Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Edwards eSheath Optima introducer set is indicated for the introduction and removal of compatible devices used with Edwards transcatheter heart valves.

The Edwards eSheath Optima introducer set (herein referred to as Optima set), model 14000ES16, consists of a sheath, vessel dilator, introducer, and in-sheath dilator. The Optima set is available with inner sheath diameter of 16 French and is used to facilitate introduction and removal of compatible devices used with the Edwards transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems into/from the vasculature.

The sheath shaft is composed of two layers; as devices are passed through the sheath, the inner member expands by sliding against itself while the outer jacket expands by stretching radially, temporarily expanding the shaft diameter. A radiopaque marker on the distal end indicates the location of the sheath tip in the body and a hydrophilic coating on the sheath tubing exterior facilitates introduction into the vessel. The sheath tubing mates with a housing, which holds three seals to provide hemostasis, and an extension tube with stopcock for flushing.

The vessel dilator is used to dilate the vessel prior to sheath insertion. The introducer is inserted into the sheath hub and locked prior to insertion into the body over a guidewire. The in-sheath dilator is used to expand the sheath during device use at the physician's discretion. The introducer, vessel dilator, and in-sheath dilator are radiopaque to improve fluoroscopic visibility intra-procedure.

The 29mm loader (included with the Edwards delivery system) features a disc valve within the loader cap assembly to help maintain hemostasis, and a scored perforation on the loader tube allowing the loader tubing to be "peeled away" and removed to utilize the full working length of the inserted device.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device called the Edwards eSheath Optima Introducer Set. It outlines the regulatory process and asserts the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that an AI/software device meets those criteria, as typically seen in AI/ML medical device submissions.

The document pertains to a physical medical device (catheter introducer) and its non-clinical performance testing. The "summary of non-clinical testing" section lists various engineering and biocompatibility tests performed on the device itself, not on an AI algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/software device.
2. Sample sizes, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, training set details, or how training ground truth was established, because this information is not present in the provided document regarding an AI/software device.

The document is about a physical medical device and its non-clinical (engineering and biocompatibility) testing, not an AI/ML-based device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Erbe Electrosurgical Unit (ESU/Generator) model VIO 3n with instruments and accessories is intended to deliver high frequency (HF) electrical current for the cutting and/or coagulation of tissue.

The Erbe ESU Model VIO® 3n is an electrosurgical unit (ESU) that delivers high-frequency (HF) electrical current for cutting and/or coagulation of tissue. The unit can be mounted/secured to a cart/system carrier or on a ceiling mount. Different footswitches are available for activating the ESU. The ESU VIO® 3n has several clearly defined monopolar and bipolar cutting and coagulation modes with different electrical waveforms and electrical parameters that are programmed with defined effect levels. Each effect level corresponds to a defined maximum power output and a voltage limitation. In combination with the compatible argon plasma coagulation unit APC 3 (K191234), it offers monopolar modes for argon plasma coagulation and argon-supported modes. The ESU has a touchscreen monitor that provides the user with an onscreen tutorial as well as settings and operational information. It also provides a small number of physical controls, such as the power switch, instrument sockets and a neutral electrode receptacle. Connections for the central power supply, for footswitches, for potential equalization of the operating theatre and Erbe Communication Bus (ECB) connections to other Erbe modules are located at the rear. The ESU emits sounds when instruments are activated, and messages are signaled. The actual application is carried out using compatible electrosurgical instruments that are connected to the generator. The VIO® 3n can be combined with matching Erbe devices and modules, instruments, and accessories.

To address various clinical needs, the ESU is available in 5 different configurations which are called "Fire", "Metal", "Stone", "Water" and "Timber". Whereas the configuration "Fire" includes all available modes and functionalities, the other configurations only offer a reduced number of modes and functionalities.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Erbe ESU Model VIO® 3n with Accessories do not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a specific study proving the device meets those criteria, particularly for an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD).

