Search Results

Rx Indications: Under the supervision of a healthcare professional, Hydrocleanse™ Solution is intended for the cleansing, irrigation, moistening, debridement and removal of foreign material including microorganisms and debris from exudating wounds, acute and chronic dermal lesions including stage I-IV pressure ulcers, stasis ulcers, diabetic ulcers, post-surgical wounds, first- and second- degree bums, abrasions, minor irritations of the skin, diabetic foot ulcers, ingrown toe nails, grafted/donor sites and exit sites. It is als intended for use to moisten and lubricate wound dressings and for use with devices intended to irrigate wounds.

OTC Indications: OTC Hydrocleanse™ Solution is intended for OTC use in the management of skin abrasions, lacerations, minor irritations, cuts, and intact skin.

The Oculus Hydrocleanse Wound Care Solution is a colorless, slightly chlorinated odor, clear aqueous solution for moistening of wound dressings, wound debridement, and use with devices intended for wound irrigation with a pH range of 4.0 - 5.8. The solution will be supplied in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) round-bottles with polypropylene (PP) screw-top closure and sprayer.

The provided text describes the submission of a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Hydrocleanse Wound Care Solution." This document is a regulatory filing with the FDA and primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously approved devices. It does not contain information about a specific study designed to prove the device meets acceptance criteria in the way a diagnostic or AI-powered device would.

The "Performance Testing" section states: "The Oculus Hydrocleanse Wound Care Solution meets specification and performance characteristics and is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

The "Biocompatibility Testing" section states: "Biocompatibility Testing of the Oculus Hydrocleanse Wound Care Solution confirmed that the device meets the applicable requirements of the Blue Book Memorandum G95-1 entitled Use of International Standards ISO-10993 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices and is biocompatible."

Based on the provided text, I cannot describe acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of a diagnostic or AI device (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc.) because this is a wound care solution, and the document is a regulatory submission for premarket notification, not a clinical trial report.

Here's an analysis based on what is available, along with explanations for missing information:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy, which are typical for diagnostic devices. Instead, the "performance" is described qualitatively as meeting specifications and being substantially equivalent to predicate devices.

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

This information is not provided. The document doesn't describe a "test set" in the context of evaluating a diagnostic algorithm. The "testing" referred to (Performance and Biocompatibility) would have involved laboratory studies on the solution itself, rather than clinical data from human subjects in the sense of a test set for a diagnostic or AI 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)

This information is not provided. Ground truth establishment for a test set is not applicable to this type of device and regulatory submission.

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

This information is not provided. Adjudication methods are relevant for studies involving human interpretation or challenging cases, not for the type of testing described for a wound care solution.

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 study was mentioned or implied. This type of study is specific to medical imaging or diagnostic AI, not to a wound care solution.

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

No such standalone performance evaluation was mentioned or implied. This is a characteristic of AI or diagnostic algorithms.

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

The concept of "ground truth" as typically applied to diagnostic or AI devices (e.g., confirmed pathology) is not explicitly detailed. For biocompatibility, the "ground truth" would be compliance with ISO standards. For "performance characteristics," it would refer to the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the solution meeting pre-defined specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. A "training set" is relevant for machine learning algorithms, which is not applicable to this wound care solution.

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

This information is not provided as there is no training set mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device