Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Splashwire Hydrophilic Guide Wire is intended to be used in the peripheral vascular system to facilitate the placement of devices during diagnostic and interventional procedures.

The Splashwire Hydrophilic guide wire consists of a nitinol core wire with a ground tapered distal section. A polyurethane jacket which contains tungsten for radiopacity is applied over the core wire and a hydrophilic coating is applied over the polyurethane jacket. The surface of the jacket is uniform with both the distal and proximal ends fully coated. The wire is placed inside a multiple loop flush dispenser, also referred to as a hoop. The dispenser has a flush port which facilitates solution flushing through the hoop to hydrate the guide wire. The wire is placed so that the distal end of the wire comes out of the outer portion of the hoop. A J-straightener is placed on the other end of the hoop to introduce the wire into the catheter. The wire is sold sterile and is a single use device. The subject Splashwire Hydrophilic Guide Wire Line Extensions and the predicate Splashwire Hydrophilic Guide Wire share the device characteristics described above, with the subject guide wire incorporating the following additional modifications:

J-Tip Guide Wires:
The J Tip devices incorporate a distal tip formed into a J shape. These guide wires are provided with a 3.0 mm J Tip.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The Falco Fusion System is intended for sacroiliac joint fusion for conditions including sacroiliac joint disruptions and degenerative sacroiliitis.

The Falco Fusion System is designed to stabilize or fuse the sacroiliac (SI) joint, helping to reduce pain and improve mobility in patients suffering from SI joint disruptions or degenerative sacroiliitis. The system includes titanium alloy screws (Ti-6Al-4V ELI, ASTM F-136) in diameters of 11mm and 13mm, with lengths ranging from 35mm to 75mm. Additionally, the system comes with disposable Kirschner wires (316-LVM, ASTM F138) and reusable surgical (Stainless Steel, ASTM F899) instruments, providing a comprehensive solution for sacroiliac joint fusion procedures.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The Labcorp Fentanyl Urine Visual Test is a lateral flow competitive immunoassay for the rapid qualitative detection of norfentanyl (fentanyl metabolite) in human urine at a cutoff of 5 ng/mL. It is intended for prescription use. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

This test provides only a preliminary result. Clinical consideration and professional judgment must be applied to any drug test result, particularly in evaluating a preliminary positive result. To confirm preliminary positive results, a more specific analytical method must be used. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) are the preferred confirmatory methods.

The Labcorp Fentanyl Urine Visual Test (the "DEVICE") is a lateral flow competitive immunoassay for the rapid qualitative detection of Norfentanyl (nFEN), the primary urinary metabolite of Fentanyl, in human urine at concentrations above 5 ng/mL. It is intended for prescription use.

The single use, in vitro diagnostic DEVICE is available in a cassette format with a disposable dropper provided for sample transfer.

The DEVICE contains a test strip that gives a qualitative result for presence of Norfentanyl in human urine. The DEVICE is read visually and has labeling with instructions for interpreting test results.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Surgical Reality Viewer is a medical imaging visualization software intended to assist trained healthcare professionals with preoperative and intraoperative visualizations, by displaying 2D and 3D renderings of DICOM compliant patient images and normal anatomic segmentations derived from patient images as well as functions for manipulation of segmentations and 3D models.

Surgical Reality Viewer assists the trained healthcare professional who is responsible for making all final patient management decisions.

The machine learning algorithms in use by Surgical Reality Viewer are intended for use on adult patients aged 22 years and over.