This document pertains to an electrosurgical unit, which is a hardware device for cutting and coagulating tissue using high-frequency electrical current. The "software" mentioned in the document refers to the operating software of the ESU itself, not an AI or diagnostic algorithm, and thus the type of performance metrics, ground truth, and study designs you're asking about (e.g., MRMC, standalone performance, expert consensus on diagnostic images) are not applicable to this type of device submission.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and device performance in the context of an AI/SaMD, nor detailed information on test set sample sizes, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or specific training set details, because this document describes a hardware device.

However, I can extract the information that is present about the non-clinical performance testing and what it aims to demonstrate:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this is a hardware electrosurgical unit, the "acceptance criteria" are generally related to compliance with electrical safety, EMC, and functional performance standards for tissue cutting/coagulation. The document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria values or detailed performance metrics in a table. It states that the device "performs as intended per the product specifications and requirements."

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for any of the non-clinical tests.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, but the tests were performed "non-clinical," implying laboratory or bench testing rather than clinical patient data. The manufacturer is Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH (Germany).

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

• This question is not applicable to the non-clinical testing of an electrosurgical hardware device. Ground truth, in the context of AI/SaMD, usually refers to labeled diagnostic data. For this device, "ground truth" would be the measurable physical parameters and effects on tissue.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for expert consensus on ambiguous diagnostic cases in AI/SaMD studies. For an ESU, performance is measured against engineering specifications and observed physical effects.

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, an MRMC study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic AI tools that assist human readers (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). The Erbe ESU Model VIO® 3n is an interventional hardware device, not a diagnostic AI.

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

• The term "standalone performance" for an AI algorithm is not directly applicable here. However, the non-clinical performance testing (functional, EMC, electrical safety) can be considered "standalone" in the sense that the device's technical capabilities were tested independently against specifications without a human operator's diagnostic interpretation loop. The device directly performs an action (cutting/coagulation) rather than providing information for human interpretation.

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

• For the functional testing, the "ground truth" would be the observable physical effects on tissue (e.g., degree of cutting, coagulation depth, eschar formation) and measured electrical parameters (power output, voltage, current) compared to established engineering specifications and the performance of predicate devices.
• For safety and EMC, the "ground truth" is compliance with international standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series).

8. The sample size for the training set

• This question is not applicable. The Erbe ESU Model VIO® 3n is an electrosurgical hardware device. It does not use a "training set" in the machine learning sense to learn and develop an algorithm. Its operating software is developed through traditional software engineering processes, not machine learning model training.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• This question is not applicable as there is no machine learning training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SV600, SV800 Ventilator is intended to be used in intensive care situations for long-term or during transport within a professional healthcare facility. The SV600, SV800 Ventilator is intended to provide ventilation assistance and breathing support for adult, pediatric and neonate patients with a minimum body weight of 0.5 kg. The SV600, SV800 Ventilator should be operated by properly-trained and authorized medical personnel. This equipment is not suitable for use in an MRI environment.

The SV600 and SV800 Ventilators are pneumatically-driven and electronically-controlled ventilators. The Ventilators consists of a main unit (including pneumatic circuit, electronic system, mechanical structure, display, CO2 module, SpO2 module), trolley and support arm. The device also includes a neonatal flow sensor and neonatal flow sensor cable, which are used to measure the patient inspiration/expiration flow in neonatal ventilation modes.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the SV600, SV800 Ventilator describes modifications to an existing device, primarily the addition of neonatal ventilation capabilities and updated monitoring modules. However, the document does not contain the level of detail typically found in a clinical study report for evaluating acceptance criteria and device performance in the way you've requested for studies involving AI algorithms, image analysis, or expert consensus with specific metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.

This document focuses on providing evidence of substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical comparisons and various forms of bench testing, software verification, and compliance with consensus standards. It does not present a performance study with acceptance criteria specific to an AI device's output (e.g., accuracy against ground truth, reader performance improvements).

