Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(177 days)
Prosthetic replacement with this device may be indicated to relieve severe pain or significant disability in degenerative, rheumatoid, or traumatic disease of the gleno-humeral joint; non-union humeral head fracture; displaced 3 and 4 proximal humeral fractures; avascular necrosis of the humeral head; or other difficult management problems where arthrodesis or resectional arthroplasty are not acceptable.
The Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid is intended for cemented use as the glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty, completed using humeral components of the Tornier Aequalis Total Shoulder System. The Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid is manufactured in four sizes from Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE). The component's articulating (or lateral) surface is concave and is designed to articulate with the head of an existing, commercially available Tornier Aequalis Shoulder humeral prosthesis. The Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid aticulating surface has a radius of curvature greater than the corresponding humeral head. This mismatch between the glenoid and the humeral head is intended to allow the translation of the head in the superior/inferior and anterior/posterior directions.
The back surface of the Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid is spherical in geometry, in order to conform to the geometry of the glenoid fossa. It is grooved in order to increase the interface glenoid implant / bone cement.
The back (or medial) surface of the component has either a keel or four pegs for fixation in the glenoid. These glenoid components are 4 mm thick and available in four sizes (small, medium, large and X-large) for each component, the keeled and pegged components.
- The Aequalis Universal pegged Glenoid features one centrally located peg and three t peripheral pegs placed in a triangular configuration. The peripheral pegs are fitted with transversal grooves that provide enhanced cement fixation. The three peripheral pegs provide resistance to rocking and rotational motion caused by translation of the prosthetic humeral head. The central peg features an X-ray marking wire in Cobalt-Chromium alloy.
- -The Aequalis Universal keeled Glenoid features a centrally located keel to provide translational and rotational stability of the implant. A groove around the middle of the keel provides enhanced cement fixation. The keel features an X-ray marking wire in Cobalt-Chromium alloy.
Materials. The Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid is manufactured from implant grade ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) according to ISO5834-2, with a small Cobalt-Chromium wire included as an opaque radiographic marker.
The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid, a Class III medical device. However, it does not include information about specific acceptance criteria or a study designed to prove the device's performance against such criteria in the manner typically expected for AI/software-based medical devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, or reader performance metrics). Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices.
The document primarily discusses:
- Device Description: What the Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid is made of (UHMWPE), its design (concave articulating surface, spherical back surface with grooves, keel or pegs for fixation), and its intended use (cemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty).
- Voluntary Standards: Tornier, S.A. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), vendor certifications and qualification procedures, Quality System Regulations (QSR), ISO9001 & EN46001, and EN552 for sterilization.
- Premarket Notification (K994393): The process of seeking FDA clearance based on substantial equivalence.
- Comparison to Predicate Devices (Table 1): A table comparing features of the Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid to other commercially available shoulder glenoid components (e.g., materials, method of fixation, presence of keel/pegs, indications for use, and an UHMWPE standard).
- Summary of Safety and Effectiveness: This section outlines potential risks (procedure-related like infection, nerve injury; device-related like component disassociation, wear debris, loosening) and argues that the Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid's design (all-polyethylene, similar fixation methods) makes its expected failure modes and frequencies comparable to existing devices.
Missing Information related to your specific questions:
The document does not contain the following:
- A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in the context of quantitative functional performance like accuracy, precision, or reader study results). The "reported device performance" is essentially a qualitative comparison to predicate devices and an assessment of expected failure modes based on material and design.
- Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
- Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications.
- Adjudication method.
- Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, nor effect sizes.
- Standalone (algorithm-only) performance study.
- Type of ground truth used (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
- Sample size for the training set.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established.
Conclusion based on the provided text:
This submission is for a physical orthopedic implant (Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid) seeking clearance based on substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, rather than a new AI/software medical device that would typically undergo rigorous performance studies with specific acceptance criteria related to diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity. Therefore, the questions regarding AI performance criteria, ground truth, expert adjudication, and training/test set details are not applicable or addressed in this type of 510(k) submission.
The "study" that proves the device meets "acceptance criteria" here is primarily the comparison to predicate devices (Table 1) and a qualitative risk assessment detailed in the "Class III Summary," arguing that the Aequalis Universal Shoulder Glenoid's design and materials are comparable to existing devices, and thus its safety and effectiveness can be expected to be similar. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the features and performance of the predicate devices.
Ask a specific question about this device
(113 days)
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:
| Criterion | Reported Performance |
|---|---|
| Taper performance | "demonstrated that the New Zimmer Shoulder System is safe and effective and substantially equivalent to predicate devices." |
| Glenoid component performance | "demonstrated that the New Zimmer Shoulder System is safe and effective and substantially equivalent to predicate devices." |
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
Page 1 of 1