Search Results

The NextAR™ Knee Platform is intended to be used to support the surgeon during total knee replacement procedures by providing information on bone resections, ligaments behavior, instrument and implant positioning.

The NextAR™ Knee Platform is intended to be used in combination with NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments and general surgical instruments to implant the GMK® Sphere Total knee system ligament balancing. As an optional display, the smart glasses can be used auxiliary to the NextAR™ to view the same 2D stereotaxic information as presented by the NextARTM Platform.

The smart glasses should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with the primary computer display.

The MyKnee® NextAR™ cutting guides include a camera/target holder and a PSI MyKnee® cutting guide both for tibia and femur. The MyKnee® cutting guides must be used as anatomical cutting blocks specific for a single patient anatomy, to assist in the positioning of total knee replacement components intraoperatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting.

The MyKnee® PPS NextAR™ blocks include a PSI MyKnee® pin positioners block both for tibia and femur. The MyKnee® PPS NextAR™ blocks must be used as anatomical Pin positioners blocks for a single patient anatomy, to assist in the positioning of total knee replacement components intraoperatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting.

The use of MyKnee® NextAR™ cutting guides or MyKnee® PPS NextAR™ blocks are applicable only for the "PSIbased" approach. MyKnee® NextAR™ cutting guides or MyKnee® PPS NextAR™ blocks are for single use only.

The NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments are intended to be used to surgeon during specific orthopedic surgical procedures by providing information on bone resections, ligaments behavior, instrument and implant positioning. The NextAR™ Knee stereotaxic instruments, when registered with the MyKnee® NextAR™ Knee cutting guides, provide reference to a patient's rigid anatomical structures, such as the femur and tibia, that can be identified relative to preoperative CT based planning.

The NextAR™ TKA Platform is a CT based computer-assisted surgical navigation platform used in total knee replacement surgery and includes the following components:

• Navigation software which displays information to the surgeon in real-time;
• Augmented Reality glasses;
• Optical tracking system;
• PC based hardware platform;
• MyKnee NextAR Cutting Blocks (PSI) an option;
• MyKnee NextAR Pin Positioners (PPS) - an option; and
• Reusable surgical instruments for total knee replacement procedures.

The system operates on the common principle of stereotaxic technology in which markers are mounted on the bones and an infrared camera is used to monitor the spatial location of the markers. Tracking sensors attached to the bones enable the surgeon to view the position and orientation of bones and instrumentation relative to preoperative data in real-time while performing the surgical procedure. The tracking sensors are provided sterile. In NextAR TKA MyKnee PPS, subject of the submission, the placement of the sensor is performed by the use of reusable metal instrumentation used in the PSI free version (NextARTM TKA Platform, K202152).

The NextAR™ TKA Platform PSI based, PSI free and now NextAR™ TKA MyKnee PPS aid the surgeon in executing the surgical plan by visualizing all the information in real time in a screen monitor. Utilizing the approach NextAR™ TKA Platform PSI based (K193559) the placement of the implants is performed by cutting the bones using MyKnee® NextAR™ Cutting Blocks and, optionally, utilizing the approach NextAR™ TKA Platform PSI free (K202152), the placement of the implants is performed by cutting the bones using navigated reusable surgical instrumentation where the registration of the CT scan of the patient's anatomy is performed by executing the NextAR registration algorithm. Now, NextAR™ TKA MyKnee PPS fuses from both PSI and PSI free method. NextAR PPS helps the surgeon to place the metal fixation for the sensor and the pins to place the standard or micrometric cutting guides to reproduce the preoperative planning.

Same reusable surgical instrumentation (provided non-sterile) guided by the tracking sensors can be used also for recut. Although the position of the implants can be validated to assess the correct execution of the planning, the surgeon can change the surgical plan intraoperatively by analyzing the 3D models of the patient, the CT scan, and the 3D geometry of the implants.

The MyKnee® NextAR™ Pin Positioners, manufactured from medical grade nylon, are single use patient-specific blocks which are designed from patient CT images. They are intended to position the pins for placement of the standard instruments and for the infrared technology. The blocks are provided sterile via gamma irradiation or non-sterile.

