Search Results

The OEC 3D mobile fluoroscopy system is designed to provide fluoroscopic and digital spot images of adult and pediatric populations during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. Examples of a clinical application may include: orthopedic, gastrointestinal.endoscopic, urologic, neurologic, vascular, cardiac, critical care, and emergency procedures.

The OEC 3D is a mobile fluoroscopic C-Arm imaging system used to assist trained surgeons and other qualified physicians. The system is used to provide fluoroscopic X-ray images and volumetric reconstructions during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. These images help the physician visualize the patient's anatomy and interventional tools. This visualization helps to localize clinical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-procedure anatomy, in vivo-clinical activity and post-procedure outcomes. The system is composed of two major components, a C-Arm and a tethered Workstation. The C-Arm is a stable mobile platform capable of performing linear motions (vertical, horizontal) and rotational motions (orbital, lateral) that allow the user to position the X-ray image chain at various angles and distances with respect to the patient anatomy to be imaged. The C-Arm is comprised of the high voltage generator, software, X-ray control, and a "C" shaped image gantry, which supports an X-ray tube and a Flat Panel Detector. Its functionality is controlled by software on the Workstation and on the OEC Touch, a digital flat panel controller mounted on the cross-arm. The workstation is a stable mobile platform with an articulating arm supporting a color image high resolution LCD display monitor. It also includes image processing equipment/software, recording devices, data input/output devices and power control systems. The Workstation is the primary user interface to the system and can be located at a convenient location in the room independent of where the C-Arm is located.

The provided text describes modifications to the OEC 3D mobile fluoroscopy system, specifically introducing a "3D Spine Centerline Tool with Manual Labeling of the Vertebrae," a "3D Screw Evaluation Tool," and "Augmented Fluoroscopy." The document indicates that these modifications do not require clinical data to establish safety or efficacy and that the device meets acceptance criteria through non-clinical performance testing.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The text states that "cadaveric volume datasets of the spine representing different imaging conditions" were used for the 3D Spine Centerline Tool and 3D Screw Evaluation Tool, and a "rigid phantom" was used for Augmented Fluoroscopy. Specific numbers for the cadaveric datasets or phantom instances are not provided.
• Data Provenance:
  • Cadaveric datasets: Implies human cadavers. Country of origin is not specified.
  • Rigid phantom: Artificial, not human data.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified, but given the nature of cadaver and phantom studies, they are typically considered controlled experimental setups rather than retrospective or prospective clinical studies.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for the test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set.

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

The document does not report a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study. The focus is on the performance of the device's new features with respect to established metrics (e.g., accuracy for Augmented Fluoroscopy) and demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device through non-clinical testing. It also explicitly states, "The new performance claims did not require clinical data in order to establish safety or efficacy."

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

The testing described for the "3D Spine Centerline Tool with Labeling" and "3D Screw Evaluation Tool" on cadaveric data, and the "Augmented Fluoroscopy" error quantification with a rigid phantom, suggests standalone performance evaluation of these features. The documentation does not describe a human-in-the-loop study for these features, rather it focuses on the intrinsic performance of the algorithms.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• 3D Spine Centerline Tool and 3D Screw Evaluation Tool: The ground truth for these tools was likely established through precise measurements or expert annotations on the cadaveric volume datasets, though the exact method is not detailed.
• Augmented Fluoroscopy: The ground truth for accuracy was established by the known true positions within the rigid phantom, against which the projected 3D points were compared.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a sample size for any training set. It primarily discusses validation and verification testing of modifications, which implies the features were developed and potentially trained using internal datasets not detailed in this submission summary.

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

The document does not provide information on how the ground truth for any training set (if applicable) was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC 3D mobile fluoroscopy system is designed to provide fluoroscopic and digital spot images of adult and pediativ populations during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. Examples of a clinical application may include: orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endoscopic, neurologic, vascular, cardiac, citical care and emergency procedures.

The OEC 3D is a mobile fluoroscopic C-arm imaging system used to assist trained surgeons and other qualified physicians. The system is used to provide fluoroscopic X-ray images and volumetric reconstructions during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. These images help the physician visualize the patient's anatomy and interventional tools. This visualization helps to localize clinical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-procedure anatomy, in vivo-clinical activity and post-procedure outcomes.

The system is composed of two primary physical components. The first is referred to as the "C -Arm" because of its "C" shaped image gantry; the second is referred to as the "Workstation", and this is the primary user interface for the user to interact with the system. The C-arm has an interface tablet allowing a technician to interact with the system.

