Search Results

When used in the Humelock II Reversible Shoulder System: The Humelock II Reversible Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The humeral stems are intended for cemented or cementless use. The metaglene baseplate is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

When used in the Humelock Reversed Shoulder System:

The Humelock Reversed Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

During primary or revision surgery, if the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to bear the reversed glenoid components or the glenoid bone fractures during the procedure, a taper adapter can be used to convert the Humelock Reversed Shoulder to an anatomic hemi-shoulder prosthesis.

The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cemented Shoulder Prosthesis is intended for cemented use only. The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cementless Shoulder Prosthesis is lockable with two cortical bone screws and is intended for cementless or cemented stems.

The glenoid baseplate and post extension are intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

When used in the Humeris Shoulder System and Humeris 135 Shoulder System: In an anatomic shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder System is indicated for use in total and hemi-shoulder replacement to treat:

• A severely painful and/or disabled joint resulting from osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
• Other difficult clinical problems where shoulder arthrodesis or resection arthroplasty are not acceptable (e.g., revision of a previously implanted primary component, a humeral plate or a humeral nail).

In a reverse shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder is indicated for primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The humeral stem of the Humeris Cementless Shoulder is intended for cementless use only. The humeral stem of the Humeris Cemented Shoulder is intended for cemented use only. The glenoid baseplate component is intended for cementless use with addition of screws for fixation.

When used in the FX V135 Shoulder Prosthesis:

In an anatomic shoulder configuration, the FX V135 Shoulder Prosthesis is indicated for use in total and hemi-shoulder replacement to treat:

• A severely painful and/or disabled joint resulting from osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis:
• Other difficult clinical problems where shoulder arthrodesis or resection arthroplasty are not acceptable (e.g. revision of a previously implanted primary component, a humeral plate or a humeral nail).

In a reverse shoulder configuration, the FX V135 Shoulder Prosthesis is indicated for primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The humeral stem of the FX V135 Cementless Shoulder is intended for cementless use only, with optional cortical bone screws for the longer stems. The glenoid components of the FX V135 Shoulder System are intended for cemented use only. The glenoid baseplate component is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

The Full Wedge Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates are new components added to the reverse shoulder replacement systems including the Humelock II Reversible Shoulder System, the Reversed (K162455), the Humeris Shoulder (K163669, K222936) and the FX V135 Shoulder Prosthesis (K213117, K223801). The Lateralized baseplate with full wedge augmentation is a modification of the primary predicate half wedge lateralized and augmented baseplates (K210790) and may be used with an asymmetric bone defect when there is no possibility to correct this defect without graft or excessive reaming.

Compatible components for use with the Full Wedge Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates are the same as the compatible components for use in the previously cleared reverse shoulder replacement systems.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding orthopedic implants, specifically shoulder joint prostheses. It details the device's indications for use, its classification, and a summary of the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

The request asks for information about the acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets these criteria, focusing on aspects typically found in studies for AI/software-driven medical devices. However, this document is for a mechanical orthopedic implant (shoulder baseplates), not an AI or software-driven device. Therefore, many of the requested categories (e.g., number of experts for ground truth, MRMC study, training set ground truth, effect size for human readers) are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

The "study" in this context refers to non-clinical bench testing to demonstrate mechanical performance, not a study evaluating diagnostic performance of an AI algorithm.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is not applicable:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

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

• Sample size: Not explicitly stated for bench testing, but these typically involve a set number of test samples (e.g., 6-12) based on the specific ASTM standard. The document only mentions "bench testing for glenoid loosening" and "range of motion analysis."
• Data provenance: Not applicable in the sense of patient data. This is mechanical testing done in a lab setting. It is not specified if the testing was performed in the US or another country, but the manufacturer is based in France.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not applicable for mechanical bench testing.

