Search Results

The Getinge GSS610N21 Series Steam Sterilizer is intended for use by health care facilities to sterilize wrapped and unwrapped porous and nonporous heat and moisture stable items such as surgical instruments and linens by means of pressurized steam.

The steam sterilizer is used by health care facilities to sterilize wrapped and unwrapped porous and nonporous heat and moisture stable items such as surgical instruments and linens by means of pressurized steam. The Getinge GSS610N21 Series Steam Sterilizer employs both gravity/downward displacement with positive pulse conditioning and pressure/vacuum pulsing for dynamic air removal. All cycle phases are sequenced and monitored by the control system, providing both audible and visual notification of deviation from certain operating parameters.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Getinge GSS610N21 Series Steam Sterilizer, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific numerical sample size (e.g., number of cycles run for each test) for the test set. It mentions the "Load Configuration" for each cycle type, indicating the maximum number of items per load (e.g., 36 full instrument packs, 80 full fabric packs, 1 B&D Test Pack, 3 vented bottles). These load configurations were used during the testing validations.

The data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin. The device is manufactured by Maquet GmbH, located in Rastatt, Germany, which suggests the testing might have been conducted in Germany or a location compliant with AAMI standards. The testing is prospective as it was performed to validate the device's performance.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The acceptance criteria relate to objective measurements (Sterility Assurance Level, temperature, leak rate, moisture retention) and observable physical changes (color change on chemical indicator), not subjective expert assessment of images or data. Therefore, the concept of "experts establishing ground truth" in the diagnostic sense is not applicable here. The ground truth would be established by the validated testing methodologies and their results against the predefined criteria.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

An adjudication method is not applicable in this context. The tests performed are objective performance validations against predefined technical standards (AAMI ST8). The results are either "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the measured parameters meet the acceptance criteria. There's no subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic devices where human readers interpret data (e.g., radiology images) and the AI's effect on their performance is evaluated. The Getinge GSS610N21 is a sterilizer, an automated device that performs a physical sterilization process, not a diagnostic tool requiring human interpretation.

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

Yes, the studies performed are standalone performance validations of the device. The tests evaluate the sterilizer's ability to achieve sterility and maintain physical parameters independently. There is no "human-in-the-loop" aspect to the core sterilization function being evaluated in these performance tests.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth used for these performance tests is objective, measurable criteria based on established industry standards (AAMI ST8:2013 (R2018)). This includes:

• Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) 10⁻⁶: This is a statistically derived measure of the probability of a single viable microorganism occurring on an item after sterilization.
• Temperature ranges: Specific temperature tolerances (+3°C / -0°C) for the exposure phase.
• Time measurements: Such as the load reaching exposure temperature within 10 seconds.
• Physical changes: Like the color change on a chemical indicator sheet.
• Quantitative measurements: For air leak rate (1 mmHg per minute or less) and moisture retention (< 3% or <20% increase in weight).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

This information is not applicable/not provided because the Getinge GSS610N21 is a steam sterilizer, a physical medical device that performs a mechanical and thermal process, not an AI or algorithm-based diagnostic tool that requires a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Its performance is validated through physical and biological challenge tests, not by learning from labeled data.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided for the same reason as point 8. There is no "training set" for a steam sterilizer. The "ground truth" for its validation is based on established scientific principles of sterilization and recognized industry standards (AAMI ST8).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Getinge GSS610N Series Steam Sterilizer is intended for use by health care facilities to sterilize wrapped and unwrapped porous and nonporous heat and moisture stable items such as surgical instruments and linens by means of pressurized steam. The GSS610N Series Steam Sterilizer is available in 3 models differentiated by chamber length: GSS610N Model 610N10 (40.9 inch chamber), GSS610N Model 610N14 (51.1 inch chamber), and GSS610N Model 610N15 (60.6 inch chamber).

