with an intact or reconstructable rotator cuff, where it is intended to provide increased mobility and stability and to relieve pain. The AETOS Shoulder System is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints disabled by:
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease
• Correction of functional deformity
• Fractures of the humeral head
• Traumatic arthritis
• Revision of other devices if sufficient bone stock remains

The coated humeral component is intended for uncemented use. The glenoid component is intended for cemented use only.

In Reverse:
The AETOS Shoulder System is indicated for use as a replacement of shoulder joints for patients with a functional deltoid muscle and with massive and non-repairable rotator cuff-tear with pain disabled by:
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease
• Correction of functional deformity
• Fractures of the humeral head
• Traumatic arthritis
• Revision of devices if sufficient bone stock remains

The humeral liner component is indicated for use in the AETOS Shoulder System as a primary reverse total shoulder replacement and for use when converting an anatomic AETOS Shoulder System into a reverse shoulder construct. This facilitates the conversion without the removal of the humeral stem during revision surgery for patients with a functional deltoid muscle. The component is permitted to be used in the conversion from anatomic to reverse if the humeral stem is well fixed, the patient has a functional deltoid muscle; the arthroplasty is associated with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The coated humeral stem is indicated for uncemented use. The coated glenoid baseplate is intended for cementless application with the addition of screws for fixation.

Note: All implant components are single use.

The AETOS Shoulder System consists of:

In an anatomic configuration: A humeral stem (Titanium) with a plasma spray coating (Titanium), a compatible humeral head (CoCr) with a compatible glenoid (UHMWPE). The AETOS Shoulder System stem and head may be used by themselves for hemiarthroplasty.

In a reverse configuration: A humeral stem (Titanium) with a plasma spray coating (Titanium), a compatible liner (UHMWPE), glenoid baseplate (Titanium with Titanium plasma spray), glenosphere (CoCr with Titanium retaining component), peripheral screws (Titanium), center screw (Titanium), and optional post extension (Titanium with Titanium plasma spray).

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the AETOS Shoulder System. It details the device's description, indications for use, and a summary of nonclinical performance data. However, it explicitly states that "Clinical performance data were not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the subject device."

Therefore, I cannot provide information on acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets these criteria in the context of clinical performance, as no such clinical study was deemed necessary or performed for this 510(k) submission.

The document focuses on nonclinical performance data to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices. Here's what can be extracted regarding the nonclinical evaluation:

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

The document does not provide a table with explicit acceptance criteria (e.g., "Must withstand X N of force") and specific reported device performance values (e.g., "Device withstood Y N of force"). Instead, it lists the types of nonclinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The implication is that the performance in these tests was considered acceptable compared to the predicate devices and relevant standards.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided text for any of the nonclinical tests.
• Data Provenance: The tests are nonclinical (bench testing) and were performed by the manufacturer, Smith & Nephew, Inc. No country of origin for the data or whether it was retrospective/prospective is given, as these are typically not relevant for bench testing in the same way they are for clinical studies.

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

This information is not applicable as there was no clinical study, and thus no "ground truth" established by experts in a diagnostic context. The "ground truth" for the nonclinical tests would be the measurement results against engineering specifications or established standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

This information is not applicable as there was no clinical study requiring adjudication of expert interpretations.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "Clinical performance data were not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the subject device."

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

This information is not applicable as the AETOS Shoulder System is a physical orthopedic implant, not an AI algorithm or software device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

For the nonclinical (bench) testing, the "ground truth" would be the engineering specifications, material science properties, and performance standards relevant to orthopedic implants, against which the device's performance in mechanical and material tests was evaluated for substantial equivalence to predicates.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

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)
  • INHANCETM Anatomic Shoulder System (K202716)
  • INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System (K212737)
• DJO's
  • Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K111629, K092873)
  • Turon® Shoulder System (K080402)
  • AltiVate™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• Smith & Nephew's
  • Titan™ Total Shoulder System (K100448, K112438, K142413, K152047)
  • Titan™ Reverse Shoulder System (K130050, K161189, K173717, K181999)
• Lima's
  • SMRTM Shoulder System (K100858)
  • SMRTM Reverse Shoulder System (K110598)
  • SMRTM Modular Glenoid (K113254) (K143256)
  • SMR™ 3-Pegs Glenoid (K130642)
  • SMRTM TT Metal Back Glenoid (K133349)
  • SMR™ 40mm Glenosphere (K142139)
• Stryker's .
  • ReUnion RSA Reverse Shoulder System (K183039)
  • Reunion TSA Total Shoulder Arthroplasty System (K183039)

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. Patient-specific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific quides 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.

I am sorry, but the provided text primarily consists of an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Materialise Shoulder System. While it describes the device, its indications for use, and technological characteristics compared to a predicate device, crucial details regarding the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria (such as specific performance metrics, sample sizes for test sets, ground truth establishment, or clinical study designs like MRMC studies) are not present in the provided document.

