Search Results

Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride Topical Anesthetic Spray (Mist Spray, Fine Spray and Medium Spray): A vapocoolant (skin refrigerant) intended for topical application to control pain associated with injections (starting IV's and venipuncture), minor surgical procedures (such as lancing boils, or incision and drainage of small abscesses), and the temporary relief of minor sports injuries. The Fine and Medium Sprays are also intended for the treatment of myofascial pain caused by trigger points, restricted motion and muscle tension.

Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride Topical Anesthetic Spray is a prescription device designed to deliver ethyl chloride in a mist, fine or medium spray. This chemical self-propels itself from the delivery system, which is designed to account for its low vapor pressure. The device is packaged in either a pharmaceutical glass bottle or steel aerosol can with several variations of nozzles. The patient contact is less than ten seconds and the skin is cooled through rapid evaporation of the non-medicated volatile propellant.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for "Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride Topical Anesthetic Spray", asserting its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document focuses on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices, rather than establishing new acceptance criteria or proving efficacy through clinical studies as would be done for a novel device.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" are not directly applicable or available in this type of submission. This 510(k) submission primarily relies on demonstrating equivalence through comparison of technical characteristics and existing test data for the predicate device, along with specific testing related to labeling changes.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, highlighting where information is not present in a 510(k) submission of this nature:

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

The document does not specify quantitative "acceptance criteria" in the typical sense of a clinical trial (e.g., target sensitivity/specificity). Instead, substantial equivalence is demonstrated by showing the new device has the same technological characteristics and similar indications for use as the predicate device, and that specific tests for labeling changes were met.

Therefore, a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance directly addressing efficacy is not presented. The performance is summarized by demonstrating no impact on the device's function or safety due to minor changes.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify a "test set" sample size in terms of patient numbers or a large dataset. The "tests" mentioned (Biocompatibility, USP ) are laboratory-based and generally involve material samples or microbiological cultures, not human or large-scale clinical test sets.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, as these are laboratory tests rather than clinical data from a specific country or collected retrospectively/prospectively from patients.

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 information is not applicable to the type of device and tests described. The tests performed (Biocompatibility, USP ) are standardized laboratory tests, not subjective interpretations requiring multiple human experts to establish ground truth.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically employed in clinical studies where multiple readers interpret results, which is not the case for the laboratory tests performed here.

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

Not applicable. This device is a topical anesthetic spray, not an AI-powered diagnostic system, thus MRMC studies, AI assistance, or human reader improvement are irrelevant to its evaluation.

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

Not applicable. This device is a medical device, not an algorithm.

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

For the tests mentioned:

• Biocompatibility: Ground truth is established by adherence to ISO 10993-1 standards and the absence of specific adverse biological reactions (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation) in validated test models.
• USP Antimicrobial Effectiveness Testing: Ground truth is defined by the pharmacopeial standard (USP ) which sets specific log reduction targets for microorganisms after inoculation over time.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" as it is not an AI/machine learning model.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Gebauer's Pain Ease Topical Anesthetic Skin Refrigerant (Mist Spray and Medium Spray): a vapocoolant (skin refrigerant) intended for topical application to skin, mucous membranes and minor open wounds. Gebauer's Pain Ease controls pain associated with minor surgical procedures (such as lancing boils, incisions, drainage of small abscesses, and sutures), injections (venipuncture, IV starts, cosmetic procedures) and the temporary relief of minor sports injuries (sprains, bruising, cuts and abrasions). The Medium Spray is also intended for the treatment of myofascial pain caused by trigger points, restricted motion and muscle tension.

Gebauer's Pain Ease (Mist and Medium Spray) Topical Anesthetic Skin Refrigerant is a prescription device designed to deliver HFC 245fa high purity (1,1,1,3,3-Pentafluoropropane) and HFC 134a pharmaceutical grade (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) in a mist and medium spray. This mixture self-propels itself from the delivery system. which is designed to account for its low vapor pressure. The device delivery system is specifically designed to deliver a medium and mist spray of the Gebauer's Pain Ease (Mist Spray and Stream Spray) mixture. The medium and mist spray is an appropriate mode of application when users follow directions for use, cooling the skin through rapid evaporation of the non-medicated volatile propellants. The new device, Gebauer's Pain Ease, is identical in all aspects to the predicate device, Gebauer's Pain Ease (Mist Spray and Medium Spray) 510(k) K032671, except that the product can be applied to the skin for pre-injection anesthesia by cotton swab or gauze on intact skin. (If the skin is breached use this application method only with STERILE, disposable cotton balls, cotton swabs or gauze. The cotton balls, cotton swabs or gauze are not supplied with the device.)

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "Gebauer's Pain Ease Topical Anesthetic Skin Refrigerant (Mist Spray and Medium Spray)." The purpose of the submission is to expand the approved application methods for the device. The document claims substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (K032671).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of numerical thresholds for performance metrics. Instead, it aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The performance is assessed by comparing key characteristics of the subject device (Gebauer's Pain Ease with expanded application methods) to the predicate device (Gebauer's Pain Ease, K032671).

The core "performance" reported is related to temperature and output, specifically that the subject device's profile is "similar" to the predicate.

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

The document states: "Comparative testing was conducted to demonstrate equivalence between direct topical application via spraying and topical application using cotton ball, cotton swab or gauze." It refers to this as "Side-by-Side Temperature & Output Bench Testing."

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size for this bench testing. It simply states "tests were selected and performed."
• Data Provenance: The data is from bench testing, meaning it was conducted in a controlled laboratory environment to compare the physical characteristics of the devices. No information is provided regarding the country of origin, nor whether it was retrospective or prospective in the clinical sense, as it was a bench study.

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 study described is a bench test comparison of physical parameters (temperature and output), not a clinical study involving human assessment or expert judgment to establish a "ground truth" for a medical condition.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 3. There was no "ground truth" adjudicated by experts for a clinical outcome.

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

There was no MRMC comparative effectiveness study done. This is a 510(k) submission for a topical anesthetic, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical product (vapocoolant spray), not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used

As this was a bench test comparing physical characteristics, the "ground truth" was essentially instrumental measurements of temperature and output. There was no expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data used to establish a ground truth for a disease or condition.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The device is a physical product, not a machine learning model, so there is no training set in the context of AI/ML.

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

This is not applicable as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device