Search Results
Found 3 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(158 days)
GI Windows, Inc.
The GI Windows Flexagon Plus OTOLoc System is intended for use in the creation of side-to-side jejunum-jejunum and ileum-ileum anastomoses in minimally invasive and laparoscopic surgery. Once wound strength is sufficient to maintain the anastomosis, the device is passed from the body. The effects of this device on weight loss were not studied. The GI Windows Flexagon SFM Plus OTOLoc is intended for use in adult patients > 21 years.
The Flexagon SFM Plus OTOLoc device is a magnetic compression anastomosis system, which is a surgical device used for the creation of anastomoses in minimally invasive surgery in the gastrointestinal tract. The system is comprised of self-forming magnets and includes the delivery system. The OTOLoc component provides enterotomy preservation for immediate fluidic flow upon implant, while the alternating dipoles of the Flexagon magnet drives magnetic self-alignment to prevent apposition. The anastomosis formation occurs over time once the remodeling of the targeted tissues is complete. The Flexagon magnets compress the opposing tissues which allows the body to dictate the time required for re-epithelialization. Compression and necrosis of tissue is achieved between magnet devices and is created by the polar attraction of the magnet devices with subsequent healing of tissue around the devices. Once the anastomosis is formed, the magnet device is expelled naturally in approximately 3-6 weeks.
The provided text does not contain acceptance criteria or study details for an AI/software device. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a physical medical device, the "Flexagon Plus OTOLoc System," which is a magnetic compression anastomosis system.
Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to describe the acceptance criteria and study proving an AI device meets them, as the input document is not about an AI device.
The document discusses:
- Acceptance criteria (implicitly met through "Pass" results) for various non-clinical performance tests (biocompatibility, sterilization, packaging, shelf-life, magnetic properties, etc.) and animal studies.
- Clinical performance data for the physical device based on patient outcomes, but not related to an AI's diagnostic or assistive capabilities.
To answer your request, I would need a document detailing the clearance of an AI-powered medical device.
Ask a specific question about this device
(215 days)
GI Windows Inc.
The GI Windows FLEXAGON System is intended for use in the creation of side-to-side duodeno-ileal anastomoses in minimally invasive and laparoscopic surgery. Once wound strength is sufficient to maintain the anastomosis, the device is passed from the body. The effects of this device on weight loss were not studied. The GI Windows FLEXAGON is intended for use in adult patients > 21 years.
The FLEXAGON device is a magnetic compression anastomosis system, which is a surgical device used for the creation of anastomoses in minimally invasive surgery in the gastrointestinal tract. The system is comprised of magnets and includes the delivery systems. Compression and necrosis of tissue between magnet devices is created by polar attraction of the magnet devices with subsequent healing of tissue around the devices. Once the anastomosis is formed the magnet device is expelled naturally in approximately 3-6 weeks.
I am sorry, but the provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device (Self-Forming Magnet - Flexagon). While it discusses device performance and testing, it does not contain the specific details required to answer your full request about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them, especially in the context of an AI/algorithm-based device.
The information you are asking for, such as:
- A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/algorithm.
- Sample size and data provenance for a test set.
- Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth establishment.
- Adjudication method.
- MRMC comparative effectiveness study results.
- Standalone (algorithm-only) performance.
- Type of ground truth used.
- Training set sample size.
- Ground truth establishment for the training set.
These are all critical components of a regulatory submission for AI/Machine Learning-enabled medical devices. The provided document describes a physical medical device (magnetic compression anastomosis system) and its non-clinical and clinical testing, which focuses on aspects like biocompatibility, sterilization, mechanical properties, and animal/cadaver/human clinical use for a surgical procedure.
The document explicitly states on page 10:
"Software
The Flexagon System does not contain software"
Therefore, there is no AI/algorithm component to this device, and thus no data on AI acceptance criteria, training sets, test sets, expert adjudication, or MRMC studies for AI performance will be found in this document.
Ask a specific question about this device
(118 days)
GI Windows Inc.
The GI Windows FLEX SFM System is intended for use in the creation of side-to-side duodeno-ileal anastomoses in minimally invasive and laparoscopic surgery. Once wound strength is sufficient to maintain the anastomosis, the device is passed from the body. The effects of this device on weight loss were not studied. The GI Windows FLEX SFM is intended for use in adult patients > 21 years.
