Search Results

The LithoDiamond is indicated for use in patients with renal and upper ureteral calculi between 4mm and 20mm in size.

The LithoDiamond is an Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripter. The primary difference in the devices is that the LithoDiamond has a new imaging system.

The provided text does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them in the context of device performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or human-AI comparative effectiveness.

The document is a 510(k) summary for the LithoDiamond, indicating its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (LithoTron). The primary difference noted is a "new imaging system" for the LithoDiamond. The equivalence argument was supported by bench data as outlined in FDA's "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications (510(k)s) for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripters." It also states that "An initial report on the imaging system (x-ray component) is also on file at FDA."

Therefore, based only on the provided text, I can infer the following about the study and acceptance criteria:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
   The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy for the "new imaging system." Instead, the acceptance criteria are implicitly linked to demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device (LithoTron) through bench data. The primary performance aspect mentioned is the device's ability to fragment renal and upper ureteral calculi between 4mm and 20mm, which is aligned with the predicate device's function.

   Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from context)	Reported Device Performance (Inferred from context)
   Demonstrate substantial equivalence in shock wave characteristics, safety data, and imaging system performance to the predicate device (LithoTron).	"Detailed shock wave characteristics as well as safety data were presented in the 510(k)."

"An initial report on the imaging system (x-ray component) is also on file at FDA."
The FDA found the device "substantially equivalent" for the stated indications. |
| Indications for use: fragment renal and upper ureteral calculi between 4mm and 20mm. | The device is indicated for this use, implying it meets the performance for this indication, likely demonstrated through bench data and comparison to the predicate. |

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance:
   The text refers to "bench data" and an "initial report on the imaging system (x-ray component)." This implies in vitro or engineering tests rather than patient studies. The sample size for such bench tests is not specified, nor is the country of origin of the data. It's safe to assume these are not patient-derived data (retrospective or prospective imaging studies) but rather engineering/laboratory data.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth:
   Not applicable, as the equivalence was primarily based on bench data and comparison to a predicate device, not on expert-established ground truth for a diagnostic test.

4. Adjudication Method:
   Not applicable for the type of study described. This applies to studies involving human readers or expert review of medical images/data.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:
   No, an MRMC study is not mentioned. The device is a lithotripter with an imaging system, and the submission focuses on its physical characteristics and equivalence to a predicate, not an AI-assisted diagnostic workflow. There's no mention of human readers or AI assistance in a diagnostic context that would warrant an MRMC study.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:
   No, a standalone algorithm performance study is not mentioned. While there's an "imaging system (x-ray component)," the documentation focuses on its substantial equivalence through bench data, not on its isolated diagnostic performance as an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:
   The ground truth for the equivalence argument was primarily derived from:

   • Predicate device characteristics: The LithoTron's established performance and characteristics served as the benchmark.
   • Bench data: Measurements and engineering tests performed on the LithoDiamond to assess shock wave characteristics and safety.
   • Imaging system report: Data from the x-ray component, likely technical specifications and performance metrics rather than ground truth derived from patient-specific diagnoses.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:
   Not applicable. The description refers to a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence and bench data, not an AI/Machine Learning model that would require a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
   Not applicable, as there is no mention of a training set for an AI/ML model.

Ask a specific question about this device