The C-arm is a stable mobile platform capable of performing linear motions (vertical, horizontal) and rotational motions (orbital, lateral) that allow the user to position the X-ray image chain at various angles and distances with respect to the patient anatomy to be imaged. The C-Arm is comprised of the high voltage generator, software, X-ray control, and a "C" shaped image gantry, which supports an X-ray tube and a Flat Panel Detector,

The workstation is a stable mobile platform with an articulating arm supporting a color image high resolution LCD display monitor. It also includes image processing equipment/software, recording devices, data input/output devices and power control systems.

On the C-Arm, the generator remains unchanged from the OEC Elite. This is also true for the 31 cm x 31 cm image receptor, consisting of a Thallium-doped Cesium Iodide [Cs] (TI)] solid state flat panel X-ray detector with Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) light imager. The X-ray tube housing and insert remains the same as on the predicate OEC Elite (K192819).

C-Arm functionality is managed by a digital flat tablet control panel mounted on the C-arm base. Motion is controlled by a joystick.

On the workstation, the main hardware includes a computer with integrated wireless capability and a dedicated computer for 3D reconstruction located within the storage bay. The OEC 3D employs the same software architecture and platform design that fully supports the flat panel detector as the OEC Elite and complies with IEC 60601-1. The OEC 3D includes the existing 2D imaging functionalities available on the OEC Elite including imaging and post processing applications.

The provided text does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets those criteria. Instead, it is a 510(k) premarket notification summary from the FDA, asserting substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than demonstrating performance against explicit acceptance criteria with clinical data.

Here's an analysis of the information available in the document, and where details are explicitly not provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the document. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical performance testing against general standards, rather than specific acceptance criteria for performance metrics.

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

This information is not provided. The document states that "clinical data is not required to demonstrate substantial equivalence" and that the device was evaluated using "engineering bench testing" and "non-clinical performance testing." Therefore, there is no discrete "test set" of patient data in the clinical sense mentioned.

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

This information is not provided. Since clinical data was not used for the performance evaluation for substantial equivalence, no expert ground truth establishment for a test set is described.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided. As no clinical test set with human assessments is described, no adjudication method is relevant or provided.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "The new performance claims did not require clinical data in order to establish safety or efficacy." Therefore, no effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance is reported.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

The document describes non-clinical performance testing and engineering bench testing, which would broadly cover standalone algorithm performance in a technical sense (e.g., image quality metrics, reconstruction accuracy). However, it does not explicitly detail a "standalone performance study" in the context of clinical metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader performance. The focus is on demonstrating that the new 3D functionality is "substantially equivalent" to that of reference devices.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The document does not describe the use of specific ground truth (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) in the context of clinical performance evaluation for substantial equivalence to the same extent as a traditional clinical study. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical performance testing would be derived from engineering specifications, phantom measurements, and compliance with standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, NEMA XR-27). The 3D algorithm is stated to be "identical" to one of the reference devices (INNOVA IGS 5), implying its performance characteristics are assumed to be similar to that previously cleared device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided. The document does not describe any machine learning or AI algorithm development that would involve a training set of data. The 3D algorithm is stated to be "identical" to one of the reference devices, suggesting it's an existing, proven algorithm rather than a newly trained one requiring a specific training set.

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

This information is not provided, as no training set is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC Elite mobile fluoroscopy system is designed to provide fluoroscopic and digital spot images of adult and pediatric patient populations during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. Examples of a clinical application may include: orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endoscopic, urologic, vascular, cardiac, critical care, and emergency procedures.

The OEC Elite is a Mobile Fluoroscopic C-arm Imaging system used to assist trained surgeons and other qualified physicians. The system is used to provide fluoroscopic X-Ray images during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. These images help the physician visualize the patient's anatomy and interventional tools. This visualization helps to localize clinical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-procedure anatomy, in vivo-clinical activity and post-procedure outcomes.

The C-arm is a stable mobile platform capable of performing linear motions (vertical, horizontal) and rotational motions (orbital, lateral, wig-wag) that allow the user to position the X-Ray image chain at various angles and distances with respect to the patient anatomy to be imaged. The C - arm is mechanically balanced allowing for ease of movement and capable of being "locked" in place using a manually activated lock. The C-Arm is comprised of the high voltage generator, software. X-ray control, and a "C" shaped image gantry, which supports an X-ray tube and a Flat Panel Detector or Image Intensifier, depending on the choice of detector configuration desired.