The FLEX SFM device is a magnetic compression anastomosis system, which is a surgical device used for the creation of anastomoses in minimally invasive and laparoscopic surgery in the gastrointestinal tract. The systems are comprised of magnet devices and include delivery systems. Compression and necrosis of tissue between magnet devices is created by polar attraction of the magnet devices with healing of tissue around the devices. Once the anastomosis is formed, the magnet devices are expelled naturally (within 3-6 weeks).
Here is an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information for the FLEX SFM device, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document mostly outlines performance tests undertaken rather than explicitly stating pre-defined numerical acceptance criteria for each test and then reporting precise numerical results against those. However, some clinical performance metrics are provided and can be inferred as acceptance criteria for successful anastomosis creation.
| Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Predicate & Clinical Outcomes) | Reported Device Performance (FLEX SFM) |
|---|---|
| Biocompatibility (per ISO 10993) | Passed all specified ISO 10993 tests (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Intracutaneous Irritation, Acute Systemic Toxicity, Material-Mediated Pyrogenicity, Subchronic Toxicity/Implantation, Genotoxicity, Chemical Characterization). |
| Sterilization Validation (SAL of 1 x 10^-6) | Validated to an SAL of 1 x 10^-6 per ISO 11137-1. |
| Transportation Validation | Performed per ASTM D 4169: 2022. (Result: Met requirements, implied by clearance). |
| Packaging Validation | Performed. (Result: Met requirements, implied by clearance). |
| Shelf-life Testing | Performed. (Result: Met requirements, implied by clearance). |
| Device Performance (magnetic clamping force, pressure & tensile strength, magnetic interference, corrosion resistance) | Performed, design meets functional and performance requirements. (Results: Met requirements, implied by clearance). |
| Clinical placement of device with ≥90% alignment of magnets (from predicate) | N=70 (100%) successful placement with alignment. |
| Creation of a patent anastomosis confirmed radiologically (from predicate) | N=70 (100%) successful creation of a patent anastomosis. |
| Safety: Low incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and resolution without sequelae. No anastomotic bleeding, leakage, or deaths. | Most adverse events were low grade (Clavien-Dindo Classification I-II). SAEs resolved without sequelae. No cases of anastomotic bleeding, leakage, and no deaths. |
| Effectiveness: Creation of durable small bowel to small bowel anastomosis (from animal study) | Performed as well as or better than control devices (60mm linear staple and sutures) with respect to tissue burst pressure and histological architecture. |
| Device Expulsion: Magnets pass naturally or with minimal non-surgical intervention. | For all subjects, the device passed as a pair of connected magnets naturally or with minimal non-surgical intervention. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Test Set (Clinical Study): N=70 patients.
- Data Provenance: Clinical studies were conducted in Argentina, Canada, Spain, and the United States. This indicates a prospective, multi-country clinical study.
- Test Set (GLP Animal Studies): Porcine model. The exact number of animals is not specified, but it was a "chronic swine anastomosis model" comparing FLEX SFM to controls (60mm linear staple and sutures).
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish a ground truth for the clinical test set. It mentions "patent anastomosis confirmed radiologically," implying radiologists were involved, but details on their number or experience are absent. For the animal study, histological evaluation and tissue burst pressure tests would typically be assessed by pathologists, but their specific qualifications are not provided.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus) for the clinical or animal study data. Outcomes like "successful placement with alignment" and "patent anastomosis confirmed radiologically" imply assessments were made, but the process for resolving disagreements or establishing a definitive ground truth by multiple experts is not detailed.
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, the FLEX SFM is a physical magnetic compression anastomosis system, not an AI software device. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not applicable and was not performed.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
This question is not applicable as the device is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
- Clinical Study: Inferred ground truth includes:
- Radiological Confirmation: For patent anastomoses.
- Clinical Observation: For magnet alignment, expulsion, and occurrence/severity of adverse events.
- Surgical Observation/Reporting: For successful placement.
- GLP Animal Studies:
- Histology: For architecture of healed tissue.
- Mechanical Testing: Tissue burst pressure.
- Direct Observation: For usability, safety, and effectiveness.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
This question is not applicable as the FLEX SFM device is a physical medical device and does not involve AI/machine learning models that require a "training set."
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This question is not applicable as the FLEX SFM device is a physical medical device and does not involve AI/machine learning models that require a "training set."
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1