Therefore, I cannot fill out your requested table and answer many of your specific questions as the information is not present in the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted based on the document's content:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on available information)

The document doesn't define "acceptance criteria" in terms of specific performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) that would be typically found for an AI or diagnostic device. Instead, "acceptance criteria" are implied by compliance with various technical specifications and international standards. Device performance is generally reported as "meets specifications" or "is equivalent to the predicate."

Study Details (Based on available information in the 510(k) Summary)

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

   • The document does not specify sample sizes for test sets in the context of clinical performance evaluation (e.g., number of patients, number of readings). The "testing" mentioned refers to engineering, software, and standards compliance evaluations.
   • Data provenance is not provided, as this is not a clinical study report.

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

   • Not applicable. The document describes engineering and standards compliance testing, not a clinical study involving expert-established ground truth for performance evaluation of an AI component or diagnostic output.

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

   • Not applicable. This is not a clinical study with an adjudication process for ground truth.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This document describes a ventilator, not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool in that context. While it includes "Intellicycle" and "Lung Recruitment (SI)" features, these are not presented as AI assistance augmenting human reader performance in a diagnostic capacity.

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

   • The document implies standalone performance testing for various technical aspects of the ventilator and its integrated modules (CO2, SpO2 sensors) against their respective specifications and standards. For example, SpO2 sensor accuracy is stated as "Measurement accuracy: 70 to 100%: ±2% (adult/pediatric mode)" for the Mindray SpO2 module. However, this is for sensor performance, not a complete "algorithm only" evaluation in the context of AI diagnostic output as typically measured.

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

   • For the technical and performance testing, the "ground truth" would be established by reference standards, calibrated equipment, and design specifications. For example, a flow sensor's accuracy would be tested against a known, precise flow rate. For biocompatibility, the ground truth is defined by the toxicological profiles dictated by the ISO standards. For software, the ground truth is the functional requirements and design specifications.
   • There is no mention of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data being used to establish ground truth for clinical performance evaluation of an AI component.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This document does not describe the development or validation of an AI algorithm with a training set. The "Intellicycle" feature is mentioned, but no details regarding its development, training data, or validation as an AI algorithm are provided.

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

   • Not applicable, as no AI training set is described.

Summary Limitations:

The provided text is a 510(k) summary, which aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. It details technical changes, compliance with regulatory standards (e.g., biocompatibility, electrical safety, EMC, software V&V), and functional testing results. It does not outline a clinical performance study with the types of metrics and methodologies commonly associated with evaluating AI-driven diagnostic devices or those requiring expert consensus for ground truth. Therefore, many of your specific questions are not addressed by the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is intended for use in clinical radiological images (including full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis) for review, analysis, and diagnosis by trained medical practitioners.

RadiForce GX570 is a monochrome LCD monitor for viewing medical images including those of mammography. The monochrome panel employs in-plane switching (IPS) technology allowing wide viewing angles and the matrix size (or resolution) is 2,048 x 2,560 pixels (5MP) with a pixel pitch of 0.165 mm.

Since factory calibrated display modes, each of which is characterized by a specific tone curve (including DICOM GSDF), a specific luminance range and a specific color temperature, are stored in lookup tables within the monitor, the tone curve is e.g. DICOM compliant regardless of the display controller used. This helps ensure tone curves even if a display controller or workstation must be replaced or serviced.

The Digital Uniformity Equalizer function compensates luminance non-uniformity, one of the inherent characteristics of LCD panel modules, to the levels required by various QC standards and guidelines.

The Sharpness Recovery function compensates sharpness degradation caused by the inherent characteristics of LCD panel modules (A user selectable).

There are two model variations, GX570 and GX570-AR. The difference of the two variations is the surface treatment of the GX570 is Anti-Glare (AG) treatment and that of the GX570-AR is Anti-Reflection (AR) coating.

Two GX570 monitors mounted on a single stand configuration is available identified by with "MD" like GX570-MD and GX570-AR-MD.