The "Performance Data (non-clinical)" section briefly mentions software verification and validation, but it does not provide the specific "acceptance criteria" for performance or the details of the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the format requested. It mainly relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on similar technology and previous testing.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them using only the information given in the input text. The information required for the table and the detailed study description is simply not provided in this regulatory document.

Ask a specific question about this device

Anatomic Total Shoulder or Hemi-Shoulder
The INHANCE SHOULDER SYSTEM with the humeral stemless anchor is intended for use in anatomic total shoulder replacement procedures to address the following:

• Osteoarthritis
• Post-traumatic arthrosis
• Focal avascular necrosis of the humeral head
• Previous surgeries of the shoulder that do not compromise the fixation

The INHANCE SHOULDER SYSTEM with a humeral stem is intended for use in anatomic total or hemi-shoulder replacement procedures to address the following:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis.
• Rheumatoid arthritis.
• Revision where other devices or treatments have failed.
• Correction of functional deformity.
• Fractures of the humeral head (with Short Humeral Stems)
• Fractures of the proximal humerus, where other methods of treatment are deemed inadequate (with Standard or Long Stems)
• Difficult clinical management problems where other methods of treatment may not be suitable or may be inadequate.

Fixation Methods
The humeral stems are intended for cemented or cementless use. The humeral stemless anchor is intended for cementless use. The glenoid is intended for cemented use only.

Reverse Total Shoulder
The INHANCE SHOULDER SYSTEM Reverse Total Shoulder with a humeral stem is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total reverse shoulder replacement procedures to address the following. The system is indicated for use in patients whose shoulder joint has a gross rotator cuff deficiency. The patient must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary. The system is also indicated for conversion from an anatomic to reverse shoulder prosthesis without the removal of a well-fixed INHANCE humeral stem.

• A severely painful, disabling, arthritic joint
• Fractures of the humeral head (with Short Humeral Stems)
• Fractures of the proximal humerus (with Standard or Long Stems)
• Revisions of previously failed shoulder joint replacements

Fixation Methods
The humeral stem is intended for cemented or cementless use. The glenoid baseplate components are intended for cementless application with the addition of screw fixation.

The INHANCE™ SHOULDER SYSTEM with a humeral stemless anchor is intended for use in anatomic total shoulder replacement procedures.

The INHANCE SHOULDER SYSTEM with a humeral stem is intended for use in anatomic total, reverse total, or hemi-shoulder replacement procedures.

The Anatomic Total Shoulder Prosthesis consists of individually packaged implants: a metal humeral stem or humeral stemless anchor (titanium alloy), an offset taper adapter (titanium alloy), a humeral head (cobalt-chromium) in combination with a Cross-linked, Vitamin E Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (Cross-linked, VE UHMWPE) glenoid.

The Reverse Total Shoulder Prosthesis consists of individually packaged implants: a metal humeral stem (titanium alloy), a shell (titanium alloy), a liner (Cross-linked, VE UHMWPE) in combination with a glenosphere (cobalt-chromium), baseplate (titanium alloy), peripheral screws (titanium alloy), and either a central screw (titanium alloy) or a central post (titanium alloy).

The Anatomic Hemi-Shoulder Prosthesis consists of individually packaged implants: a metal humeral stem (titanium alloy) an offset taper adapter (titanium alloy), a humeral head (cobaltchromium) (no glenoid component associated).

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance of a medical device, the INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System, and does not contain information about the performance of an AI/ML device. Therefore, it is not possible to answer the requested questions about acceptance criteria, study details, and AI performance.

The document focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" of the device to previously cleared predicate devices through non-clinical testing. It explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System to the predicate devices."

The non-clinical testing performed includes:

• Range of Motion (RoM) Evaluation: Met established specifications per ASTM F1378.
• Construct Fatigue Testing: Met acceptance criteria per ASTM F1378.
• Construct Loosening and Disassociation: Met acceptance criteria per ASTM F2028-17.
• Biocompatibility Assessments: Found to be biocompatible per ISO 10993-1 and FDA Guidance.
• Porous Structure Characterization: Identical to previously cleared devices.
• Characterization of VE-UHMWPE: Fully characterized in a previous submission (K202716).
• Evaluation of Wear Rate: Wear rate was lower than a predicate device, meeting acceptance criteria.
• MRI Compatibility: Quantitative data obtained per ASTM standards (F2052-15, F2213-17, F2182-19e2, F2119-07).
• Shelf Life Evaluation: A five-year shelf life established per ISO 11607-1 and ISO 11607-2.
• Sterilization Validation: Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-9 found per ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2.

These are all engineering and material performance tests for a physical implant, not an AI/ML algorithm or software.

Ask a specific question about this device