The workstation is a stable mobile platform with an articulating arm supporting a color image, high resolution, LCD display monitor. It also includes image processing equipment/software, recording devices, data input/output devices and power control systems.

GE is submitting this pre-market notification for proposed labeling changes (quantitative performance claims) related to a previously-released feature, Enhanced Noise Reduction.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the GE OEC Elite mobile fluoroscopy system with "Enhanced Noise Reduction" claims. However, it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or an explicit study proving the device meets those criteria in the format requested. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical testing and engineering bench testing, rather than reporting on a clinical study against predefined performance metrics.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table and answer all questions directly from the provided input. However, I can extract the information related to the non-clinical testing and the claims being made for the Enhanced Noise Reduction feature.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what information is missing:

Information that can be extracted or inferred:

• Device Name: OEC Elite with Enhanced Noise Reduction
• Purpose of the Submission: Proposed labeling changes (quantitative performance claims) related to the Enhanced Noise Reduction feature, demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device.
• Nature of Enhanced Noise Reduction: It's a user-selectable, augmented image processing pathway for Cardiac and Vascular acquisition profiles. It "reduces image noise in a manner characteristic of the reduction in noise resulting from an increase in photon flux" while maintaining "spatial and temporal resolution." It does not change the tube output (dose).
• Claim: "Claims for equivalence to a higher power system without an increase in radiation dose for both cardiac and vascular applications."
• Testing Conducted: Non-clinical testing, engineering bench testing, risk analysis, required reviews, design reviews, integration testing, performance testing, safety testing, simulated use testing. Specific mention of "image quality and dose performance using standard IQ metrics and QA phantoms" and "a wide variety of anthropomorphic phantoms."
• Conclusion: The scientific engineering bench testing methods "demonstrate substantial equivalence." Clinical data was not required.

Missing Information (Crucial for the requested table and questions):

• Specific Acceptance Criteria: The document mentions "quantitative performance claims" but does not detail what these exact criteria are (e.g., specific SNR improvement percentages, resolution metrics, dose reduction targets).
• Reported Device Performance: Without explicit acceptance criteria, the "reported performance" cannot be formally assessed against them. The claim itself implies performance ("equivalence to a higher power system without an increase in radiation dose"), but specific metrics are absent.
• Sample Size (Test Set): Not specified for any performance testing. Phantoms are mentioned.
• Data Provenance (Test Set): Phantoms are artificial, so no country of origin or retrospective/prospective status.
• Number of Experts for Ground Truth (Test Set): Not applicable as no human interpretation of test set images is mentioned as part of performance evaluation.
• Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth: Not applicable.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
• MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: Explicitly stated that "clinical data is not required to demonstrate substantial equivalence." Therefore, no MRMC study with human readers comparing AI vs. without AI assistance was performed or reported.
• Standalone Performance: The testing described is for the algorithm (Enhanced Noise Reduction) as part of the device (OEC Elite C-arm) but without human-in-the-loop performance reported.
• Type of Ground Truth: For the "quantitative performance claims," the ground truth would typically be objective physical measurements of image quality parameters derived from phantoms.
• Sample Size (Training Set): Not mentioned.
• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not mentioned.

Based on the available information, here's what can be provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample size: Not specified. Testing involved "standard IQ metrics and QA phantoms" and "a wide variety of anthropomorphic phantoms."
• Data provenance: Not applicable in the traditional sense, as testing was performed using phantoms and engineering bench tests. This is non-clinical, in-house testing by the manufacturer.

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

• Not applicable. The claims are based on objective, quantifiable physical measurements using phantoms, not on expert human interpretation of images for ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable, as ground truth was established through physical measurements rather than human consensus or adjudication.

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 document explicitly states: "The new performance claims and the accumulated changes did not require clinical data in order to establish safety or efficacy." And "clinical data is not required to demonstrate substantial equivalence." Therefore, no MRMC study was performed or reported.

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

• Yes, implicitly. The "Enhanced Noise Reduction" is an algorithm (an "augmented image processing pathway"). The "additional engineering bench testing was performed to substantiate the quantitative performance claims related to Enhanced Noise Reduction" and to demonstrate "overall imaging performance... using a wide variety of anthropomorphic phantoms." This describes testing the algorithm's effect on image quality metrics without human interpretation as part of the core evaluation for these particular claims.