RadiCS is application software to be installed in each workstation offering worry-free quality control of diagnostic monitors including the RadiForce GX570 based on the QC standards and guidelines and is capable of quantitative tests and visual tests defined by them. The RadiCS is included in this 510(k) submission as an accessory to the RadiForce GX570.

RadiCS is of Basic Documentation Level and that it's being used unchanged from the predicate software. RadiCS supports the functions of the monitor RadiForce GX570 and it's not a medical imaging software.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary are for a medical display monitor (RadiForce GX570), not an AI device or a diagnostic algorithm. Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI device meets those criteria cannot be extracted from this document.

The document discusses the technical performance of a display monitor, such as:

• Spatial resolution (MTF)
• Pixel defects
• Luminance and chromaticity (including DICOM GSDF conformance)
• Temporal response
• Noise (NPS)
• Display reflections
• Small-spot contrast ratio

These are physical and optical performance characteristics of a display hardware, not the diagnostic performance of a software algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer the questions related to AI device performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, or ground truth establishment, as this information is not relevant to a medical display monitor clearance.

The document does state that the device is intended for use with "clinical radiological images (including full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis) for review, analysis, and diagnosis by trained medical practitioners." However, the studies described are bench tests to assure the display hardware meets performance standards for displaying these images, not for interpreting them with AI.

Ask a specific question about this device

Fetal & Maternal Monitor (Model: F15A, F15A Air) is intended for providing Non-Stress testing or fetal monitoring for pregnant women from the 28th week of gestation. It is intended to be used only by trained and qualified personnel in antepartum examination rooms, labor and delivery rooms.

Fetal & Maternal Monitor (Model: F15A, F15A Air) is intended for real time monitoring of fetal and maternal physiological parameters, including non-invasive monitoring and invasive monitoring:

Non-invasive physiological parameters:

• Maternal heart rates (MHR)
• Maternal ECG (MECG)
• Maternal temperature (TEMP)
• Maternal oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rates (PR)
• Fetal heart rates (FHR)
• Fetal movements (FM)
• FTS-3

Note: SpO2 and PR are not available in F15A Air.

Invasive physiological parameters:

• Uterine activity
• Direct ECG (DECG)

The F15A series fetal and maternal monitor can monitor multiple physiological parameters of the fetus/mother in real time. F15A series can display, store, and print patient information and parameters, provide alarms of fetal and maternal parameters, and transmit patient data and parameters to Central Monitoring System.

F15A series fetal and maternal monitors mainly provide following primary feature:

Non-invasive physiological parameters:

• Maternal heart rates (MHR)
• Maternal ECG (MECG)
• Maternal temperature (TEMP)
• Maternal oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rates (PR)
• Fetal heart rates (FHR)
• Fetal movements (FM)
• FTS-3

Note: SpO2 and PR are not available in F15A Air.

Invasive physiological parameters:

• Uterine activity
• Direct ECG (DECG)

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Fetal & Maternal Monitor (F15A, F15A Air) do not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them.

The document focuses primarily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc., F9 Express Fetal & Maternal Monitor, K173042) through comparison of intended use, technological characteristics, and conformance to various safety and performance standards. It mentions "functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the devices" and "results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets relevant consensus standards," but it does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for each individual physiological parameter (e.g., FHR accuracy, SpO2 accuracy) nor the specific results of those tests beyond stating that they comply with standards.

Specifically, the document does not include information on:

• A table of acceptance criteria with specific quantitative targets for each parameter and the reported device performance values against those targets. It only states compliance with standards.
• Sample sizes used for a "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation (it mentions "bench testing," but this is typically laboratory-based and doesn't involve patient data in a "test set" sense for AI/algorithm performance validation).
• Data provenance for such a test set (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) studies or human reader improvement data with AI assistance.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance, as this is a monitoring device, not a diagnostic AI algorithm.
• Type of ground truth (beyond "bench testing" which implies engineered signals or controlled environments).
• Sample size for a training set or how ground truth for a training set was established. This device is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or interpretative algorithm in the way your request implies.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I can only address what is present or infer what is missing.