The steam sterilizer is used by health care facilities to sterilize wrapped and unwrapped porous and nonporous heat and moisture stable items such as surgical instruments and linens by means of pressurized steam. The Getinge GSS610N Series Steam Sterilizer employs both with gravity/downward displacement with positive pulse conditioning and pressure/vacuum pulsing for dynamic air removal. All cycle phases are sequenced and monitored by the control system, providing both audible and visual notification of deviation from certain operating parameters

This document is about the FDA 510(k) clearance for the Getinge GSS610N Series Steam Sterilizer (K201927). It describes the device, its intended use, and the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size for each test (e.g., number of sterilization runs, number of items per test). It mentions "Full instrument packs" and "Full fabric packs" for various cycles, and "1 B&D Test Pack." The results are simply reported as "Pass," indicating that the tests were conducted according to the specified standards and the outcomes met the criteria.
• Data Provenance: The tests were "non-clinical testing" performed by Maquet GmbH, located in Rastatt, Germany. The document indicates these were validation tests for the device, implying they were prospective studies conducted specifically for this 510(k) submission. No information about country of origin of the data in terms of patient data (as this is a sterilizer, not a diagnostic device using human data).

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

This information is not applicable to this type of device and study. The "ground truth" for a steam sterilizer is defined by objective physical and biological parameters related to sterilization efficacy (e.g., Sterility Assurance Level, temperature profiles, air removal) as established by consensus standards (like AAMI ST8). Human expert interpretation of images or clinical outcomes is not part of establishing the ground truth for a sterilizer's performance.

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

No adjudication method is described because this involves objective physical and biological measurements, not subjective human assessments that require adjudication.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for medical imaging AI devices where human readers interpret medical images with and without AI assistance. This document is for a medical device (steam sterilizer) where the efficacy is determined by objective physical and biological tests, not by human interpretation of clinical cases.

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

The concept of "standalone performance" for an algorithm is not directly applicable here. The device itself (the sterilizer) performs its function (sterilization) based on its design and programmed cycles. The tests conducted (biological and physical performance tests) are in essence evaluating the "standalone" performance of the machine in achieving sterilization. There is no human "in the loop" assisting the sterilizer during the sterilization process itself.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth for this device's performance is established by:

• Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) 10⁻⁶: This is a widely accepted measure that indicates a probability of one in a million chance of a single viable microorganism remaining after sterilization. Biological indicators (spore tests) are used to confirm this.
• Physical Parameters: Objective measurements of temperature (e.g., within +/-3°C or 6°F of target), air removal (e.g., load reaching exposure temperature within 10 seconds), and moisture retention (e.g., <3% weight increase for fabric packs, <20% for wrapped instrument packs).
• Chemical Indicators: Color change on B&D (Bowie-Dick) chemical indicator sheets.

These ground truths are based on established consensus standards, specifically AAMI ST8:2013 (R2018).

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable. This document describes the clearance of a physical medical device (steam sterilizer) and its performance through validation testing. It is not an AI/ML device that requires training data and a training set.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no "training set" for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Getinge GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer is intended for use by health care facilities to sterilize wrapped and unwrapped, porous and nonporous heat and moisture stable items such as surgical instruments and linens by means of pressurized steam. The GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer is available in 3 models differentiated by chamber length; GSS67N Model 6710 (39 inch chamber), GSS67N Model 6713 (51 inch chamber) and GSS67N Model 6717 (67 inch chamber).

The Getinge GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer is designed for sterilization of heat and moisture stable materials used in healthcare facilities. There are three model designations to identify three different chamber lengths. The model 6710 is 1000 mm (39") long, model 6713 is 1300 mm (51") long and model 6717 is 1700 mm (67") lona.

The Getinge GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer employs both gravity/downward displacement with positive pulse conditioning and pressure/vacuum pulsing for dynamic air removal. Up to 11 standard cycles can be easily accessed and custom cycle names can be designated by the user. All cycle phases are sequenced and monitored by the control system, providing both audible and visual notification of deviation from certain operating parameters.

This document pertains to the Maquet GmbH Getinge GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer (K172159).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The acceptance criteria for the GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer are derived from the ANSI/AAMI ST8:2013 Hospital Steam Sterilizers standard. The reported device performance indicates that the sterilizer meets these requirements.

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

The document does not explicitly state a specific "sample size" in terms of number of sterilizers or distinct test runs for the validation of each cycle. However, the performance testing was conducted according to ANSI/AAMI ST8:2013 Hospital Steam Sterilizers, which outlines rigorous testing protocols. For each cycle type (PREVAC, GRAVITY, IUSS, Liquids, Bowie-Dick), validation was performed using specific process challenge devices and configurations as detailed in the standard.