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

• Not Applicable. Ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering specifications and standards (e.g., ASTM). No human experts are used in this context to establish a "ground truth" for diagnostic accuracy.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not Applicable. This concept applies to human interpretation of data, typically in diagnostic studies. For mechanical testing, the results are quantitative measurements against predefined criteria.

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 not an AI/software device. No human reader studies were performed.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/software device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For mechanical properties: Established by standardized engineering tests and measurements (e.g., ASTM F2028-17 for glenoid loosening, ASTM F-1378-18 for range of motion). These standards define the methodology and acceptable ranges for performance.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This refers to AI model training data. This document is about a physical implant device, not an AI or software device.

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

• Not Applicable. (See point 8)

Summary of Device Performance and Substantial Equivalence:

The document states that the Full Wedge Lateralized and Augmented Baseplates are a modification of previously cleared predicate devices. Substantial equivalence for this device was demonstrated through:

• Non-Clinical Testing:
  • Bench testing for glenoid loosening (ASTM F2028-17) showed the device is substantially equivalent to the primary predicate.
  • Range of motion analysis, based on the same parameters and assumptions as the predicate, demonstrated substantial equivalence and exceeded ASTM F-1378-18.
• Comparison to Predicate Device: The new components are "identical to the primary predicate, half wedge lateralized augmented baseplates, on indications, material, manufacturing, packaging, single use, sterilization, shelf life, biocompatibility, compatible components."

Conclusion: The FDA cleared this device based on non-clinical engineering bench testing that confirmed the modified design performed equivalently to, or better than, the predicate device according to established industry standards. Clinical testing was deemed unnecessary as the changes did not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Easytech® Anatomical Shoulder System is in total shoulder repacement to treat a severely painf il and/or disabled joint resulting from osteoarthritis.

The humeral stemless of the Easytech® Anatomical Shoulder is intended for cementless use only. The glencid components of the Easytech® Anatomical Shoulder System are intended for cemented use only.

The patient's joint must be anatomically suited to receive the selected implants and a functional rotator cuff is necessary to use the device.

The Easytech® Anatomical Shoulder is an anatomical shoulder prothesis designed for use in patients with a functional rotator cuff. The Easytech® humeral stemless (Anchor base) is used with a connector, a centered or offset humeral head, and a glenoid for use in an anatomical shoulder configuration.

This system is designed to articulate with a glenoid component for total shoulder arthroplasty. Subject of this submission is the cementless, stemless Humeral Anchor base that is part of the Easytech® Anatomical Shoulder System. The compatible components to complete the system have been cleared previously in K111097, K123814, and K163669.

The Easytech® Anchor base is a stemless prosthesis. The cementless Anchor base is available in diameters of 30 to 38 mm. The Anchor base has a main central post with striaes. In the periphery of the Anchor base, five retentives striaes are positioned to help with the primary fixation. The undersurface of the Anchor base, including the central post and retentive striaes, has a plasma sprayed CPTitanium and Hydroxyapatite coating without the superior surface and the female taper. The Anchor base incorporates a female taper for attachment of compatible components. This component is manufactured in Ti-6AI-4V ELI allov conforming to ISO 5832-3.

The Anchor base can be used with a straight taper connector or a centered spacer manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy conforming to ISO 5832-3, a centered or offset humeral head manufactured from wrought Co-Cr-Mo alloy conforming to ISO 5832-12 and a 2 pegs or 3 or 4 pegs cemented glenoid manufactured from ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) conforming to ISO 5834-2 for use in an anatomical shoulder configuration.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

• Adjusted Constant Score >54 AND improved from baseline >10
• No migration or subsidence
• No radiolucencies of the humeral or glenoid components
• Implant integrity maintained
• No revision surgery
• No serious adverse device event | 91.7% (with a lower two-sided 90% confidence bound of 87.3%).
  This is compared to a performance goal for the predicate device of 92.3% and a reference margin of 10%. The lower bound (87.3%) being greater than (92.3% - 10% = 82.3%) indicated success. |
  | Adjusted Constant Score Improvement: Clinically significant improvement in Adjusted Constant Score from preoperative baseline. | Average Month 24+ Adjusted Constant Score: 99.14 (SD 18.73).
  Clinically significant improvement (p