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

• For the non-clinical performance claims, the ground truth was established through objective physical measurements using "standard IQ metrics and QA phantoms" and "anthropomorphic phantoms." This involves measuring parameters like signal-to-noise ratio, spatial resolution, and potentially dose, against expected or ideal values from the phantoms.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not specified in the provided text.

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

• Not specified in the provided text, as details on the training set or its ground truth are absent.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC Elite mobile fluoroscopy system is designed to provide fluoroscopic and digital spot images of adult and pediatric patient populations during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. Examples of a clinical application may include: orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endoscopic, urologic, vasular, cardiac, critical care, and emergency procedures.

The OEC Elite is a Mobile Fluoroscopic C-arm Imaging system used to assist trained surgeons and other qualified physicians. The system is used to provide fluoroscopic X-Ray images during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. These images help the physician visualize the patient's anatomy and interventional tools. This visualization helps to localize clinical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-procedure anatomy, in vivo-clinical activity and post-procedure outcomes. The system is composed of two primary physical components. The first is referred to as the "C - Arm" because of its "C" shaped image gantry; the second is referred to as the "Workstation", which is the primary interface for the user to interact with the system.

The C-arm is a stable mobile platform capable of performing linear motions (vertical, horizontal) and rotational motions (orbital, lateral, wig-wag) that allow the user to position the X-Ray image chain at various and distances with respect to the patient anatomy to be imaged. The C - arm is mechanically balanced allowing for ease of movement and capable of being "locked" in place using a manually activated lock. The C-Arm is comprised of the high voltage generator, software, X-ray control, and a "C" shaped image gantry, which supports an X-ray tube and a Flat Panel Detector or Image Intensifier, depending on the choice of detector configuration desired.

The workstation is a stable mobile platform with an articulating arm supporting a color image, high resolution, LCD display monitor. It also includes image processing equipment/software, recording devices, data input/output devices and power control systems.

The primary purpose of the mobile fluoroscopy system is to provide fluoroscopic images of the patient during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures such as orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endoscopic, urologic, neurologic, vascular, cardiac, critical care and emergency procedures.

This document (K172550) is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (OEC Elite fluoroscopy system) and does not describe a study related to an AI/ML-based device.

Therefore, many of the requested details, such as "number of experts used to establish ground truth", "adjudication method", "MRMC study", "standalone performance", "training set size", and "ground truth for training set", are completely irrelevant to this document.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of an updated version of a fluoroscopy system (OEC Elite with Cardiac option) to its predicate device. This is a hardware/software update to an imaging device, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive tool.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted regarding acceptance criteria and performance, focusing on the device's performance rather than an AI's performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are based on demonstrating that the updated OEC Elite with Cardiac option maintains the performance of the predicate device and meets established industry standards for X-ray imaging systems. The "reported device performance" are statements of compliance and successful testing rather than specific numerical results for all metrics.

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

The document explicitly states that no clinical images or human studies were used to demonstrate substantial equivalence for the cardiac option. The testing conducted was "engineering (non-Clinical) testing," "engineering bench testing," and "imaging performance evaluation using anthropomorphic phantoms."

Therefore, there is no "test set" in the sense of clinical patient data, nor is there data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The "sample size" would refer to the number of phantom tests or bench tests, which are not specified in numerical terms beyond "successful verification and validation testing" and "additional engineering bench testing."

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

Not applicable. No ground truth was established by human experts for a clinical dataset because no clinical dataset was used for demonstration of substantial equivalence.

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

Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication was used.

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 is not an AI device, and no MRMC study was performed.

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

Not applicable. This is a fluoroscopy imaging system, not an AI algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the device's technical performance was established by measurement against established engineering standards and phantom studies, rather than clinical ground truth (e.g., pathology). The "truth" was defined by what parameters an X-ray imaging system should meet.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" of data. The software changes were built upon an existing architecture and followed a standard software development lifecycle.

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

Not applicable. No training set was used in the context of AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC Elite mobile fluoroscopy system is designed to provide fluoroscopic and digital spot images of adult and pediatric patient populations during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. Examples of a clinical application may include orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endoscopic, urologic, vascular, critical care, and emergency procedures.

The OEC Elite is a Mobile Fluoroscopic C-arm Imaging system used to assist trained surgeons and other qualified physicians. The system is used to provide fluoroscopic X-Ray images during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. These images help the physician visualize the patient's anatomy and interventional tools. This visualization helps to localize clinical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-procedure anatomy, in vivo-clinical activity and post-procedure outcomes. The system is composed of two primary physical components. The first is referred to as the "C - Arm" because of its "C" shaped image gantry; the second is referred to as the "Workstation", which is the primary interface for the user to interact with the system.