The surgeon can choose the desired approach, PSI-based (clearance - K193559), PSI-free (clearance - K202152), or PPS now under submission.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the NextAR™ TKA Platform My Knee PPS device, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Software validation.
• In vitro validation.
• Biocompatibility (per ISO 10993-1:2009).
• Sterilization validation.
• Shelf-life testing.
• Electrical safety (per IEC 60601-1:2005, COR1:2006, COR2:2007, Amd1:2012).
• Electromagnetic compatibility (per IEC 60601-1-2:2014).
• Mechanical and optical properties performance. | - Device Accuracy: The device has similar characteristics to its predicate devices, which also include orientation and positioning of bone resections. The "in vitro validation" likely addressed this, confirming its performance is comparable.
• Software Validation: Performed.
• In Vitro Validation: Performed.
• Biocompatibility: Accepted during predicate submissions (K193559 and K202152) and deemed unchanged.
• Sterilization Validation: Accepted during predicate submissions and deemed unchanged.
• Shelf-Life Testing: Accepted during predicate submissions and deemed unchanged.
• Electrical Safety: Accepted during predicate submissions and deemed unchanged.
• Electromagnetic Compatibility: Accepted during predicate submissions and deemed unchanged.
• Mechanical and Optical Properties Performance: Accepted during predicate submissions and deemed unchanged. |

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

The document does not specify the exact sample size used for the test set (e.g., number of patients, number of anatomical models). It only mentions that "in vitro validation" was performed.

Data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin. The studies are described as "in vitro validation," suggesting lab-based testing rather than studies involving human patients. Therefore, it's likely retrospective or prospective testing on inanimate objects/models, not patient data in the typical sense.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The studies listed are primarily technical validations (software, in vitro, safety, etc.), which may not inherently require expert human review to establish ground truth in the same way clinical diagnostic studies might.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This information is not provided in the document. It's improbable that an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) was used, as the listed studies are technical validation tests rather than diagnostic performance studies requiring human interpretation of results.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size:

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not mentioned or described in the provided text. The device is a surgical navigation platform, not a diagnostic imaging AI tool in the typical sense of MRMC studies.

6. If a Standalone Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done:

Yes, a standalone performance study (algorithm only) was implicitly done through the "software validation" and "in vitro validation" studies. These types of studies typically evaluate the technical performance of the device/algorithm itself, independently of a human operator, to ensure its accuracy and functionality.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The document doesn't explicitly state the "type of ground truth" in a singular specific manner. However, for the technical validations:

• Software Validation: Ground truth would be defined by the expected behavior and calculations of the software as per its design specifications.
• In Vitro Validation: Ground truth would be established by precise measurements taken from physical models or phantoms using highly accurate reference instruments, against which the device's measurements/guidance are compared.
• Device Accuracy (Orientation and Positioning): For this aspect, the ground truth would be extremely precise, independently verified knowledge of the true orientation and position of relevant anatomical structures or measuring points, against which the NextAR™ system's reported values are compared. This is usually achieved with high-precision metrology equipment in a lab setting.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide any information on the sample size for a training set. This device is a navigation system that uses pre-operative CT data for planning. While it might involve algorithms that were developed using training data (e.g., for image segmentation or registration), the provided 510(k) summary does not disclose details about such training sets.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

As no training set information is provided, how its ground truth was established is also not described in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Shoulder NextAR™ RSA Platform supports the surgeon during glenoid implantation in reverse shoulder replacement procedures providing information on bone preparation, instrument guidance, and implant positioning. The Shoulder NextAR™ RSA Platform works in conjunction with NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments and general surgical instruments to implant the Medacta Shoulder System Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty). As an optional display, the smart glasses can be used auxiliary to the Shoulder NextAR™ Platform to view the same 2D stereotaxic information as presented by the Shoulder NextARTM Platform.

The Shoulder NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments are to support the surgeon during specific orthopedic surgical steps by providing information on bone preparation, instrument guidance, and implant positioning. Once registered, the NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments provide reference to a patient's rigid anatomical structures on the surface of the glenoid that are identified relative to preoperative C.T. based planning.

The smart glasses should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with the primary computer display.

The Shoulder NextAR™ RSA Platform is a CT based computer-assisted surgical navigation platform used to perform a reverse shoulder arthroplasty on the glenoid and includes the following components:

• PC based hardware platform; (K193559 and K202152)
• optical tracking system; (K193559 and K202152)
• Augmented Reality glasses; (K193559 and K202152)
• Platform (K193559 and K202152)
• navigation software which displays information to the surgeon in real-time;
• Reusable surgical instruments to perform the surgical steps of a shoulder reverse arthroplasty ● on the glenoid.

The system operates on the common principle of stereotaxic technology in which markers are mounted on the bones and an infrared camera is used to monitor the spatial location of the markers. Tracking sensors attached to the scapula and surgical instruments enable the surgeon to view the position and orientation of scapula and instrumentation relative to preoperative data in real-time while performing the surgical procedure. The tracking sensors are provided sterile.

Shoulder NextAR™ RSA Platform aids the surgeon in executing the surgical plan by visualizing all the information in real time on a screen monitor.

