Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    Why did this record match?
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    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.

    Device Description

    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.

    AI/ML Overview

    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 Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K222510
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2023-01-20

    (154 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    882.4560
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K211359

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Blueprint® Mixed Reality system is indicated for use during Total Shoulder Arthroplasty using Stryker's FDA cleared implants that are also implants cleared for pre-operative planning with the Blueprint® Software. Blueprint® Mixed Reality system is intended to allow surgeons to visualize the Blueprint® 3D preoperative planning intra-operatively. Blueprint® Mixed Reality system is also indicated for stereotaxic surgery to guide the placement of a glenoid pin provided that registration between the patient's anatomical landmarks / surfaces can be established on the preoperative CT based plan. Blueprint® Mixed Reality system is to be only used for skeletally matured adult patients.

    Device Description

    The Blueprint® Mixed Reality system is used to intraoperatively display stereoscopic threedimensional images of the Blueprint shoulder arthroplasty preoperative plan and to guide and enable the insertion of a pin following the reaming axis aimed at preparing the glenoid fossa surface to facilitate the placement of the implant. The Blueprint Mixed Reality system allows the user to both see the patient in real-time and their internal boney anatomy displayed on seethrough screens of a head-mounted device (goggles).

    The Blueprint Mixed Reality system assists surgeons in visualizing stereoscopic threedimensional images of the patient's boney anatomy and intraoperatively aid by guiding the pin during placement through real-time feedback.

    The Blueprint Mixed Reality system is composed of three main components including the HOLOBLUEPRINT software, Microsoft® HoloLens 2 Goggles, and Instrumentation.

    The Blueprint Mixed Reality system runs the HOLOBLUEPRINT software application on the Microsoft HoloLens 2 using Microsoft Windows Holographic Operating System. The Blueprint Mixed Reality system leverages the reference device by receiving planned glenoid cases as input for visualizing and guiding the placement of the pin during the shoulder arthroplasty procedure. The digital components of the system interface with specialized surgical instrumentation to enable intra-operative guidance through real-time feedback to the surgeon.

    The components of the subject device are as follows:

    HOLOBLUEPRINT™ Software
    HOLOBLUEPRINT is designed and written by Tornier SAS specifically for use on the Microsoft HoloLens 2 goggles (hardware). The HOLOBLUEPRINT software is to be installed on the hardware to be used by the surgeon as part of the Blueprint Mixed Reality system.

    HoloLens 2 goggles (HoloLens 2)
    The HoloLens 2 is a Microsoft hardware that runs Microsoft Windows 10 Holographic Operating System. HoloLens 2 is a see-through, mixed reality headmounted smart glasses.

    Instrumentations (Instruments)
    There are four reusable instruments and one single-use (sterile) instrument designed specifically for use with the Blueprint Mixed Reality system (subject device). The subject device system instruments include a Glenoid Pin Guide, Glenoid Digitizer, Instruments Check Block, Coracoid Clamp, and a Depth Stop Pin (Sterile).

    The subject device is compatible with all Tornier (Stryker) commercially FDA-cleared glenoid implants (Except Patient Matched Implants) available in the reference device (K211359). The compatibility of implants with the reference device was validated and verification was performed for glenoid guidance and visualization of the patient's boney anatomy.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Blueprint Mixed Reality system. It describes the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and non-clinical performance evidence to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

    Based on the content, here's a description of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

    Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The acceptance criteria are primarily focused on the accuracy and repeatability of the system, and that the software performs as per requirements and specifications. The document states that the system was validated through cadaver testing to demonstrate its accuracy and establish performance equivalency to the predicate device.

    Acceptance Criteria CategorySpecific Criteria (Implied from the document)Reported Device Performance (Implied from the document)
    Accuracy and RepeatabilityThe system must demonstrate accuracy and repeatability in guiding the placement of a glenoid pin and visualizing the 3D preoperative planning intra-operatively."The accuracy and repeatability were tested." and "The system was validated through cadaver testing to determine its accuracy to establish the performance equivalency of the predicate device." (Specific numerical values are not provided in this public summary).
    Software PerformanceThe HOLOBLUEPRINT™ software must perform as per the system requirements and specifications."Bench Testing conducted to demonstrate the HOLOBLUEPRINT™ software performs as per the systems requirements and specifications."
    Software Design Output ComplianceAll software design outputs must meet specified requirements."Software Verification testing was performed to ensure all design outputs meet specified requirements."
    User Needs & Intended Use ConformanceSoftware specifications must conform to user needs and intended uses."User needs Validation performed to ensure software specifications conform to user needs and intended uses."
    Instrument Functional & Performance RequirementsAll instruments must satisfy functional and performance requirements."Systems Instruments testing was performed to confirm that all instruments satisfy functional and performance requirements."
    Safety & Effectiveness (Overall)The device should not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness compared to the predicate device."All requirements were met, and no new question of safety and effectiveness was raised." and "The results of performance testing for the subject device support substantial equivalence to the predicate device."

    Study Details:

    1. Sample Size and Data Provenance:

      • Test Set Sample Size: The document mentions "cadaver testing" and "simulated use cases" for validation. It does not specify the numerical sample size (e.g., number of cadavers or simulated cases) used for the test set.
      • Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data. The company is based in France, but the testing locations are not specified. The studies were non-clinical, involving cadavers and simulated use. It is a prospective study in the sense that the testing was performed specifically to evaluate this device.
    2. Number of Experts and Qualifications:

      • The document does not provide details on the number of experts used or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") for establishing ground truth or evaluating performance. The testing involved "cadaver testing" and "simulated use cases," implying technical personnel or surgeons would be involved in assessing accuracy, but their roles and expertise are not elaborated upon.
    3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

      • The document does not specify an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set. Given it's a technical accuracy and performance study on a medical device system, it's more likely that technical measurements and predefined tolerance limits were used for "ground truth" rather than subjective expert consensus requiring adjudication.
    4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

      • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly done. The document states, "Clinical testing was not deemed necessary for the determination of substantial equivalence." The evaluation was based on non-clinical performance evidence (bench testing, system accuracy validation through cadaver testing, functional and performance testing, software verification/validation). Therefore, there is no reported effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance.
    5. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

      • Yes, a form of standalone performance was assessed. The "Bench Testing conducted to demonstrate the HOLOBLUEPRINT™ software performs as per the systems requirements and specifications" can be considered an assessment of the algorithm's performance in isolation from the full human-in-the-loop use case, focusing on its computational accuracy and adherence to specifications. The "System Accuracy Validation... through cadaver testing" also evaluates the system's (including the software) ability to provide accurate guidance measurements, independent of a specific surgeon's subjective interpretation (though a surgeon would utilize the output).
    6. Type of Ground Truth Used:

      • The ground truth for the accuracy studies (cadaver testing) would likely be established through highly precise measurements using a gold-standard reference system (e.g., coordinate measuring machine, highly accurate optical tracking system, or direct physical measurements) to verify the device's reported position and orientation accuracy against the true anatomical features. For software performance, the ground truth would be defined by the pre-defined system requirements and specifications.
    7. Training Set Sample Size:

      • This document describes the validation of a medical device system, not specifically a machine learning model where a distinct "training set" for an AI algorithm would be relevant. While the system incorporates "HOLOBLUEPRINT™ Software," the text does not indicate that this software is an adaptive AI model requiring a separate training phase with a specific data set size. Therefore, no sample size for a training set is provided or implied.
    8. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established:

      • Given that the document does not describe the use of an adaptive AI model with a training set, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set is not applicable here. The software validation is against pre-defined specifications and requirements, not against an annotated training dataset for learning.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1