Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(86 days)
Device is intended to be used for instrument placement to access anatomical structures under transrectal ultrasound guidance.
- . Prostate - Biopsy and minimally invasive puncture
- . Surgical (Prostate) - Biopsy and minimally invasive puncture
The TP Pivot Pro™ needle guide is a tool for performing freehanded transperineal prostate biopsies, taking advantage of the transperineal path to sample regions of the prostate including the difficult to reach anterior zone. Used in conjunction with an ultrasound probe, users visualize suspect target areas of the prostate, plan and position an access site, and obtain specimens from a precise point in the prostate.
The FDA Summary for the TP Pivot Pro™ Needle Guide (K233109) does not include specific acceptance criteria or detailed study results in the format typically used for performance claims of diagnostic or AI-powered devices. This document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing extensive performance data like clinical trials.
The information provided describes non-clinical tests to ensure design functionality and biocompatibility. Here's a breakdown based on your request, with missing information noted:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Test Name | Acceptance Criteria (Not Explicitly Stated as Numerical) | Reported Device Performance (Summary) |
|---|---|---|
| Biocompatibility | Meets ISO 10993-1 requirements for limited contact duration. | Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Acute Systemic Toxicity, Material Mediated Pyrogen testing performed in accordance with ISO 10993. |
| Guide Tangential Clocking force testing | Guide adequately attaches to round probe such that it will not rotate. | Confirmed adequate attachment and no rotation in typical use. |
| Guide Axial Loading force testing | Guide adequately attaches to round probe such that it will not slide forward. | Confirmed adequate attachment and no sliding forward in typical use. |
| Guide Dislodge Force Test | Guide adequately attaches to round probe such that it will not dislodge under force. | Confirmed adequate attachment and no dislodgement under worst-case force. |
| Needle Holder Force (horizontal) Test | Force to dislodge needle holder from clamped horizontal position meets requirements. | Confirmed force to dislodge meets requirements at worst-case position. |
| Needle Holder Force (angled) Test | Force to dislodge needle holder from clamped, angled position meets requirements. | Confirmed force to dislodge meets requirements at worst-case position and approximately 20° angle. |
| Assemble/Removal Force with Neoguard Cover Test | Force required to assemble/remove guide with Neoguard cover meets requirements. | Tested force required; implicitly meets established requirements. |
| Guide Clamp Knob Torque Test | Guide not damaged when user applies torque to clamp knob. | Confirmed guide is not damaged with user-applied torque to clamp knob. |
| Extract/Insert Needle Holder in Tower Force | Force to extract/insert needle holder meets requirements. | Tested force to extract/insert, implicitly meets established requirements. |
| Introducer needle initial insertion force | Initial insertion force of introducer needle meets requirements. | Tested force, implicitly meets established requirements. |
| Introducer needle In and out of the needle holder force test | Force to move introducer needle meets requirements. | Tested force, implicitly meets established requirements. |
| Simulated Usability Testing | Design conforms to user needs and intended use. | Evaluations performed by customers to ensure conformity to user needs and intended use. |
| Guidance Standards | Complies with BS EN ISO 9626:1995. | Introducer needle evaluated and believed to comply with the standard. |
(Note: The acceptance criteria for the design specification tests are not quantified in this summary, but are described in terms of meeting established requirements for adequate function and integrity.)
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any of the non-clinical tests. The document mentions "Simulated use evaluations were performed by customers," but the number of customers/evaluations is not specified.