Surgical Reality Viewer is medical imaging visualization software that accepts DICOM compliant images (e.g. CT-scans or MR images) and segmentation files in various 3D object file formats (e.g. NifTi, OBJ, MHD, STL, etc.). The device can generate preliminary segmentations of normal anatomy on demand using machine learning and computer vision algorithms. It provides tools for editing and/or creating segmentations using various built-in 2D and 3D image manipulation functions. The software generates a 3D segmented view of the loaded patient data, either on a supported 2D or 3D screen, and offers features such as pre-operative (re)viewing of DICOM data overlaid with segmentation, (intra/post)operative visualization of anatomical structures, 2D-viewing, volume rendering, surface rendering, immersive and interactive 3D-viewing, 2D and 3D measuring of DICOM image data, storing on a local device, anatomic labelling including segmentation tools, and tools for annotations, brushing or carving of anatomical structures. Surgical Reality Viewer runs on a dedicated computer within the customer environment, meeting specific hardware requirements including a Windows operating system (version 10 or higher), GPU (Nvidia GeForce 2070), CPU (Intel i7), 16GB RAM, and at least 100GB free hard drive space.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Surgical Reality Viewer, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document details the performance of the machine learning algorithms for various anatomical segmentations using the Sørensen–Dice coefficient (DSC). Additionally, it describes a qualitative assessment of suitability.

Table of Acceptance Criteria (Implicit) and Reported Device Performance

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document directly presents the performance metrics (DSC and qualitative scores). While explicit numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "must be >= 0.95 DSC") are not stated, the reported high performance figures implicitly demonstrate the device meets acceptable levels for these metrics.

Study Details

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: 102 CT images (Each study belonged uniquely to a single patient subject).
• Data Provenance: 60 (n=60) scans were obtained from the United States. The remaining 42 scans' country of origin is not specified, but the document mentions "geographical location" as a subgroup for generalizability.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but the mention of "curated datasets" and "clinical testing dataset" without ongoing patient enrollment suggests a retrospective study.

2. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated as a specific number. The document mentions "trained professionals" who generated the initial segmentations and "thoracic surgeons with a minimum of 2 years professional working experience" who verified these segmentations. This implies at least two distinct groups of experts were involved, potentially multiple individuals within each group.
• Qualifications of Experts:
  • Initial Segmentation Generation: "Trained professionals." (Specific professional background and experience level not detailed).
  • Segmentation Verification: "Thoracic surgeons with a minimum of 2 years professional working experience."

3. Adjudication Method (for the Test Set)

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated. The process described is "segmented by trained professionals and the segmentations were verified by thoracic surgeons." This suggests a single ground truth was established after the verification step, but the specific process for resolving discrepancies (e.g., consensus, tie-breaking by a third expert) is not detailed. It does not mention a 2+1 or 3+1 method.

4. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly described. The study focuses on the standalone performance of the algorithm against ground truth, and separate qualitative scoring of the suitability of segmentations. There is no mention of comparing human readers with and without AI assistance to determine an "effect size" of improvement.

5. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• Standalone Study: Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "Performance was verified by comparing segmentations generated by the machine learning models against ground truth segmentations generated by trained professionals." This directly assesses the algorithm's performance without a human in the loop for generating the primary segmentation output being evaluated for accuracy.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for the quantitative analysis (DSC) was established by "expert consensus" (or at least expert-verified segmentations). Specifically, "segmentations generated by trained professionals and the segmentations were verified by thoracic surgeons." For the qualitative assessment, "medical professionals were tasked to qualitatively score the suitability of the segmentations provided through the Viewer," which is also an expert-based evaluation of the AI output.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "Each of the algorithms has been trained and tuned on curated datasets representative of the intended patient population," but does not provide a specific number for the training set. It only states that a "CT image was either part of the tuning or testing dataset and not in both," indicating that the 102 CT images used for testing were separate from the training/tuning data.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Training Set Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "trained and tuned on curated datasets representative of the intended patient population." While not explicitly detailed, it's reasonable to infer that a similar expert-driven process (like the ground truth establishment for the test set) would have been used for creating the ground truth in the training dataset to ensure high-quality training data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Mpact 3D Metal implants are designed for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The patient should be skeletally mature.

