Search Results

Hardware:
The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are intended to be used as a surgical instrument to assist in the intraoperative positioning of glenoid components used with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty by referencing anatomic landmarks of the shoulder that are identifiable on preoperative CT-imaging scans.

The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models are single use only.

The Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models can be used in conjunction with the following total and reverse shoulder implants systems and their respective compatible components:

• · DePuy Synthes'
• GLOBAL® APG+ Shoulder System (K052472)
• DELTA XTEND™ Reverse Shoulder System (K120174, K062250, K183077, K203694)
• GLOBAL® STEPTECH® APG Shoulder System (K092122)
• INHANCE™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K202716)1
• INHANCE™ Reverse Shoulder System (K212737)
• INHANCE™ Hybrid Anatomic Glenoid Implant (K212933)
• INHANCE™ Reverse Glenoid Peripheral Posts (K221467)
• INHANCE Convertible Glenoid (K230831)
• · Enovis'2 (DJO)
• Reverse® Shoulder Prosthesis (K051075, K111629, K092873)
• Turon® Shoulder System (K080402)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Shoulder System (K162024)
• AltiVate™ Anatomic Augmented Glenoid (K213387, K222592)
• AltiVate™ Reverse Glenoid (K233481)
• · Smith+Nephew's3
• Titan™ Total Shoulder System (K100448, K112438, K142413, K152047)
• Titan™ Reverse Shoulder System (K130050, K161189, K173717, K181999)
• AETOS Total Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• AETOS Reverse Shoulder System (K220847, K230572)
• · Lima's
• SMR™ Shoulder System (K100858)
• SMR™ Reverse Shoulder System (K110598)
• SMR™ Modular Glenoid (K113254) (K143256)
• SMR™ 3-Pegs Glenoid (K130642)
• SMR™ TT Metal Back Glenoid (K133349)
• SMR TM 40mm Glenosphere (K142139)
• SMR™ TT Augmented 360 Baseplate (K220792)
• SMR™ TT Hybrid Glenoid (K220792)
• PRIMA TT Glenoid (K222427)

Software:
SurgiCase Shoulder Planner is intended to be used as a pre-surgical planner for simulation of surgical interventions for shoulder orthopedic surgery. The software is used to assist in the positioning of shoulder components. SurgiCase Shoulder Planner allows the surgeon to visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate and edit pre-surgical 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 Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models.

Materialise Shoulder 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 glenoid guide and models to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The device is a system composed of the following:

• a software component, branded as SurgiCase Shoulder Planner. This software is a planning tool used . to generate a pre-surgical plan for a specific patient.
• Materialise Shoulder Guide and Models, which are a patient-specific quide and models that are based ● on a pre-surgical plan. This pre-surgical plan is generated using the software component. Patientspecific glenoid guide and models will be manufactured if the surgeon requests patient-specific guides to transfer the glenoid plan to surgery. The Materialise Shoulder Guide is designed and manufactured to fit the anatomy of a specific patient. A bone model of the scapula is delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. A graft model can be delivered with the Materialise Shoulder Guide. The graft model visualizes the graft-space between implant and bone, based on the pre-operative planning of the surgeon. The graft model serves as a visual reference for the surgeon in the OR.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary (K242813) for the Materialise Shoulder System™ describes a submission seeking substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device (K241143). This submission is primarily for adding compatibility with new implant components rather than introducing a completely new AI capability or significant software change that would necessitate extensive new performance data. Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information typically found in a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/ML product.

Specifically, the document states:

• "The non-clinical performance data has demonstrated that the subject software technological differences between the subject and predicate devices do not raise any different questions of safety and effectiveness." (Page 9)
• "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." (Page 10)
• "Previous testing for biocompatibility, sterility, cleaning, debris, dimensional stability and packaging are applicable to the subject device. Testing verified that the accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended. The stability of the device placement, surgical technique, intended use and functional elements of the subject device are the same as that of the predicate device of Materialise Shoulder System™ K241143 and previously cleared devices... therefore previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559 are considered applicable to the subject device." (Page 10)

Given this, I cannot provide detailed answers to many of your questions as the submission relies on the substantial equivalence principle and prior testing rather than new, extensive performance studies for AI/ML.

However, I can extract what is available:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria and reported device performance for the current submission (K242813), as it relies on the previous clearance and the assessment that the changes (adding implant compatibility) do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.

The general acceptance criterion mentioned is that the "accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended." This was verified through previous testing, including "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing."

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

The document mentions "previous simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing on previously cleared devices K153602 and K131559." It does not specify the sample size for these tests, nor the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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)

This information is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

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 such MRMC study is mentioned. The device is a "pre-surgical planner" and "surgical instrument" designed to assist the surgeon, but the provided text does not detail comparative effectiveness studies of human readers (surgeons) with and without the AI (planning software) assistance.

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

The software (SurgiCase Shoulder Planner) generates a pre-surgical plan which the "qualified surgeon" can "visualize, measure, reconstruct, annotate, edit and approve" (Page 9). This indicates a human-in-the-loop process. Standalone performance of the algorithm without human interaction is not discussed as it's not the intended use.

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

The document generally refers to "verification against defined requirements, and validation against user needs" and "accuracy and performance of the system is adequate to perform as intended" based on "simulated surgeries using rapid prototyped bone models and previous cadaver testing." This suggests a ground truth established through expert-defined surgical planning parameters and comparison to physical outcomes in the simulated/cadaveric environment, but specifics on how this ground truth was formalized (e.g., expert consensus on optimal planning, precise measurement validation) are not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

This device is a surgical planning tool and guides, not a deep learning AI model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense for image classification or similar tasks. It is based on algorithms that process CT-imaging scans and anatomical landmarks to generate personalized plans and guides. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" for AI/ML is not applicable here in the way it would be for a pattern recognition AI. The software's robustness and accuracy are likely validated through extensive testing against various patient anatomies and surgical scenarios.

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

As explained above, the concept of a training set as typically understood for AI/ML models is not directly applicable to this device based on the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device