Here's a breakdown based on the available information:

Analysis of Acceptance Criteria and Performance Testing based on Provided Document

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (F9 Express Fetal & Maternal Monitor, K173042) by showing that the new device (F15A, F15A Air) has the same intended use and fundamentally similar technological characteristics, with any differences not raising new safety or effectiveness concerns.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not provide a specific table with quantitative acceptance criteria for each physiological parameter (e.g., FHR accuracy, SpO2 accuracy) and the corresponding reported performance values obtained in testing. Instead, it states that the device was assessed for conformity with relevant consensus standards. For example, it lists:

• IEC 60601-2-37:2015: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of ultrasonic medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment (relevant for FHR).
• ISO 80601-2-61:2017+A1:2018: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of pulse oximeter equipment (relevant for SpO2).
• ISO 80601-2-56:2017+A1:2018: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of clinical thermometers for body temperature measurement (relevant for TEMP).
• IEC 60601-2-27:2011: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of electrocardiographic monitoring equipment (relevant for MECG/DECG).

Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from standards compliance): The acceptance criteria are implicitly the performance requirements specified within these listed consensus standards. These standards set limits for accuracy, precision, response time, and other performance metrics for each type of measurement.

Reported Device Performance: The document states: "The results of the bench testing show that the subject device meets relevant consensus standards." This implies that the measured performance statistics (e.g., accuracy, bias, precision) for each parameter fell within the acceptable limits defined by the respective standards. However, the specific measured values are not provided in this summary.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document mentions "Bench Testing" which implies laboratory-based testing using simulators, controlled signals, or phantoms, rather than a "test set" involving patient data. There is no information provided regarding:

• Sample size (e.g., number of recordings, duration of recordings, number of simulated cases) for the bench tests for each parameter.
• Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) as this is not a study involving patient data collection for performance validation.

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)

This is not applicable and not provided. For a traditional physiological monitor, ground truth for bench testing is typically established using:

• Calibrated reference equipment/simulators: e.g., ECG simulators to generate known heart rates, SpO2 simulators to generate known oxygen saturation levels.
• Physical standards/phantoms: e.g., temperature baths at known temperatures.
• Known physical properties: e.g., precise weights for pressure transducers.

Clinical experts are not involved in establishing ground truth for bench performance of these types of physiological measurements.

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

This is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods are relevant for human expert review of complex clinical data (e.g., medical images for AI validation) to establish a consensus ground truth. For bench testing of physiological monitors, ground truth is objectively determined by calibrated instruments or defined physical parameters.

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

This is not applicable and not provided. An MRMC study is typically performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted human interpretations versus unassisted human interpretations for AI-driven diagnostic devices. The Fetal & Maternal Monitor is a physiological monitoring device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation system. It measures and displays physiological parameters; it does not provide AI-driven assistance for human "readers" to interpret complex clinical information.

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

The device is a monitor that directly measures physiological parameters. It is not an "algorithm only" device in the sense of an AI model providing a diagnostic output. Its performance (e.g., FHR accuracy) is its standalone performance, as it directly measures these parameters. The document states "functional and system level testing to validate the performance of the devices," which would represent this type of standalone performance for the measurement functionalities. However, specific quantitative results are not given, only compliance with standards.

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

As explained in point 3, the ground truth for bench testing of physiological monitors is established using calibrated reference equipment/simulators and physical standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable and not provided. This device is a traditional physiological monitor, not a machine learning model that requires a "training set." Its algorithms for parameter measurement are based on established physiological principles and signal processing techniques, not on statistical learning from large datasets.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

This is not applicable and not provided for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MX7/MX7T/Vaus7/Zeus/ME7/Anesus ME7/Anesus ME7T/MX7P/MX7W/MX8/MX8T/Vaus8/ME8/Nuda/Aquila/Malody Diagnostic Ultrasound System is applicable for adults, pregnant women, pediatric patients and neonates. It is intended for use in ophthalmic, fetal, abdominal, pediatric, small organ(breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal cephalic,adult cephalic,trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal(conventional), musculo-skeletal(superficial), thoracic/pleural, cardiac adult, cardiac pediatric, peripheral vessel and urology, intra-operative(abdominal, thoracic, and vascular) , Laparoscopic, trans-esoph(Cardiac) exams.

Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD, CWD, Color Doppler, Power Doppler, Combined mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, iScape, TDI, color M, Smart 3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

This device is a general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system intended for use by qualified and trained healthcare professionals for ultrasound imaging, measurement, display and analysis of the human body and fluid, which is intended to be used in a hospital or medical clinic.

The MX7, MX7T, Vaus7, Zeus, ME7, Anesus ME7, Anesus ME7T, MX7P, MX7W, MX8, MX8T, Vaus8, ME8, Nuda, Aquila, Malody Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose, mobile, software controlled, ultrasonic diagnostic system. Its function is to acquire and display ultrasound images in Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD, CWD, Color Doppler, Power Doppler, Combined mode (B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, iScape, TDI, color M, Smart 3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The MX7, MX7T, Vaus7, Zeus, ME7, Anesus ME7, Anesus ME7T, MX7P, MX7W, MX8, MX8T, Vaus8, ME8, Nuda, Aquila, Malody Diagnostic Ultrasound System can also measure anatomical structures and offer analysis packages to provide information based on which the competent health care professionals can make the diagnosis.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter states that clinical studies were Not Applicable for the Mindray Diagnostic Ultrasound System (K251192) to support substantial equivalence. Therefore, there is no information in this document about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria through clinical data.

The letter explicitly states:
"8. Clinical Studies
Not applicable. The subject of this submission, MX7, MX7T, Vaus7, Zeus, ME7, Anesus ME7, Anesus ME7T, MX7P, MX7W, MX8, MX8T, Vaus8, ME8, Nuda, Aquila, Malody Diagnostic Ultrasound System, does not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

Instead, the submission relies on:

• Comparison with Predicate Devices: The document extensively details how the subject device is comparable and substantially equivalent to existing cleared predicate devices (e.g., MX7 (K241432), TEX20 (K241201), Resona I8W (K240115), TE Air (K240906), Consona N6 (K221300), QLAB (K190913)) in terms of intended use, imaging modes, features, functions, and technological characteristics.
• Non-clinical Tests: The device was evaluated for acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning and disinfection effectiveness, and thermal, electrical, and mechanical safety, in compliance with various recognized standards (e.g., NEMA UD 2-2004, ANSI AAMI ES60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, ISO 14971, ISO 10993-1).

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as they would apply to clinical efficacy/performance for a new AI/software component, because this information is not present in the provided 510(k) summary. The clearance is based on substantial equivalence to existing predicate ultrasound systems and non-clinical safety/performance testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

Zirconia Implants:
The Neodent Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, to restore chewing function. It may be used with single-stage or two-stage surgical procedures, for single or multiple unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with physiological occlusion loading. Multiple teeth applications can be rigidly splinted. The implants with length of 5 mm (short implants) may be used only with two-stage surgical procedures. The recommended healing time before loading is between 10 to 12 weeks.

Zi Transmucosal Cover Screw and Healing:
The Neodent Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, to restore chewing function. It may be used with single-stage or two-stage surgical procedures, for single or multiple unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with physiological occlusal loading. Multiple teeth applications can be rigidly splinted.

Zi Transmucosal Provisional Coping:
The Neodent Implant System is intended for surgical procedures in maxilla or mandible, providing support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth, to restore chewing function. It may be used with single-stage or two-stage procedures, for single- or multi-unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Zi Transmucosal Abutment Replacement Screw:
The Neodent Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, to restore chewing function. It may be used with single-stage or two-stage procedures, for single or multiple unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Zi Transmucosal Universal Base:
The Universal Ceramic Base Zi Transmucosal 5.0 is an abutment placed over Neodent Zi Transmucosal 5.0 Ceramic Implant System in order to provide support for custom-made prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It may be used for cement or screw-retained single unit restorations. All digitally designed copings and/or crowns to be used with the Neodent Zirconia Base Abutment System are intended to be sent to Straumann for manufacture at a validated milling center.

