LogoFDA 510(k) Search
Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K991929

    Validate with FDA (Live)

    Device Name
    INTRASTENT
    Manufacturer
    INTRATHERAPEUTICS, INC.
    Date Cleared
    1999-08-04

    (57 days)

    Product Code
    FGE
    Regulation Number
    876.5010
    Type
    Special
    Panel
    Gastroenterology/Urology
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    K980290,K911581,K964688,K980653
    Predicate For
    K020528,K993904
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The IntraStent™ Biliary Stent is indicated as a palliative treatment for malignant neoplasms in the biliary tree.

    Device Description

    The IntraStent™ is a balloon expandable stainless steel stent with an open attisce design. The device is provided unmounted, to be manually crimped onto a noncompliant PTA I he device is provided uninounced, to be manadis computer luminal surface and inflation the crimped stent expands to conform to the duct inner luminal surface and retains the expanded state upon balloon deflation.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the IntraStent™ Biliary Catheter based on the provided 510(k) summary:

    This device is not a typical AI/ML-enabled medical device, so many of the questions asked (like MRMC study, ground truth for training set, effect size of AI, etc.) are not applicable in this context. This is a physical medical device (a stent) and its submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to already marketed devices through bench testing and material comparisons.

    Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Acceptance Criteria CategorySpecific Criteria/TestDevice Performance / How it's Met
    Performance EquivalenceMeet the same performance characteristics as the predicate ITI Stent (K980290).Bench tests were performed to verify that the IntraStent™ met the same performance characteristics as the predicate ITI Stent (K980290).
    Material EquivalenceIdentical in materials to predicate devices.The IntraStent™ is "identical in materials" to the predicate ITI Stent and Cordis Corporation/Johnson & Johnson PALMAZ™, PALMAZ-SCHATZ™, and PERFLEX™ Balloon-Expandable Biliary Stents. (Implied by substantial equivalence claim).
    Indication for UseIdentical in indication for use to predicate devices.The IntraStent™ is "identical in... indication for use" to the predicate devices: "as a palliative treatment for malignant neoplasms in the biliary tree."
    Technological CharacteristicsIdentical in technological characteristics to predicate devices.The IntraStent™ is "identical in... technological characteristics" to the predicate devices. Both are balloon expandable, made from 316L stainless steel hypotubes with laser-cut slots, cleaned, electro-polished, packaged in double sterile barriers, and sterilized.
    Sterility/BiocompatibilityNonpyrogenic.Pyrogenicity testing performed on a lot-to-lot basis supports the nonpyrogenic claim.

    Study Information

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

      • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a numerical sample size for a "test set" in the context of clinical trials or AI/ML validation. The "test" mentioned refers to bench tests.
      • Data Provenance: Bench testing data would be generated in a laboratory setting, likely in the US (where the company is based). It's a prospective generation of data specifically for this submission.

    2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth as typically understood for AI/ML or clinical imaging studies (expert consensus) is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for bench testing is defined by engineering specifications and predicate device performance.

    3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. This concept is for clinical or imaging review, not bench testing.

    4. 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 a physical medical device (a stent), not an AI-enabled diagnostic or assistive system.

    5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

    6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for this submission is based on the established performance characteristics and design of predicate devices, combined with engineering specifications and bench testing results. The goal is substantial equivalence, meaning the new device performs as well as, or comparably to, already approved devices.

    7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device where a "training set" in that sense would exist.

    8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. See point 7.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1