• Data Provenance: The testing was carried out by Maquet GmbH, the manufacturer, to demonstrate compliance with the ANSI/AAMI ST8:2013 standard. The data is prospective as it involves validation testing specifically for this device series, rather than retrospective analysis of existing data. The country of origin of the data is implicitly Germany (manufacturer location).

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

This document does not provide information on the "number of experts" or their specific "qualifications" for establishing ground truth for the test set. For steam sterilizers, the "ground truth" is typically established by physical and biological indicators showing successful sterilization, rather than expert judgment in interpreting images or clinical outcomes. The adherence to the ANSI/AAMI ST8:2013 standard itself implies that the methodologies for determining effective sterilization are standardized and technically validated.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable in the context of sterilizer performance validation. The outcomes of sterilization cycles are determined by objective measurements (temperature, time, pressure) and biological indicator analysis. There is no subjective interpretation or "adjudication" in the sense of expert review of discrepancies.

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

No. This is not a diagnostic device that involves human readers interpreting data.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) Was Done:

Yes, in essence. The device (steam sterilizer) operates autonomously based on its programmed cycles. The performance validation assessed the sterilizer's ability to achieve sterilization without human intervention in the sterilization process itself. Human involvement is in operating the device and loading/unloading items, but the sterilization process is automated ("algorithm only" in the context of its defined cycles).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth used for performance validation is based on:

• Biological Indicators (BI kill): Complete kill of biological indicators is a primary ground truth for sterility.
• Physical/Chemical Indicators: Achievement of sufficient Fo value (a measure of sterilization lethality related to time and temperature).
• Physical Measurements: Temperature, pressure, and time parameters are monitored.
• Moisture Retention: Quantitative measurement of weight increase and qualitative assessment of wet spots.
• Bowie-Dick Test Pack: Changes indicating proper air removal and steam penetration.
• Water Loss: Quantitative measurement for liquid cycles.

These are objective, outcome-based measurements directly demonstrating the physical and biological effectiveness of the sterilization process according to established industry standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This device is a hardware sterilizer, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "training" for the device would be its engineering design and validation processes against established standards.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set in the context of AI/ML. The device's "ground truth" for its operation is established by adherence to the physical and biological principles of steam sterilization, codified in standards like ANSI/AAMI ST8:2013, and confirmed through extensive engineering design and testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bora UP 2080, BORA UP 2080 OP and BORA UP 2080 MOUNTING are intended as extraction suction units for aspiration and removal of fluids, and infectious material from wounds or tissue either during surgery or at the patient's bedside.

The MEDAP BORA is a high performance, low-noise suction pump designed for continuous operation and suitable for high flow/high vacuum. The vacuum for the MEDAP BORA is produced by an electrically driven pump unit. The pump must be operated with an overflow protection device. The overflow protection device with float prevents the unit from oversuction. In the event of a high filling level, the float rises, closes the suction line and prevents liquid from discharging. In addition, the hydrophobic bacterial and viral filter prevents the penetration of particles and liquid into the suction unit. A bacterial filter paper in the exhaust air area guarantees additional safety for patients and operators. The unit is equipped with a hydrophobic bacterial and viral filter to protect the inside of the pump from bacterial contamination. This hydrophobic bacterial and viral filter must be used when treating infectious patients. The vacuum can be set from 0 to -90kPa (0 to -675 mmHg) using a regulation switch and is controlled using a vacuum gauge.

This 510(k) premarket notification for the Maquet GmbH & Co. KG MEDAP BORA device does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, device performance results, or a study design in the way one would typically find for an AI/ML-driven medical device. Instead, it describes a traditional medical device (a powered suction pump) and focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to the provided document. I will fill in the available information and explicitly state when information is not present or not relevant for this type of submission.

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

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

• This document describes a traditional medical device (powered suction pump) and does not involve AI/ML technology. Therefore, there is no "test set" in the context of evaluating an algorithm's performance on data. The evaluation is based on engineering principles, design specifications, and comparison to a predicate device.

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)

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device requiring expert ground truth for a test set.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device requiring data adjudication.

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 applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device would be its ability to meet engineering specifications (e.g., vacuum pressure, flow rates, safety mechanisms) which are established through bench testing and compliance with relevant standards, rather than clinical ground truth as understood for AI/ML.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device