(28 days)
I-STOP® Trans Obturator Male / Female Sling is intended to be used as a sub-urethral sling implant for the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence post-prostatectomy. And for females: for the treatment of urinary stress incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency and/or intrinsic sphincter deficiency.
I-STOP® Trans Obturator Male / Female Sling is a sterile, single use kit consisting of one sling of knitted monofilament polypropylene, two stainless two polycarbonate handles and two stainless steel needles molded with polycarbonate handles.
This 510(k) summary does not contain the detailed information necessary to complete all sections of your request. The document describes a medical device, the I-STOP® Trans Obturator Male / Female Sling, and states that it underwent "Mechanical tests, biocompatibility tests in compliance with ISO 10993 and chemical tests" as well as "Three studies on this surgical technique and three anatomical studies." However, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria, performance metrics, sample sizes for test or training sets, ground truth establishment methods, or details about expert involvement in a way that aligns with your request for AI/algorithm performance studies.
Therefore, I cannot generate the requested table and fully answer all questions as the provided text is primarily a 510(k) notification for a surgical mesh device, not a study evaluating an AI/algorithm's performance.
Here's what can be extracted and what cannot:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
- Cannot be provided. The document discusses compatibility with ISO 10993 for biocompatibility and mentions "mechanical tests" and "chemical tests," but it does not specify acceptance criteria for these tests nor does it report detailed performance results against such criteria in a quantifiable manner. It also mentions "clinical tests" and "anatomical studies," but again, no specific acceptance criteria or performance results are detailed.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Cannot be provided. The document states "Three studies on this surgical technique and three anatomical studies," but provides no details on sample sizes, study design (retrospective/prospective), or data provenance for these studies.
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)
- Cannot be provided. This information is typically relevant for studies involving subjective assessments or interpretation (like imaging studies) where human experts establish ground truth. As this is a surgical mesh device, the "ground truth" would likely relate to objective clinical outcomes or mechanical properties, not expert interpretation in the way relevant for AI performance studies. The document does not discuss expert involvement in establishing ground truth for any tests.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Cannot be provided. Not applicable given the nature of the device and the lack of AI-specific performance evaluation.
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
- Cannot be provided. This document is for a physical surgical device, not an AI or imaging-based diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance for human readers is not relevant or described.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Cannot be provided. Not applicable, as this is not an algorithm or AI device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- Cannot be provided. The document does not specify the ground truth used for its "clinical tests" or "anatomical studies." For a surgical mesh, ground truth for clinical studies would typically be patient outcomes (e.g., continence rates, complication rates) or histological analysis (for biocompatibility).
8. The sample size for the training set
- Cannot be provided. The concept of a "training set" applies to machine learning and AI algorithms. This device is a physical surgical implant.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Cannot be provided. Not applicable, as this is not an AI/algorithm device.
§ 878.3300 Surgical mesh.
(a)
Identification. Surgical mesh is a metallic or polymeric screen intended to be implanted to reinforce soft tissue or bone where weakness exists. Examples of surgical mesh are metallic and polymeric mesh for hernia repair, and acetabular and cement restrictor mesh used during orthopedic surgery.(b)
Classification. Class II.