(200 days)
The OTE would be used in the case of congenital anophthalmia, congenital microphthalmia or acquired anophthalmia from, e.g., childhood ocular tumors or trauma.
The integrated orbital tissue expander (OTE), consisting of a flexible "balloon/expander" is held in place by means of a titanium fixation plate that is anchored to the lateral orbital wall by screws. A slotted arm attached to the fixation plate, extends through a slot that is formed within the OTE. The OTE can be manually moved along the shaft of the fixation plate to achieve optimal central position in an expanding socket. A 30 gauge disposable hypodermic needle connected to a 1 cc disposable syringe filled with sterile saline is inserted into the OTE through an injection port. Inflation of the OTE will effect pressure on the orbit of the patient.
Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study
The provided document describes the Innovia Orbital Tissue Expander (OTE) and its premarket notification to the FDA. While it discusses performance data, it does not present specific, quantitative acceptance criteria for the device's performance that are then directly compared to reported device performance in a tabular format. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and showing safety and effectiveness through various tests.
Therefore, for the acceptance criteria table, I will infer the types of performance criteria based on the described tests and present the qualitative findings. It's important to note that the document does not provide numerical thresholds for "acceptance."
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred) and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category (Inferred) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Manufacturing Repeatability & Reliability | Bench testing showed OTEs can be fabricated in a repeatable and reliable manner. |
| Volume & Diameter Maintenance (In vitro) | In vitro testing showed the tissue expander maintains adequate volume and diameter over time. |
| Volume & Diameter Maintenance (In vivo) | In vivo testing showed the tissue expander maintains adequate volume and diameter over time. |
| Durability (Fatigue) | Fatigue testing showed durability. |
| Effectiveness (Orbital Expansion/Bone Growth) | Animal study clearly demonstrated a noticeable difference in sockets expanded with the OTE compared to control sockets. Experimental expanded orbits kept pace with bone growth development on the contralateral non-enucleated side. Qualitative observation on CT scans and gross photos. |
| Safety (Tissue Reaction) | Histology in all animals showed normal tissues, free of foreign body reaction. |
| User Control of Size | The OTE size is user-controlled via saline injection, allowing matching with the contralateral eye using CT scans. (This is a feature comparison to the predicate, implying it meets a functional requirement). |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Animal Study: The document refers to "the animal study" and "all animals" but does not specify the exact number of animals (sample size).
- Data Provenance: The animal study was conducted, which implies prospective data collection, but the country of origin is not specified.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications
- The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for evaluating the animal study results (e.g., interpreting CT scans or histology). It states that the qualitative difference "can be observed on CT scans as well as in gross photos" and histology was performed, suggesting expert review, but details are absent.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for evaluating the animal study results.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
- No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document describes bench, in vitro, and animal testing. There is no mention of human readers evaluating cases with or without AI assistance. The device itself is a physical implant, not an AI-driven diagnostic tool.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study
- No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. The OTE is a medical device, not an algorithm or software. The performance studies evaluate the physical properties and biological effects of the expander.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
- For the animal study:
- Qualitative Observation: Orbital expansion and bone growth compared to the contralateral non-enucleated side (visual assessment on CT scans and gross photos).
- Pathology/Histology: Histological analysis of tissues for foreign body reaction and normalcy.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
- The document describes manufacturing of the OTE and subsequent testing. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development, as this is a physical medical device. The "training" for the device would be its design and manufacturing processes, which are not quantified in terms of a "sample size" in this context.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- Since there is no "training set" in the machine learning sense, this question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the device's design and manufacturing relies on engineering principles, materials science, and pre-clinical animal models to demonstrate safety and efficacy for human use.
{0}------------------------------------------------
AUG - 8 2006
Image /page/0/Picture/2 description: The image shows the word "Innova" in a stylized font. The letter "a" is replaced by a drawing of a lightbulb. The lightbulb is drawn in black and white and has a filament inside.
