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™ 3D Planning Software is a medical device for surgeon composed of one software component. It is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for shoulder orthopedic surgery. BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software runs on standard personal and business computers running Microsoft Windows or Mac OS operating systems. The software supports DICOM standard to import the CT scan (Computed Tomography) images of the patient. Only CT scan modality can be loaded with BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software. BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software allows surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit anatomic data. It allows surgeon to design glenoid patient-specific guides based on the pre-surgical plan. The software leads to the generation of a surgery report along with a 3D file of the glenoid patient-specific guide. BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software does not include any system to manufacture the glenoid patient-specific guide. BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software is to be used for adult patients only and should not be used for diagnostic purpose.

BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation is composed of two components: BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides (hardware) and BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software (software).

Hardware: The BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides are patient-specially designed to facilitate the implantation of WRIGHT-TORNIER glenoid prostheses. The BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides are designed and manufactured based on a pre-operative plan generated by the BLUEPRINTTM 3D Planning Software. All BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides are patient-specific, single use and delivered non-sterile.

Software: BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software is composed of one software component connected to an Online Management System (OMS). The software 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 plan an operation by allowing surgeons to: Position and select glenoid implant, Position and select humeral implant, Display bone density and reaming surface, Simulate the prosthetic range of motion, Design a patient specific guide for the glenoid component.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation (K162800). It describes a medical device system composed of software (BLUEPRINT™ 3D Planning Software) and hardware (BLUEPRINT™ Glenoid Guides) used for pre-surgical planning and intraoperative guidance in shoulder arthroplasty procedures.

However, this document does not contain the specific details required to fully address all points in your request. It refers to previous 510(k) clearances (K143374 and K160555) for validation of the device, but it does not reproduce the detailed acceptance criteria and study results within this summary.

Based on the information available in this document, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

This document does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy thresholds for guide placement) or detailed performance results in a table format. It broadly states that "The validation of BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation (Subject Device System) was already proven via BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation (K143374) and BLUEPRINT™ Patient Specific Instrumentation (K160555), including polyamide and titanium materials... The performed testing for validation of the design, manufacturing, biocompatibility, sterility, dimensions and the accuracy of the guide are applicable to the subject device."

To obtain this information, one would need to access the full 510(k) submissions for K143374 and K160555.

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

This document does not specify the sample size for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It refers to previous validations but does not provide details about those 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 present in the provided document.

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

This information is not present in the provided 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:

This document does not mention an MRMC comparative effectiveness study or any effect size related to human reader improvement with/without AI assistance. The software is described as a pre-surgical planner to assist surgeons, implying it's a tool, but not explicitly tested in an MRMC setting for diagnostic performance comparison.

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

The document describes the software as a "pre-surgical planner" and the guides as assisting in "intraoperative positioning." This implies a human-in-the-loop scenario where the software aids the surgeon. It does not describe a standalone algorithm performance study.

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

This document does not specify the type of ground truth used for validation. It refers to "accuracy of the guide" being validated, which suggests comparison to a known standard, but the nature of that standard (e.g., CMM measurements, post-operative CT) is not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This document does not mention any training set size as it concerns the validation of an already proven system. If the AI component (the 3D Planning Software) involved machine learning, this information would typically be in its original clearance or a more detailed technical document.

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

As no training set is mentioned in this document, this information is not available.

In summary:

This 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than providing a detailed technical report of a new primary clinical validation study with all the requested specifics. To get the requested information, one would need to consult the original 510(k) submissions for K143374 and K160555, as these are the documents indicated as containing the previous validation data.

Ask a specific question about this device