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

The Tornier Pyrocarbon Humeral Head associated with the Tornier Flex Stem is indicated for use as a replacement of deficient humeral heads disabled by:

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint diseases (osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis) .
• . Traumatic arthritis.

The Tornier Pyrocarbon Humeral Head Shoulder Prosthesis, combined with the Tornier Flex Humeral Stem, are to be used only in patients with an intact or reconstructable rotator cuff and if the native glenoid surface is intact or sufficient, where they are intended to increase mobility, stability, and relieve pain.

Note: The coated humeral stem is intended for cementless use. The noncoated humeral stem is for cemented use only

The Tornier Pyrocarbon Humeral Head is a prescription use device that is comprised of the pyrolytic carbon (pyrocarbon) articulating surface and a cobalt chromium alloy double taper neck. The humeral head is provided pre-assembled to the double taper to the end user and is compacted onto 510(k) cleared compatible humeral stems (K151293) for replacement of deficient humeral heads disabled by noninflammatory arthritis, or traumatic arthritis. The pyrocarbon articulating surface is made of a graphite substrate core, coated with a layer of pyrolytic carbon deposited onto the substrate via chemical vapor deposition. The pvrocarbon articulating surface is pressed into the cobalt chromium alloy double taper neck during the manufacturing process, is provided as a singular construct to the end user, and is not intended to be disassembled by the end user. Compatible monoblock humeral stems are available in titanium plasma spray coated or uncoated versions. The humeral stems are designed with a female taper connection to accept the mating male taper connection of the pyrocarbon humeral heads.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and a clinical study that proves the Tornier Pyrocarbon Humeral Head device meets these criteria. However, it does not detail a study involving AI or human readers for diagnostic image analysis. Instead, the "study" referenced is a clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of a medical implant.

Therefore, many of the requested points related to AI model evaluation, such as "number of experts used to establish ground truth," "adjudication method," and "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," are not applicable to this document's content.

I will provide the information that is available in the document regarding the acceptance criteria and the clinical study of the implant.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Tornier Pyrocarbon Humeral Head (Hemiarthroplasty Implant)

The acceptance criteria for this medical device are primarily defined through bench testing (non-clinical performance) and clinical study endpoints (safety and effectiveness in patients).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

A. Bench Testing (Non-Clinical Mechanical Performance)

B. Clinical Performance (Primary Endpoint for Clinical Success at 24 Months)

1. Change in Constant score is ≥ 17;
2. No revision surgery;
3. No radiographic evidence of system disassembly or fracture;
4. No system-related serious adverse event. | Composite Clinical Success (CCS):

• Intent to Treat (ITT): 82.7%
• Per Protocol (PP): 87.9%

Component Success Rates:

• Free of Revision: 98.1% (154/157)
• Constant Score improved 17+ points (among those with evaluable scores): 84.6% (121/143)
• Free of disassembly or fracture: 100.0% (157/157)
• Free of device related SAE: 96.8% (152/157) | Composite Clinical Success (CCS):
• Intent to Treat (ITT): 66.8%
• Per Protocol (PP): 63.1%

Component Success Rates:

• Free of Revision: 94.7% (160/169)
• Constant Score improved 17+ points (among those with evaluable scores): 73.1% (49/67)
• Free of disassembly or fracture: 100.0% (169/169)
• Free of device related SAE: 94.7% (160/169) |

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

• Sample Size (Test Set):
  • Pyrocarbon (Investigational) Group: 157 subjects enrolled.
  • Control Group: 169 subjects selected after Propensity Score (PS) matching from a historical dataset.
• Data Provenance:
  • Pyrocarbon Group: Prospective, multi-center, single-arm investigational study (IDE G140202 - Pyrocarbon IDE Study). Data collected from 18 sites within the US.
  • Control Group: Retrospective, derived from the Aequalis Post-Market Outcomes Study dataset. The exact country of origin for the Aequalis dataset is not explicitly stated, but given context with US-based clinical trials, it is likely also primarily US data or from similar western healthcare systems.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

This question is not applicable as the document describes a clinical trial for a medical implant, not an AI model requiring human expert labeling of data. The "ground truth" for the clinical study is the patient's actual clinical outcome, measured through direct observation (e.g., revision surgery, radiographic findings) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g., Constant score changes).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This question is not applicable in the context of diagnostic performance evaluation for an AI model. For the clinical study of the implant:

• The primary endpoint was a composite outcome, objectively defined.
• "Unanticipated Adverse Device Effects" were determined by an independent medical monitor.
• Clinical data collection and evaluation would have followed standard clinical trial protocols, typically involving investigators at sites and a data monitoring committee. Explicit "adjudication" in the sense of resolving disagreements among multiple human readers of image data is not relevant here.

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. This type of study is specific to evaluating the diagnostic performance of AI or other tools when used by human readers (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). The study described is a clinical trial comparing a new implant to a historical control.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study was done

No, this question is not applicable as the document is about a physical medical implant, not an AI algorithm. Its "standalone performance" is demonstrated through bench testing (mechanical performance, biocompatibility, sterility) rather than diagnostic accuracy.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the clinical study:

• Clinical Outcomes Data: This includes hard endpoints such as occurrence of revision surgery, radiographic evidence of system disassembly or fracture, and presence of system-related serious adverse events.
• Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs): These are quantitative measures of patient experience and function, such as the Constant score, ASES score, SANE, EQ-5D, and VAS pain scale. Improvement in these scores contributes to the definition of "success."