Zirconia Base for Bridge:
The Zirconia Base for Bridge is an abutment placed over Neodent Zirconia Implants in order to provide support for custom-made prosthetic restorations. It may be used for cement or screw-retained multi-unit restorations. All digitally designed copings and/or crowns to be used with the Neodent Zirconia Base Abutment System are intended to be sent to Straumann for manufacture at a validated milling center.

Zirconia Base C:
The Zirconia Base C is an abutment placed over Neodent Zirconia Implants in order to provide support for customized prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It may be used for single-unit restorations that are screw- or cement-retained in esthetic areas over implants installed in the maxilla or mandible. All copings and/or crowns digitally designed for use with the Titanium Base C are to be designed using Sirona inLab software or Sirona CEREC Software and manufactured using a Sirona CEREC or inLab MC X or MC XL milling unit.

This premarket notification includes new ceramic devices into Neodent Implant System, which are compatible with Zirconia Implant System. The Zirconia Implants and Abutments proposed on this submission are similar to devices already cleared in previous submissions of Neodent Implant System – Zirconia Implant System, according to predicate devices described above. This submission intends to expand the portfolio with new solutions and diameter, in order to provide more treatment options to the customers.

The Zirconia Implants are manufactured in Zirconia Y-TZP and are available in Bone Level (BL) or Tissue Level (TL or Transmucosal) configurations. The Zirconia Implants (BL) are available in a diameter of 5.0 mm and lengths in a range of 8 to 13 mm. The Zi Transmucosal Implants (TL) are available in a diameter of 5.0 mm and lengths in a range of 5 to 11.5 mm.

The Zi Transmucosal Healing and Cover Screw are temporary abutments manufactured in PEEK and used during the healing phase. They are compatible with the Zi Transmucosal Implants Ø5.0. The Zi Transmucosal Healing Abutment is available in the heights of 2 and 3.5mm.

The Zi Transmucosal Provisional Coping is a temporary abutment made of polycarbonate (PC) and has a double function: used for molding procedures or production of provisional restoration.

The Zi Transmucosal Abutment Replacement Screw is a prosthetic component manufactured in titanium alloy and used to fix the fix the Zi Transmucosal Base to the Zi Transmucosal Implant.

The Zi Transmucosal Universal Base is a two-piece abutment of base and top-half prosthetic structure to provide support for customized single-unit restorations over Zi Transmucosal Implant (TL). The base is manufactured in Zirconia Y-ZTP and used with a patient-specific top-half prosthetic structure. The two-piece abutment has a cementable portion of 4mm and is available with gingival heights of 0.3, 1.0 and 1.5 mm. The top-half prosthetic structure to be used with Zi Transmucosal Universal Base must be designed and milled in a Straumann Validated Milling center, using the following restoration materials and dimensions:
Material: IPS e.max CAD HT, Associated Material 510(k): K132209, Minimum wall thickness: 0.9 mm, Maximum angulation: 30°
Material: IPS e.max CAD LT, Associated Material 510(k): K132209, Minimum wall thickness: 0.9 mm
Material: N!ce, Associated Material 510(k): K171773, Minimum wall thickness: 1.0 mm
Material: IVOCLAR Multilink cement, Associated Material 510(k): K130436, Minimum wall thickness: N/A
Material: Zirconia N!ce® LT, Associated Material 510(k): K222836, Minimum wall thickness: 0.4 mm
Material: Zirconia N!ce® HT, Associated Material 510(k): K222836, Minimum wall thickness: 0.4 mm
Material: Zirconia N!ce® XT, Associated Material 510(k): K222836, Minimum wall thickness: 0.4 mm
Material: PMMA N!ce, Associated Material 510(k): K071548, Minimum wall thickness: 0.7 mm
Material: Panavia—Kuraray Cement, Associated Material 510(k): K150704, Minimum wall thickness: N/A, Maximum angulation: N/A