- Data Provenance: The biocompatibility tests are conducted in accordance with ISO standards, implying laboratory testing. The design specification tests and simulated usability testing are described as "tested internally" or "performed by customers," suggesting in-house and potentially external user tests, respectively. No information on country of origin for test data or whether it was retrospective/prospective is provided.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
- Not applicable / Not provided. The document describes non-clinical engineering and usability tests. There is no mention of "ground truth" in the clinical sense (e.g., disease diagnosis) or involvement of experts for establishing clinical ground truth for the performance evaluations described. The "customers" in simulated usability testing are users, not necessarily experts establishing ground truth for a diagnostic outcome.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- Not applicable / Not provided. Since there is no clinical "ground truth" determination described, no adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 is relevant for the reported tests.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
- No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a mechanical needle guide, not an AI-powered diagnostic system or imaging device, so such a study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance is not relevant or described.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study
- No, a standalone performance study was not done. This device is a mechanical needle guide, not an algorithm or AI system.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
- Not a clinical ground truth. For the biocompatibility tests, ground truth is based on established ISO standards. For the design specification tests, ground truth refers to the engineering requirements and functional specifications (e.g., "adequately attaches," "not damaged," "meets established requirements"). For simulated usability testing, ground truth is conformity to user needs.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
- Not applicable / Not provided. This device is a mechanical device, not an AI or machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set" in the context of algorithm development.
9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- Not applicable / Not provided. As there is no training set for an algorithm, there is no ground truth establishment for a training set.
Ask a specific question about this device
(56 days)
The Envision cover and Envision pad are intended as a microbial barrier between the patient and medical imaging electronics.
The Envision cover and Envision pad are used, without the need for ultrasound coupling gel, in adult and pediatric patients, for diagnostic ultrasound imaging, in sterile fields, that currently use an ultrasound coupling gel or fluid alone or in combination with a protective transducer cover, including ultrasound guided venous access, ultrasound imaging over surgical wounds, during transcutaneous biopsy; for intraoperative, endocavity, or transcutaneous imaging procedures; or to enhance acoustic coupling to difficult geometries.
The Envision Ultrasound pad and Envision Ultrasound cover (Envision) are microbial barriers for use during ultrasound procedures. The Envision device contains a coating that facilitates the acoustic coupling between the patient and ultrasound equipment without the need for traditionally ultrasound gel. This enables the clean transmission of sound waves between the transducer and patient without the mess of gels.
The Envision Ultrasound pad is comprised of four layers. The first layer is a crack and peel release liner that is removed by the customer to expose the adhesive layer (second layer) that sticks to the patient or the transducer within the cover. The third layer is a film carrier layer to hold the adhesive and coating layers together. The final layer is the coating layer, which is the acoustic couplant layer and is activated by using hydrating media, such as saline.
The Envision pad is sold as both a standalone pad and also sold as an integrated ultrasound cover (cover). The cover is a traditional CIVCO ultrasound cover, where one end of the cover is cut out, and the Envision pad, cut down to size, is sealed to the cover at the location of the cut out.
The document describes the Envision™ Ultrasound Cover and Pad, a device intended as a microbial barrier and acoustic coupler for ultrasound procedures. This device is compared to a predicate device (CIVCO General Purpose Transducer Cover K970513) and a reference device (EcoVue® Sterile and Non-Sterile Ultrasound Gels K181363).
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are generally established by comparison to the predicate or reference device, or through meeting specific standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM). The "Reported Device Performance" column reflects the results of the non-clinical tests.