Ask a specific question about this device

When used in the Humelock II Reversible Shoulder System: The Humelock II Reversible Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The humeral stems are intended for cemented or cementless use. The metaglene baseplate is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

When used in the Humelock Reversed Shoulder System:

The Humelock Reversed Shoulder is indicated for primary, fracture or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

During primary or revision surgery, if the glenoid bone stock appears to be insufficient to bear the reversed glenoid components or the glenoid bone fractures during the procedure, a taper adapter can be used to convert the Humelock Reversed Shoulder to an anatomic hemi-shoulder prosthesis.

The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cemented Shoulder Prothesis is intended for cemented use only. The humeral stem of the Humelock Reversed Cementless Shoulder Prothesis is lockable with two cortical bone screws and is intended for cementless use only. An optional anti-rotational spoiler can be used with either the cementless or the cemented stems.

The glenoid baseplate and post extension are intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

When used in the Humeris Shoulder System:

In an anatomic shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder System is indicated for use in total and hemi-shoulder replacement to treat:

• A severely painful and/or disabled joint resulting from osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis;

• Other difficult clinical problems where shoulder arthrodesis or resection arthroplasty are not acceptable (e.g. revision of a previously implanted primary component, a humeral plate or a humeral nail).

In a reverse shoulder configuration, the Humeris Shoulder is indicated for primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the relief of pain and to improve function in patients with a massive and non-repairable rotator cuff tear.

The patient's joint must be anatomically and structurally suited to receive the selected implants and a functional deltoid muscle is necessary to use the device.

The humeral stem of the Humeris Cementless Shoulder is intended for cementless use only. The humeral stem of the Humeris Cemented Shoulder is intended for cemented use only. The glenoid components of the Humeris Shoulder System are intended for cemented use only. The glenoid baseplate component is intended for cementless use with the addition of screws for fixation.

The Glenoid Baseplate with Screw is a new component added to the Humelock II® Reversible Shoulder System, Humelock Reversed® Shoulder System, and Humeris® Shoulder System, when used for a reverse shoulder construct. Compatible components for use with the Glenoid Baseplate with Screw are the same as those previously cleared compatible components for use as a component in the primary predicate device, K150488, K162455 Humelock Reversed Shoulder System and K163669 Humeris Shoulder System, when used for a reverse shoulder construct.

This FDA 510(k) clearance document for the "Glenoid Baseplate with Screw" does not describe a study that involves software, AI, or human readers, or that uses acceptance criteria based on metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.

Instead, this document is for a medical device (a shoulder implant component). The "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" discussed relate to mechanical testing of the implant, not diagnostic or predictive performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details, because this type of information is simply not present in this document.

Here's what I can extract related to the mentioned "acceptance criteria" which is limited to mechanical performance:

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

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. Standard mechanical testing typically uses a specific number of samples for each test, but the exact number is not detailed here.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is FX Solutions in Viriat, France (01440). It's reasonable to infer the testing was conducted by or for the manufacturer, potentially in France or a certified testing facility elsewhere. The testing is non-clinical, meaning it's conducted in a lab setting, not on patient data.

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):

Not applicable. "Ground truth" in this context would refer to the mechanical properties of the device as defined by a standard. Experts are typically involved in setting the standard and performing the tests, but no specific number or qualifications are mentioned as this isn't a diagnostic performance study.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical outcomes, not for mechanical testing of a physical device.

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, an MRMC study was not done. This document is for a physical medical implant, not an AI device or software.

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

Not applicable. This document is for a physical medical implant, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the device's mechanical performance is based on the specifications outlined in the ISO 6475-1 standard for torque properties.

8. The sample size for the training set:

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

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

Not applicable as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device