Search Results

The components of Bio-Modular® Shoulder System included in this submission are intended for total shoulder joint arthroplasty. Indications for use include:

1. Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis
2. Rheumatoid arthritis
3. Revision where other devices or treatments have failed
4. Correction of functional deformity
5. Fractures of the proximal humerus, where other methods of treatment are deemed inadequate
6. Difficult clinical management problems, including cuff arthropathy, where other methods of treatment may not be suitable or may be inadequate
   Devices with surface coatings are indicated for cemented or uncemented biological fixation application. Polyethylene glenoid components not attached to a metal back are indicated for cemented application only.

The Bio-Modular® Shoulder System consists of a humeral stem that is used in conjunction with a modular head and a metal backed or all polyethylene glenoid component. The Humeral Component is available in various lengths and porous coating levels. The Bio-Modular® Humeral stern features a biplaner taper to promote stress transfer down the length of the stem. Each stem has a lateral fin to provide rotational stability. Holes in the fin provide the surgeon with the option of suture attachment during fracture reconstruction. A collar minimizes subsidence. The stems are circumferentially porous coated proximally to provide fixation by tissue ingrowth. The proximal portions of the humeral stems feature a reverse Morse taper for attachment of the modular humeral head. Offset and Bi-Polar humeral heads are also available. Modular, metal backed glenoid components are available for total shoulder replacement. These devices feature a central peg and the option of using screws for immediate fixation and porous coating to provide biological fixation when used without bone cement. All polyethylene glenoid components are available for cemented application.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Bio-Modular® Shoulder System. This type of submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, not for proving a device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies as would be required for a novel device or one with a higher risk classification.

Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information typically associated with establishing acceptance criteria and proving a device meets them through clinical or standalone studies for AI/software devices. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed predicate devices.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, highlighting the absence of the requested details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This document does not specify performance-based acceptance criteria for an AI/software device, nor does it report specific performance metrics for the Bio-Modular® Shoulder System in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, etc. The "performance" demonstrated here is primarily through mechanical testing and similarity to predicate devices.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. No clinical test set data is provided in this submission; the primary evidence is based on mechanical testing and comparison to predicate devices, not a test set of patient cases.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. No patient data (retrospective or prospective) is mentioned for a test set.

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

• Not applicable. There is no mention of a test set requiring expert ground truth establishment for this device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication is described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

• No. An MRMC study is typically for evaluating the diagnostic performance of a reading system, often involving AI, with human readers. This device is a shoulder implant and the submission explicitly states: "Clinical Testing: None provided."

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

• Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm for which standalone performance would be typically evaluated in this manner. The "standalone" performance tested here relates to the mechanical properties of the implant itself, not an AI algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Not applicable in the context of diagnostic performance. The "ground truth" for the device's functionality is its physical and mechanical integrity, demonstrated through mechanical testing and comparison to predicate devices. For a surgical implant, the ultimate "ground truth" of its effectiveness would come from clinical outcomes data, but this submission explicitly states "Clinical Testing: None provided."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This application is for a medical implant and does not involve an AI algorithm with a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Summary of the Study that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

Based on the provided document, the "study" that proves the Bio-Modular® Shoulder System meets its (implicit) acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence to predicate devices consists of:

• Mechanical Testing: Demonstrating the device's ability to perform under expected clinical conditions. While the details are not provided, this would involve standardized tests to evaluate strength, durability, fatigue resistance, and other biomechanical properties relevant to orthopedic implants.
• Porous Surface Characterization: To verify the properties of the porous coating for biological fixation.
• Comparison to Predicate Devices: Demonstrating that the materials, surface finishes, and processing methods are similar to previously cleared devices (K872454, K915596, K992119, K992899, K002998 for Bio-Modular®; K914695, K943300, K974044, K981487, K011047 for Gobal® Advantage). This similarity, combined with non-clinical testing, forms the basis for the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence, implying the new device is as safe and effective as the predicates.

Key takeaway: This 510(k) relies on non-clinical (mechanical) testing and comparison to predicate devices, rather than clinical studies or the types of performance evaluations (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, human-in-the-loop studies) typically associated with AI/software medical devices. The explicit statement "Clinical Testing: None provided." confirms this approach.

Ask a specific question about this device

Prosthetic replacement with this device may be indicated for the treatment of severe pain or significant disability in degenerative, theumatoid, or traumatic disease of the glenohumeral joint; ununited humeral head fractures of long duration; irreducible 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures; avascular necrosis of the humeral head; or other difficult clinical management problems where arthrodesis or resectional arthroplasty is not acceptable. The assembled humeral component may be used alone for hemiarthroplasty or combined with the glenoid component for total shoulder arthroplasty. Humeral heads with heights greater than 27 mm may be used for difficult clinical management problems involving rotator cuff deficiency where arthrodesis or conventional nonconstrained arthroplasty is not acceptable.

The New Zimmer Shoulder features modular and monoblock cobalt-chrome alloy humeral stems intended for use with or without cement in total shoulder arthroplasty. The cobaltchrome alloy humeral heads feature female Morse-type tapers which facilitate assembly with the modular humeral stems. The keeled glenoid component is manufactured from UHMWPE. It is intended for cemented use only.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the "New Zimmer Shoulder System." This document is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

Here's an analysis based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria or specific numerical performance metrics for the New Zimmer Shoulder System. Instead, it states:

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not provide details on the sample size used for any test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The "Performance Testing" section states that "Testing performed on the taper and the glenoid component demonstrated that the New Zimmer Shoulder System is safe and effective and substantially equivalent to predicate devices," but it does not specify what type of testing or how many samples were involved.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth or their qualifications. The testing described appears to be device-specific mechanical or functional testing rather than clinical evaluation requiring expert consensus on patient data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is mentioned, as there is no indication of human-reviewed test sets or expert evaluations requiring adjudication.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through component testing, not direct comparison of human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

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

This is not applicable as the device is a physical shoulder joint prosthesis, not an AI algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device would be based on engineering specifications, material science standards, and biomechanical parameters that define the safety and effectiveness of the components (taper and glenoid). The summary indicates that the testing demonstrated "safe and effective and substantially equivalent to predicate devices," implying that the performance was measured against established standards for shoulder prostheses.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable as the device is a physical shoulder prosthesis, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

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

This is not applicable as the device is a physical shoulder prosthesis, not an AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device