Search Results

Software: The Precision AI Planning Software is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder joint arthroplasty. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components by creating a 3D bone construct of the joint and allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit presurgical 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 Precision AI Shoulder Guide and Biomodels.

Hardware: The Precision AI Planning System Guides and Biomodels are intended to be used as patient-specific surgical instruments to assist in the intraoperative positioning of shoulder implant components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans. The Glenoid Guide is used to place the k-wire and the Humeral Guide is used to place humeral pins for humeral head resection. The Precision AI Guides and Biomodels are indicated for single use only. The Precision AI Surgical Planning System is indicated for use on adult patients that have been consented for shoulder joint arthroplasty. Both humeral and glenoid guides are suitable for a delto-pectoral approach only. The Precision AI Surgical Planning System is indicated for total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the following implant systems and their compatible components: Enovis and Lima.

The Precision AI Surgical Planning 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 guides and models to transfer the plan to surgery. The subject device is a system composed of the following: The Precision AI Surgical Planning System Software will create a 3D construct/render of the patient's shoulder joint for the surgeon to plan the operatively then create a physical Patient Specific Instrument (or Guide), using 3D printing by selective laser sintering. The patient's CT scan images are the design input for this to be created and are auto segmented via a locked, or static, artificial intelligence algorithm. The surgeon can visualise the deformity of the diseased joint, on this 3D render and CT scan images, and determine the inherent deformity of the joint. They are then able to virtually place the artificial implants in an optimal position to correct the measured deformity for that specific patient. The Precision AI Guides, 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 guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the plan to surgery.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) summary for the Precision AI Surgical Planning System (PAI-SPS). It describes the device and its intended use, but it does NOT contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study designs, or performance results in terms of metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or effect sizes for human reader improvement.

The document states that "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." It also mentions that "Design verification and validation testing demonstrated that the PAI-SPS meets all design requirements and is as safe and effective as its predicate device (K233992)."

However, it does not explicitly lay out the acceptance criteria (e.g., "model must achieve 90% accuracy") or the results against those criteria. It focuses more on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (PAI-SPS K233992) by showing that the technology and intended use are similar, with the main differences being the addition of compatibility with more implant systems.

Therefore, I cannot fully complete the requested table and answer all questions based solely on the provided text. I will provide information based on what is available and indicate where information is missing.

Description of Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Criteria

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary, the PAI-SPS device is being cleared primarily through demonstrating substantial equivalence to an already cleared predicate device (PAI-SPS, K233992). The key claim for equivalence rests on similar intended use, fundamental scientific technology, design, functionality, operating principles, and materials, with the primary difference being expanded compatibility with additional implant systems.

The document implicitly suggests that the "acceptance criteria" are tied to demonstrating that these technological differences "do not raise any different questions of safety and effectiveness." The studies cited are primarily focused on software verification and validation, ensuring the new compatible implant systems do not negatively impact the established safety and effectiveness.

Here is a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The provided document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum accuracy percentages, specific error bounds) or detailed performance metrics. The performance is largely framed as demonstrating that the device "meets all design requirements and is as safe and effective as its predicate device."

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

• The document does not specify the sample size for any test set (e.g., for software validation or hardware accuracy).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for specific test sets. Given the company is "Precision AI Pty Ltd" in Australia, and the document discusses "previous cadaver testing and composite bone model testing," it's likely a mix of lab-based/simulated data and potentially some retrospective clinical imaging data for initial AI development/testing, but this is not detailed. The document implies that new testing was not extensively conducted for this submission, relying heavily on the predicate device's prior validation and the minor changes to compatibility.

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

• The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications used to establish ground truth for any test set.
• It mentions that the software allows a "qualified surgeon" to approve pre-surgical plan data, implying that expert surgical review is part of the workflow.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not specify any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing ground truth or evaluating test results.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or described. The focus of this 510(k) is substantial equivalence based on technological similarity and expanded compatibility, not a comparative study against human readers or performance improvement with AI assistance.

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

• The document states that the AI algorithm performs "auto segmentation via a locked, or static, artificial intelligence algorithm." While this indicates a standalone AI component, the document does not provide standalone performance metrics for this AI segmentation. The overall system is described as a "pre-surgical planner" where the surgeon can "visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical plan data," suggesting a human-in-the-loop workflow.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For software, the implicit ground truth appears to be expert consensus or approved surgical plans for judging the accuracy of the software's representations and planning capabilities. The document states "The software allows a qualified surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate, edit and approve pre-surgical plan data."
• For hardware, "previous cadaver testing and composite bone model testing" were used, implying physical measurements against a known standard or "true" position established in these models.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify the sample size used for the training set for the AI segmentation algorithm.

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

• The document does not specify how the ground truth for the AI training set was established. It only mentions that the AI algorithm for auto-segmentation is "locked, or static," implying it was trained previously.

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

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