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criteria / Standard | Reported Device Performance (Envision) | Performance of Predicate/Reference Device (Comparison) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material | N/A (Composition) | Pad: Polycarbonate, silicone elastomer, polyether polyurethane, coating formulation; Cover: Polyurethane | Predicate Cover: Same (Polyurethane); Predicate Pad: N/A |
| Material Integrity | Strength and elasticity of the cover sheath component (unspecified standard but "all acceptance criteria met") | All acceptance criteria met related to the strength and elasticity of the cover sheath component. | Equivalent testing and results |
| Microbial Barrier | ASTM F1671-13 (prevention of blood-borne pathogens) | Meets requirements of ASTM F1671-13 for prevention of blood-borne pathogens. | Equivalent testing |
| Acoustic Impedance | Comparison to reference device (1.68 ± 0.24 x 10^5 g/(cm² sec)) | Primary coating: 1.69 ± 0.18 x 10^5 g/(cm² sec); Secondary coating: 1.68 ± 0.29 x 10^5 g/(cm² sec) | 1.68 ± 0.24 x 10^5 g/(cm² sec) (Reference Device Data) |
| Acoustic/Sound Velocity | Comparison to reference device (1398-1750 m/s) | Primary Coating: 1594 ± 170 m/s; Secondary Coating: 1631 ± 282 m/s | 1398-1750 m/s (Reference Device Data) |
| Density of Coating | Comparison to reference device (0.85-1.15 g/mL) | Primary: 1.06 g/mL; Secondary: 1.03 g/mL | 0.85-1.15 g/mL (Reference Device Data) |
| pH of Coating | Comparison to reference device (5.5-7.8) | 7.11 (both primary and secondary coatings) | 5.5-7.8 (Reference Device Data) |
| Acoustic Coupling | Ability to facilitate coupling | Hydrated coating used to facilitate coupling. | Uses gel to facilitate coupling |
| Sterilization | Ethylene Oxide sterilization (met ISO 11135) | Ethylene Oxide (validated per ISO 11135); residuals meet ISO 10993-7 limits. | Ethylene Oxide |
| Shelf-life | 1 year (accelerated aging per ASTM F1980-16) | 1 year (supported by accelerated aging per ASTM F1980-16 and packaging validation per ISO 11607-2 and ISTA 2A) | 3 years |
| Biocompatibility | ISO 10993-1 requirements for limited contact duration | Met ISO 10993-1 requirements (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Acute Systemic Toxicity, Hemolysis, Subcutaneous Implantation, Material Mediated Pyrogenicity) | No specific details given for predicate but states "same testing performed" |
| Water Leak Testing | Demonstrate material strength and elasticity | Performed to demonstrate material strength and elasticity. | No specific details given for predicate but implies "same testing performed" |
| Rehydration Testing | Withstand multiple rounds of rehydration and perform as intended | Subjected to multiple rounds of rehydration and tested to ensure performance. | Not applicable (predicate uses gel, not rehydration) |
| Simulated Use Testing | Conformity to user needs and intended use | Performed to ensure design conforms to user needs and intended use. | No specific details given for predicate but implies "same testing performed" |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document does not specify exact sample sizes for the test sets in most non-clinical studies. For example, it states "The Envision pad's ability to withstand viral penetration was performed to evaluate the barrier performance... in accordance with ASTM F1671-13," without detailing the number of samples tested under this standard. Similarly, for acoustic properties, specific sample sizes are not provided.
The data provenance is from non-clinical bench testing performed by the manufacturer (CIVCO Medical Instruments Co., Inc.). There is no mention of patient data (prospective or retrospective) or country of origin for such data, as this is a device clearance based on engineering and material performance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
This information is not applicable as the evaluation is based on non-clinical, objective measurements and compliance with established standards, rather than expert interpretation of medical images or conditions.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
This information is not applicable as the evaluation is based on non-clinical, objective measurements and compliance with established standards, not on subjective expert consensus.
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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an ultrasound cover and pad, not an AI-powered diagnostic system. Clinical tests were explicitly stated as "not required to demonstrate substantial equivalence."
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
No, a standalone performance study in the context of an algorithm or AI was not done. This device is a physical accessory for ultrasound, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used
The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by:
- Established standards and regulations: Such as ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ASTM F1671-13 for viral penetration, ISO 11135 for sterilization, ASTM F1980-16 for accelerated aging, ISO 11607-2 and ISTA 2A for packaging.
- Direct measurement and comparison: For acoustic properties (impedance, sound velocity, density, pH) where the Envision device's physical properties are directly measured and compared against established ranges from a reference device (EcoVue® Sterile and Non-Sterile Ultrasound Gels).
- Functional tests: Water leak testing, rehydration testing, and simulated use testing to ensure the device performs its intended functions.
8. The sample size for the training set
This information is not applicable as this is not an AI/machine learning device. There is no concept of a "training set" for the Envision Ultrasound Cover and Pad.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This information is not applicable as this is not an AI/machine learning device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1