The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

• Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, congenital hip dysplasia, ankylosing spondylitis.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

The Mpact 3D Metal Implants Extension - DMLS Technology are a line extension to the Mpact 3D Metal Acetabular Shells and 3D Metal Augments (K171966, K202568) and to the Mpact Acetabular Systems Shells (K103721, K122641, K132879 and K230011) and are designed to be used with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System. Specifically, the devices subject of this submission are:

• Acetabular shell size Ø44 Two-holes;
• Acetabular shell size Ø44 Multi-holes thin;
• Acetabular shells sizes from Ø42T to Ø58T of both Two-holes and Multi-holes Thin designs, allowing to be coupled with an increase size of liner.

The subject implants are intended to be used during Total Hip Arthroplasty to replace the acetabulum and they are provided individually packed, sterile and single-use. Similarly to the predicate devices, the subject acetabular shells are manufactured using a Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) process with titanium alloy powder according to ASTM F2924-14.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

It is used by radiation oncology department to segment CT images, to generate needed information for treatment planning, treatment evaluation and treatment adaption.

The proposed device, AccuContour 4.0 Family, is a standalone software with the following variants: AccuContour and AccuContour-Lite. The functions of AccuContour-Lite is a subset of AccuContour.

AccuContour:
It is used by oncology department to register multi-modality images and segment (non-contrast) CT images, to generate needed information for treatment planning, treatment evaluation and treatment adaptation.

The product has two image processing functions:

1. Deep learning contouring: it can automatically contour organs-at-risk, in head and neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvis (for both male and female) areas,
2. Automatic registration: rigid and deformable registration, and
3. Manual contouring.

It also has the following general functions:

• Receive, add/edit/delete, transmit, input/export, medical images and DICOM data;
• Patient management;
• Review tool of processed images;
• Extension tool;
• Plan evaluation and plan comparison;
• Dose analysis.

AccuContour-Lite:
It is used by oncology department to segment (non-contrast) CT images, to generate needed information for treatment planning, treatment evaluation and treatment adaptation.

The product has one image processing function:
Deep learning contouring: it can automatically contour organs-at-risk, in head and neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvis (for both male and female) areas,

It also has the following general functions:

• Receive, add/edit/delete, transmit, input/export, medical images and DICOM data;
• Patient management;
• Review tool of processed images.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details for the AccuContour 4.0, extracted and organized from the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are derived from the "Pass Criteria" columns in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, which specify minimum DSC and maximum HD95 values. The reported device performance is represented by the "Lower Bound 95% CI" for both DSC and HD95, and the "Average Rating" for clinical applicability.

Table A: Performance for Synthetic CT (sCT) Contouring Function (Derived from MR Images)

*Note: For Stomach, the reported DSC (0.782) is below the pass criteria (0.8). However, the document states, "The results indicate that the auto-segmentation performance of the AccuContour system for sCT images derived from both CBCT and MR modalities meets the requirements for geometric accuracy." This suggests there might be an overall or combined assessment, or other factors led to acceptance despite this single instance. The average clinical rating is 4.1, which is above the threshold of 3.

Table B: Performance for Synthetic CT (sCT) Contouring Function (Derived from CBCT Images)

Table C: Performance for 4DCT Registration Function (Rigid Registration)

*Note: For Stomach (0.791) and Spleen (0.786), the reported DSC is below the pass criteria (0.8). However, the document states, "According to the results, the accuracy of 4DCT image registration images meets the requirements and all structure models demonstrating that only minor edits would be required in order to make the structure models acceptable for clinical use." The average clinical rating for both is 4.5, above the threshold of 3.