For the bench testing:

• Direct Measurement/Observation: Mechanical properties are empirically measured (e.g., force to cause disassembly, visual inspection for cracks, measured ROM).
• Comparative Data: For some tests without absolute acceptance criteria (e.g., taper disassembly, fretting/corrosion, third-body wear), performance was compared to another cleared humeral head with the same intended use.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device (implant) and its clinical evaluation, not an AI model that requires a "training set" of data in the machine learning sense. The "training" for this device would refer to its manufacturing process and quality control, and the "data" is the clinical and bench testing data.

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

This question is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Tornier Perform Reversed Glenospheres are 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 (i.e. osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis)
• · Correction of functional deformity
• · Fractures of the humeral head
• · Traumatic arthritis
• · Revision of the devices if sufficient bone stock remains

Notes:

• · All components are single use.
• The glenoid sphere implant is anchored to the bone with screws and is for non-cemented fixation.

The Tornier Perform™ Reversed Glenoid Cannulated Glenospheres are part of a reverse shoulder prosthesis consisting of cannulated cobalt chromium and titanium alloy glenospheres. The Tornier Perform Reversed Glenoid Cannulated Glenospheres are intended for replacement of the shoulder joint to reduce pain and improve shoulder mobility in comparison with preoperative status.

The Tornier Perform Reversed Glenoid Cannulated Glenospheres must be used in association with a compatible Tornier reversed glenoid and humeral component. The cannulated glenosphere can be used as part of the glenoid implant. The glenoid implant is composed of a baseplate with central and peripheral anchoring screws and a glenosphere. An optional press-fit post is available that can be used in lieu of the central anchoring screw.

Ancillary instruments are also provided for the implantation of the prosthesis.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Tornier Perform™ Reversed Glenoid Cannulated Glenospheres. This document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered device.

The document states:

• "Non-clinical bench testing and process validations were performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device."
• "No clinical studies were performed."

Therefore, there is no information available in the provided text to answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device, performance studies, sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth establishment. The document describes mechanical bench testing (Glenosphere Loosening, Taper Disassembly, Glenosphere Fatigue) and simulated use to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, K161742.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

• Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (i.e. osteoarthritis) and avascular necrosis .
• Correction of functional deformity
• Post-traumatic arthritis 0
• o Revisions or fractures of the humeral head where adequate fixation can be achieved and adequate bone stock remains

Titanium humeral heads are intended for patients with suspected cobalt alloy material sensitivity. The wear properties of titanium and titanium alloys are inferior to that of cobalt alloy. A titanium humeral head is not recommended for patients without a suspected material sensitivity to cobalt alloy.

All components are single use. The humeral stems are intended for cementless use.

The PERFORM Humeral System – Stem is intended to be used with cemented polyethylene glenoid components, in a total shoulder arthroplasty.

In Reverse:
The PERFORM™ Humeral System - Stem is indicated for use as a replacement of a shoulder joint for patients with a functional deltoid muscle, grossly deficient rotator cuff, and pain disabled by one or more of the following:

• o Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (i.e. osteoarthritis) and avascular necrosis
• Pseudoparalysis or anterior superior escape ●
• Rotator cuff tear arthropathy
• Correction of functional deformity
• Post-traumatic arthritis
• o Revisions or fractures of the humeral head where adequate fixation can be achieved and adequate bone stock remains

The reversed insert is indicated for use for the conversion from an anatomic to reverse shoulder prosthesis without the removal of a well fixed humeral stem for patients with a functional deltoid muscle.

All components are single use. The humeral stems are intended for cemented or cementless use. The PERFORM Humeral System – Stem is intended to be used with glenoid implants that are anchored to the bone with screws for non-cemented fixation.

The PERFORM Humeral System - Stem is an inlay convertible humeral system intended for anatomic, reverse, and hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder system also allows for conversion from an anatomic to a reverse shoulder prosthesis in the case of revision. The PERFORM Humeral System - Stem is implanted with existing Tornier glenoid systems for total anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

The PERFORM Humeral System – Stem includes titanium humeral stems, cobalt chrome and titanium humeral heads, titanium humeral head couplers, conventional and Vitamin E UHMWPE reversed inserts, and titanium humeral spacers. The system also includes reusable instruments used to implant the shoulder prosthesis.

This FDA 510(k) summary describes the Tornier PERFORM™ Humeral System - Stem, a shoulder prosthesis. The document does not describe an AI/ML powered device, therefore, the requested information cannot be fully provided.

However, based on the provided text, here is what can be extracted regarding the device (a physical medical implant) and its non-clinical performance testing:

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

The document does not provide a table with specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance values in a comparative format. Instead, it lists the types of non-clinical performance testing conducted to support substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

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

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

The document explicitly states:

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device