510(k) Summary
| Submitted By: | Innovia LLC |
|---|---|
| 12415 SW 136 Ave, Unit 3 | |
| Miami, FL 33186 |
- Contact Person: Stewart B. Davis M.D. Assistant Medical Director
- Phone Number: 305-378-2651 Ext. 314 305-378-2652 Fax Number: stewart@innovia-Ilc.com Email:
- Date Prepared: January 18, 2006
- Orbital Tissue Expander (OTE) Name of Device:
- Osmed Hydrogel Tissue Expander from IOP Inc. (K010852) Equivalent Device:
- The OTE would be used in the case of congenital anophthalmia, Intended Use: congenital microphthalmia or acquired anophthalmia from, e.g., childhood ocular tumors or trauma. It will facilitate normal growth of orbital soft tissues and bone, in efforts to achieve facial symmetry.
- Device Description: The integrated orbital tissue expander (OTE), consisting of a flexible "balloon/expander" is held in place by means of a titanium fixation plate that is anchored to the lateral orbital wall by screws. A slotted arm attached to the fixation plate, extends through a slot that is formed within the OTE. The OTE can be manually moved along the shaft of the fixation plate to achieve optimal central position in an expanding socket. A 30 gauge disposable hypodermic needle connected to a 1 cc disposable syringe filled with sterile saline is inserted into the OTE through an injection port. Inflation of the OTE will effect pressure on the orbit of the patient.
Comparison to The OTE is similar to the predicate device in that it can be easily Predicate Device: implanted within the orbit, at a small size, and then increased in size to stimulate orbital bony growth. The predicate device grows on its own, by osmosis. The OTE size is user controlled. CT scans can be used to match up sizes with the contralateral eye, and then saline can be injected to enlarge the OTE.
{1}------------------------------------------------
Performance Data: Bench testing has shown that orbital tissue expanders can be fabricated in a repeatable and reliable manner. Both in vitro and in vivo testing have shown that the tissue expander maintains adequate volume and diameter over time. Fatigue testing has shown durability.
- The animal study clearly demonstrated a noticeable difference in sockets Animal Data: expanded with the OTE as compared to the control sockets with anophthalmos. The experimental expanded orbits kept pace with bone growth development on the contralateral non-enucleated side. This qualitative difference can be observed on CT scans as well as in gross photos. The histology performed in all animals showed normal tissues, free of foreign body reaction.
- Conclusions: Testing has shown that the OTE can be fabricated in a consistent manner. Animal testing has shown the device to be safe and effective. In-vitro testing has shown the OTE to be durable over time.
{2}------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Image /page/2/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo consists of a circular border with the text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" arranged around the circumference. Inside the circle is a stylized symbol that resembles a person with outstretched arms, with three wavy lines above them.
Food and Drug Administration 9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville MD 20850
Innovia, LLC c/o Stewart B. Davis, M.D. Assistant Medical Director 12415 SW 136 Avenue Unit 3 Miami, FL 33186
Re: K060151
Trade/Device Name: Orbital Tissue Expander Regulation Number: 21 CFR 886.3320 Regulation Name: Eye Sphere Implant Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: NFM Dated: July 19, 2006 Received: July 25, 2006
Dear Dr. Davis:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration.
AUG - 8 2006
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it 11 Jour de 100 to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean r reaso be as nove a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must or any I vith all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820); and if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
{3}------------------------------------------------
Page 2 - Stewart B. Davis, M.D.
This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your Section 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial equivalence of your device to a legally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801), please contact the Office of Compliance at (240) 276-0115. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21CFR Part 807.97). You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (240) 276-3150 or at its Internet address http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/industry/support/index.html.
Sincerely yours,
M.B. Egelman SimD
Malvina B. Eydelman, M.D. Director Division of Ophthalmic and Ear, Nose and Throat Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{4}------------------------------------------------
Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known): x060151
Device Name: Orbital Tissue Expander
Indications for Use: The OTE would be used in the case of congenital anophthalmia, congenital microphthalmia or acquired anophthalmia from, e.g., childhood ocular tumors or trauma.
Prescription Use X (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D)
AND/OR
Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C)
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE OF NEEDED)
Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)
Signature
(Olvision Sign-Off)
Division of Ophthalmic Ear,
Nose and Throat Devises
510(k) Number KD60
Page 1 of 1
3
§ 886.3320 Eye sphere implant.
(a)
Identification. An eye sphere implant is a device intended to be implanted in the eyeball to occupy space following the removal of the contents of the eyeball with the sclera left intact.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The device, when it is an ocular peg which is supplied sterile only, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9.