Table D: Performance for 4DCT Registration Function (Deformable Registration)

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Synthetic CT (sCT) Contouring Function:

  • Sample Size: 247 synthetic CT images (116 generated from MR, 131 generated from CBCT).
  • Data Provenance:
    • Demographic Distribution: 57% male, 43% female. Age distribution: 13% (21-40), 44.1% (41-60), 36.8% (61-80), 6.1% (81-100). Race: 78% White, 12% Black or African American, 10% Others.
    • Imaging Equipment: MR images from GE (21.6%), Philips (56.9%), Siemens (21.6%). CBCT images from Varian (58.8%), Elekta (41.2%).
    • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but the description of demographic and equipment distribution from a "sample" indicates retrospective data collection from existing patient records.
    • Country of Origin: The racial distribution explicitly mentions "U.S. clinical radiotherapy practice," suggesting the data is primarily from the United States.

• 4DCT Registration Function:

  • Sample Size: 30 4DCT image sets.
  • Data Provenance:
    • Imaging Equipment: Siemens (90.0%), Philips (10.0%) scanners.
    • Demographic Distribution: 17 males (56.7%), 13 females (43.3%). Age: 33-82 years, with majority in 51-65 (40.0%) and 66-80 (43.3%) year brackets.
    • Image Characteristics: Uniform 3mm slice thickness (100%).
    • Sourcing Location: Most images (90.0%) from Drexel Town Square Health Center/Community Memorial Hospital, remainder from Froedtert Hospital.
    • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but implies retrospective data from patient archives of the mentioned hospitals.
    • Country of Origin: Based on the hospital names (Drexel Town Square Health Center, Community Memorial Hospital, Froedtert Hospital), the data is from the United States.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated. The text mentions "clinical experts evaluate the clinical applicability" and "RTStruct contoured by the professional physician as the gold standard." This implies at least one, and likely multiple, qualified medical professionals.
• Qualifications of Experts: The experts are described as "clinical experts" and "professional physician(s)." Their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") are not provided. They are implied to be clinically qualified radiotherapy personnel.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated. The ground truth for segmentation is stated to be "RTStruct contoured by the professional physician". For clinical applicability, "clinical experts evaluate the clinical applicability" and assign a 1-5 scale score. This suggests a single expert (or group consensus without specific adjudication rules like 2+1) established the ground truth segmentation, and separate clinical experts evaluated the results. There is no mention of a formal adjudication process for disagreements in ground truth labeling if multiple experts were involved in its creation.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Was an MRMC study done? No.
• Effect Size of Human Improvement (if applicable): Not applicable, as no MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was reported. The testing focused solely on the algorithm's performance against expert-generated ground truth and expert evaluation of the algorithm's output.

6. Standalone Performance

• Was a standalone performance study done? Yes. The entire report details the "Performance Test Report on Synthetic CT (sCT) Contouring Function" and "Performance Test Report on 4DCT Registration Function," measuring the algorithm's performance (DSC, HD95) against gold standard contours and qualitative evaluation by clinical experts. This reflects the algorithm's performance independent of human interaction during the contouring process.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground Truth: For the synthetic CT contouring and 4DCT registration functions, the ground truth was "RTStruct contoured by the professional physician" (i.e., expert consensus or expert-generated contours).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not provided in the document.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• Training Set Ground Truth Establishment: Not provided in the document. The document only details the ground truth used for the validation/test set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Getinge GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer is intended for use by health care facilities to sterilize wrapped and unwrapped, porous and nonporous heat and moisture stable items such as surgical instruments and linens by means of pressurized steam. The GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer is available in 3 models differentiated by chamber length: GSS67N Model 6710 (39 inch chamber), GSS67N Model 6713 (51 inch chamber) and GSS67N Model 6717 (67 inch chamber).

The Getinge GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer is designed for sterilization of heat and moisture stable materials used in healthcare facilities. There are three model designations to identify three different chamber lengths. The model 6710 is 1000 mm (39") long, model 6713 is 1300 mm (51") long and model 6717 is 1700 mm (67") long.

The Getinge GSS67N Series Steam Sterilizer employs both gravity/downward displacement with positive pulse conditioning and pressure/vacuum pulsing for dynamic air removal. All cycle phases are sequenced and monitored by the control system, providing both audible and visual notification of deviation from certain operating parameters.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device