The Zi Base for Bridge is a two-piece abutment of base and top-half prosthetic structure to provide support for customized multi-unit restorations over Zirconia Implants (BL). The base is manufactured in Zirconia Y-ZTP and used with a patient-specific top-half prosthetic structure. The two-piece abutment has a cementable portion of 4mm and is available with gingival heights of 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 mm. The top-half prosthetic structure to be used with Zi Base for Bridge must be designed and milled in a Straumann Validated Milling center, using the following restoration materials and dimensions:
Material: Zirconia N!ce® LT, Associated Material 510(k): K222836, Minimum wall thickness: 0.4 mm, Maximum angulation: 30°
Material: Zirconia N!ce® HT, Associated Material 510(k): K222836, Minimum wall thickness: 0.4 mm
Material: Zirconia N!ce® XT, Associated Material 510(k): K222836, Minimum wall thickness: 0.4 mm
Material: PMMA N!ce, Associated Material 510(k): K071548, Minimum wall thickness: 0.7 mm
Material: Panavia—Kuraray Cement, Associated Material 510(k): K150704, Minimum wall thickness: N/A, Maximum angulation: N/A

The Zi Base C is a two-piece abutment of base and top-half prosthetic structure to provide support for customized single-unit restorations over Zirconia Implants (BL). The base is manufactured in Zirconia Y-ZTP and used with a patient-specific top-half prosthetic structure. The two-piece abutment has a cementable portion of 4mm and is available with gingival heights of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 mm. The top-half prosthetic structure to be used with Zi Base C must be designed and milled in a Sirona InLab Validated Workflow, using the following restoration materials and dimensions:
Material: IPS e.max CAD, Associated Material 510(k): K132209, Minimum wall thickness: 0.9 mm, Maximum angulation: 20°
Material: IVOCLAR Multilink cement, Associated Material 510(k): K130436, Minimum wall thickness: N/A, Maximum angulation: N/A

All these abutments have an internal connection with the implants (ZiLock) and the prosthetic platform is identical for all subject devices described in this submission. They are intended for single use and provided sterile via Ethylene Oxide method, along with undergoing moist heat sterilization after end-user customization.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its associated summary for the Neodent Implant System - Zirconia Implant System contain extensive information about the device, its intended use, and comparisons to predicate devices. However, it does not include specific acceptance criteria with numerical thresholds directly stated within the tables, nor does it detail a study that directly proves the device meets such criteria in terms of performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or image quality assessments.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through various tests, implying that if the new device performs similarly to or better than previously cleared devices, it meets the necessary standards. The performance testing section describes the types of tests conducted (e.g., dynamic fatigue, torsion, insertion, pull-out, and software validation), but it does not present clear quantitative acceptance criteria or the specific performance results in a comparative table format.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be directly extracted from the provided text as they pertain more to the performance evaluation of AI/software in interpreting medical images, which is not the primary focus of this dental implant submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the available information, noting where information is not explicitly provided in the document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Neodent Implant System - Zirconia Implant System

The FDA 510(k) summary for the Neodent Implant System - Zirconia Implant System focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through a combination of bench testing, software validation, MRI compatibility, biocompatibility, and sterilization validation. It does not present specific quantitative acceptance criteria or performance metrics directly from a comparative study in the way one might expect for an AI/software-based medical device (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met by demonstrating that the proposed devices perform at a level substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices under standardized testing conditions.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

As mentioned, explicit numerical acceptance criteria and reported device performance in a comparative table (e.g., for diagnostic accuracy) are not provided in this 510(k) summary. The summary indicates that tests were conducted according to relevant ISO standards and FDA guidance, and the results demonstrated that the subject devices exhibit a level of performance substantial equivalent to the predicate and reference devices.

Below is a conceptual table based on the types of tests mentioned, noting that specific numerical acceptance criteria and performance data are not detailed in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device