Search Results

PrePex is indicated for circumcision of adult males. Prepex is intended to be placed and removed by a health care professional trained in male circumcision and in use of the PrePex device.

The PrePex is a device composed of three components; a plastic Inner Ring, an Elastic outer clamping Ring and a Placement Ring for applying the clamping Elastic Ring. The PrePex System is sold sterile for single use and is available in multiple sizes to accommodate variances in adult patients. A sizing guide is separately available, sold clean for single use

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document describes the PrePex device and its clinical studies, but does not explicitly define numerical acceptance criteria in a table format for performance metrics. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly demonstrated through the study results showing safety and efficacy, and comparison to a predicate device.

However, based on the information provided, we can infer some performance indicators and present them in a table, noting that these are reported results, not pre-defined acceptance thresholds:

Study Information

Here's the detailed study information based on the provided text:

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

   • First Study: 50 healthy uncircumcised men aged 18 to 35 years. Data provenance: Retrospective - initiated and sponsored by the government of Rwanda. (The phrase "initiated and sponsored by the government of Rwanda" suggests the data was collected in Rwanda, but doesn't explicitly state the country of origin of all participants' data if some were referred from elsewhere, though highly probable to be Rwanda.)
   • Second Study: 180 participants, randomly divided into 2 unbalanced study arms:
     • PrePex arm: 120 subjects
     • Surgical circumcision arm: 60 subjects
   • Data provenance: Prospective, randomized, comparative study. Sponsored by the Government of Rwanda. (Implies data collected in Rwanda.)

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

   • First Study: "The device was placed and removed by a physician or a nurse..." and "experienced operators who participated in the first study" performed procedures in the second study. While not explicitly stated how many experts established the ground truth, the "physician or a nurse" and "experienced operators" indicate medical professionals were assessing outcomes. The document does not specify the exact number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, specialization) beyond "physician or a nurse" and "surgeon highly experienced in adult male circumcision."
   • Second Study: "All PrePex Device procedures were performed by experienced operators who participated in the first study." "The surgical circumcision procedure used was the dorsal slit method which was performed by a surgeon highly experienced in adult male circumcision." Similar to the first study, specific numbers and complete qualifications of "experts" for ground truth are not detailed beyond "experienced operators" and "highly experienced surgeon."

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

   • The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus) for the test set's outcomes. Outcomes appear to be directly observed and recorded by the medical professionals involved in the study (physicians, nurses, experienced operators, surgeons).

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:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a manual medical instrument for a surgical procedure, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would involve "human readers" interpreting data with or without AI assistance. The comparative study was between two different circumcision methods: PrePex device vs. surgical circumcision.

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

   • No, this is a medical device (clamp) used for a procedure, not an algorithm. Therefore, a standalone algorithm performance study is not applicable. The performance is inherently "with human-in-the-loop" as it requires a healthcare professional.

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

   • The ground truth was based on clinical outcomes data and expert observation/assessment by healthcare professionals. This includes:
     • Achieving complete circumcision.
     • Absence of bleeding.
     • Adverse event rates (observed and recorded by medical staff).
     • Procedure times, preparation times, and healing times (measured outcomes).
     • Pain assessment (patient-reported via VAS, but assessed/monitored by clinicians).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This is a medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Therefore, this question is not applicable. The "training" for the device would involve healthcare professionals being trained in its use.

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

   • As there is no "training set" in the AI sense, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device