The NextAR™ RSA system is intended to assist the surgeon in executing a preoperative surgical planning. The navigation platform tracks the surgical instruments in real-time and displays intraoperative and planned surgical parameters on a screen, thus allowing the surgeon to match the intraoperative parameters with the planned ones.

Specifically, the navigation system utilizes established technologies of navigation and via an active infrared camera rigidly coupled with the scapula and an active infrared tracker that can be rigidly coupled to the surgical instruments. The registration of the patient's scapula on the preoperative scapula model is performed through the use of dedicated surgical instruments (pointers) and a dedicated registration algorithm.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the Medacta International SA NextAR™ RSA Platform, a CT-based computer-assisted surgical navigation platform for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The performance data section is brief, stating that testing was conducted according to written protocols with acceptance criteria based on standards, and mentions a "cadaver study" and an "in vitro study." However, it does not provide specific details about the acceptance criteria themselves, the reported device performance against those criteria, the sample sizes, expert qualifications, ground truth methods, or any MRMC study results. The text indicates that some studies were accepted from previous submissions of related devices (NextAR™ TKA Platform K193559 and K202152), but these are general safety and performance tests (biocompatibility, sterilization, shelf-life, electrical safety, EMC, mechanical/optical properties) and not performance data explicitly proving the navigation system's accuracy or effectiveness in its specific use case for shoulder arthroplasty.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot populate most of the requested information regarding the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them. The document states that the studies were performed "in support of a substantial equivalence determination," but it does not present the detailed results of these specific performance studies.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred or what is explicitly missing:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (As much as can be extracted from the provided text)

The document broadly states that "Testing was conducted according to written protocols with acceptance criteria that were based on standards." However, it does not present a table of specific acceptance criteria or the reported device performance against them.

Study Details:

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

   • Not provided in the document. The document mentions "acceptance criteria that were based on standards" but does not list them or the performance results.

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

   • The document mentions a "cadaver study" and an "in vitro study."
   • Sample Size: Not specified for either study.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin). Both appear to be prospective experimental studies (cadaveric and in vitro).

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

   • Not specified. The document does not describe how ground truth was established for the cadaver or in vitro studies, nor does it mention experts for this purpose.

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:

   • Not specified. The document does not mention an MRMC study or any assessment of human reader improvement with AI assistance. The device is a surgical navigation platform, not an AI diagnostic tool that assists human readers.

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

   • The document mentions "performance testing to evaluate mechanical and optical properties" and "software validation," which would likely involve standalone performance evaluations of system components and the algorithm. However, specific details of these tests as they relate to clinical accuracy or a defined "standalone" performance metric for the navigation itself are not elaborated. The cadaver and in vitro studies would assess the system's performance, but how "standalone" vs. "human-in-the-loop" was defined and measured is not clear.

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

   • Not specified. For a navigation system, ground truth would typically refer to highly accurate measurements of actual bone or instrument positions relative to an established plan. The method (e.g., CMM measurements, highly accurate image registration) is not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not specified. The document describes a navigation system based on "established technologies of navigation" and "dedicated registration algorithm," rather than a machine learning model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense for AI. If elements of the "software validation" involved training machine learning components, this is not disclosed.

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

   • Not applicable/Not specified, for the same reasons as #8.

Summary of Missing Information:

The provided 510(k) summary is very high-level regarding the specific performance studies. It confirms that a cadaver study and an in vitro study were performed to support substantial equivalence, but it omits the critical details of these studies, such as:

• Specific quantitative acceptance criteria.
• The numerical results obtained from the device (e.g., accuracy, precision values).
• The number of samples (cadavers, in vitro setups).
• The methodologies for establishing ground truth.
• Any details about expert involvement or adjudication.

This type of detailed information is typically found in the full testing reports or sections within the 510(k) submission that are not publicly available in this summary format.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NextAR™ TKA Platform is intended to be used to support the surgeon during total knee replacement procedures by providing information on bone resections, ligaments behaviour, instruments and implants positioning.

The NextAR™ TKA Platform is intended to be used in combination with NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments and general surgical instruments to implant the GMK® Sphere Total knee system and perform ligament balancing. As an optional display, the smart glasses can be used auxiliary to the NextAR™ Platform to view the same 2D stereotaxic information as presented by the NextAR™ Platform.

The smart glasses should not be relied upon solely and should always be used in conjunction with the primary computer display.

The MyKnee® NextAR™ cutting guides include a camera/target holder and a PSI MyKnee® cutting guide both for tibia and femur. The MyKnee® cutting guides must be used as anatomical cutting blocks specific for a single patient anatomy, to assist in the positioning of total knee replacement components intraoperatively and in guiding the marking of bone before cutting. The use of MyKnee® NextAR™ cutting guides are applicable only for the "PSI-based" approach. MyKnee® NextAR™ TKA cutting guides are for single use only.

The NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments are intended to be used to support the surgeon during specific orthopedic surgical procedures by providing information on bone resections, ligaments behavior, instrument and implant positioning. The NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments, when registered with the MyKnee® NextAR™ TKA cutting guides, provide reference to a patient's rigid anatomical structures, such as the femur and tibia, that can be identified relative to pre-operative CT based planning.

The NextAR™ TKA Platform is a CT based computer-assisted surgical navigation platform used in total knee replacement surgery and includes the following components:

• navigation software which displays information to the surgeon in real-time;
• Augmented Reality glasses:
• optical tracking system;
• PC based hardware platform;
• MyKnee NextAR Cutting Blocks (PSI) - now an option
• Reusable surgical instruments for total knee replacement procedures.

NextAR™ TKA Platform PSI based is available on the US market via the clearance - K193559.

The system operates on the common principle of stereotaxic technology in which markers are mounted on the bones and an infrared camera is used to monitor the spatial location of the markers. Tracking sensors attached to the bones enable the surgeon to view the position and orientation of bones and instrumentation relative to preoperative data in real-time while performing the surgical procedure. The tracking sensors are provided sterile.

The NextAR™ TKA Platform PSI based and PSI free, aid the surgeon in executing the surgical plan by visualizing all of the information in real time via a monitor.

The approach currently cleared via K193559, is to utilize the NextAR™ TKA Platform - PSI for the placement of the implants by cutting the bones using the MyKnee® NextAR™ Cutting Blocks.

The subject of this submission is to add an optional approach for the surgeon to utilize the NextAR™ TKA Platform PSI free for the placement of the implants by cutting the bones using navigated, reusable surgical instrumentation (provided non-sterile). The registration of the CT scan on the patient's anatomy is performed by executing the NextAR registration algorithm.

The same reusable surgical instrumentation (provided non-sterile) that is guided by the tracking sensors can be used also for recut. Although the position of the implants can be validated to assess the correct execution of the planning; the surgeon can change the surgical plan intraoperatively by analyzing the 3D models of the patient, the CT scan, and the 3D geometry of the implants.

With this submission we are presenting the NextAR™ TKA Platform extension (PSI free) intended to be used in combination with NextAR™ stereotaxic instruments and general surgical instruments to implant the GMK® Sphere Total knee system and perform ligament balancing.

The surgeon can choose the desired approach, PSI-based (clearance - K193559) or PSI-free under submission.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the NextAR™ TKA Platform, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The FDA 510(k) summary does not provide a specific table of numerical acceptance criteria with corresponding performance data. Instead, it broadly states that "performance testing to evaluate mechanical and optical properties" was conducted and "device accuracy" is a shared characteristic with the predicate.

The main performance evaluation cited for this submission is a cadaver study. The summary also mentions that "software validation" was conducted.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document explicitly mentions a "cadaver study" but does not specify the number of cadavers or the sample size used in this study.
• Data Provenance: The cadaver study would typically be considered prospective data collection for the purpose of the study. The country of origin of the data is not specified.

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

The document does not provide details on the number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the cadaver study or their qualifications. For a surgical navigation system, ground truth would typically involve precise measurements or assessments by orthopedic surgeons or specialized technicians.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) used for the test set in the cadaver study.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not mentioned or described in this 510(k) summary. This type of study is more common for diagnostic AI tools where human interpretation of images is a primary outcome. The NextAR™ TKA Platform is a surgical navigation system, where the AI assists the surgeon directly during the procedure, rather than for diagnostic reading.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

The document does not explicitly state whether a standalone performance study of the algorithm without human-in-the-loop was conducted. However, the nature of a surgical navigation system inherently involves human interaction. Performance testing (e.g., "device accuracy") would likely involve assessing the algorithm's output in the context of simulated or actual surgical use with human interaction. The "software validation" would cover the algorithmic performance in a controlled environment.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the cadaver study, the ground truth would typically be established through direct, precise intraoperative measurements (e.g., using a coordinate measuring machine, highly accurate goniometers, or other measurement tools) to ascertain the actual bone resections, implant positions, and ligament balance achieved, which are then compared to the planned surgical outcomes and the guidance provided by the NextAR™ TKA Platform. The document does not explicitly state the specific method for ground truth establishment, but for this type of device, it would involve direct physical measurements.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information regarding the sample size of a training set. This submission is for an "extension" (PSI-free approach) to an already cleared device (K193559). While the original development of the navigation software likely involved significant data for training machine learning components (if any), this particular 510(k) does not detail it.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Since the document does not provide information on a training set, it consequently does not describe how ground truth for a training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device