The provided document describes the OEC Elite mobile fluoroscopy system, which is a medical imaging device. The document is submitted as a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

However, the document specifically states: "Clinical images are not required to demonstrate the substantial equivalence to the predicate device." This means that there was no clinical study involving human patients or human readers performed to prove the device meets acceptance criteria related to clinical performance (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, reader improvement with AI assistance).

The acceptance criteria and proof of performance are based on non-clinical testing (engineering bench testing and phantom studies).

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text, while acknowledging the absence of a clinical study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical):

The acceptance criteria are implied by compliance with various industry standards and guidance documents for X-ray imaging devices. The document asserts that the device met these criteria.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of a clinical test set. The document refers to "engineering bench testing" and "imaging performance evaluation using anthropomorphic phantoms." The specific number of phantoms or tests is not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable for clinical data. The tests were performed internally by the manufacturer (GE OEC Medical Systems, Inc.) in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. The data is from non-clinical sources (bench tests, phantom studies).

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

• Not applicable. As no clinical study was performed, there were no human experts establishing clinical ground truth for a test set. Ground truth for non-clinical performance (e.g., image quality metrics) is established through engineering and physics measurements against defined standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable, as no clinical study with human readers or AI performance evaluation was conducted.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No. The document explicitly states: "Clinical images are not required to demonstrate the substantial equivalence to the predicate device." Therefore, no MRMC study to compare human readers with and without AI assistance was performed.

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

• Yes, indirectly, in a non-clinical context. The device itself is an imaging system, not explicitly an "AI algorithm" in the modern sense of a diagnostic AI. However, the performance metrics listed (DOE, spatial resolution, contrast resolution, etc., and the functioning of new software features like subtraction or roadmapping) represent the "standalone" imaging performance of the device, without human interpretation as part of the validation study. The "algorithm" here refers to the underlying image processing and control software of the fluoroscopy system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Engineering specifications, physical measurements, and phantom imaging results. The ground truth for the non-clinical performance was based on:
  • Design input specifications.
  • Compliance with recognized standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, FDA's "Information for Industry: X-ray Imaging Devices- Laboratory Image Quality and Dose Assessment, Tests and Standards", "Guidance for the Submission of 510(k)'s for Solid State X-ray Imaging Devices (SSXI)").
  • Measurements obtained from anthropomorphic phantoms that simulate human anatomy, rather than actual patient data or clinical outcomes.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This device is a fluoroscopy system, not a machine learning model that undergoes "training" in the typical AI sense. The software development process mentioned (IEC 60324 compliant, design control, risk management) pertains to traditional software engineering, not AI model training with large datasets. The new vascular features were "built upon the existing robust and extensible software architecture."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

• Not applicable, for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC Elite mobile fluoroscopy system is designed to provide fluoroscopic and digital spot images of adult and pediatric populations during diagnostic, interventional and surgical procedures. Examples of a clinical application may include: orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endoscopic, urologic, critical care and emergency procedures.

The OEC Elite is a Mobile Fluoroscopic C-arm Imaging system used to assist trained surgeons and other qualified physicians. The system is used to provide fluoroscopic X-Ray images during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures. These images help the physician visualize the patient's anatomy and interventional tools. This visualization helps to localize clinical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-procedure anatomy, in vivo-clinical activity and post-procedure outcomes. The system is composed of two primary physical components. The first is referred to as the "C - Arm" because of its "C" shaped image gantry; the second is referred to as the "Workstation", which is the primary interface for the user to interact with the system.

The C-arm is a stable mobile platform capable of performing linear motions (vertical, horizontal) and rotational motions (orbital, lateral, wig-wag) that allow the user to position the X-Ray image chain at various angles and distances with respect to the patient anatomy to be imaged. The C - arm is mechanically balanced allowing for ease of movement and capable of being "locked" in place using a manually activated lock. The C-Arm is comprised of the high voltage generator, software, X-ray control, and a "C" shaped image gantry, which supports an X-ray tube and a Flat Panel Detector or Image Intensifier, depending on the choice of detector configuration desired.

The workstation is a stable mobile platform with an articulating arm supporting a color image, high resolution, LCD display monitor. It also includes image processing equipment/software, recording devices, data input/output devices and power control systems.

The primary purpose of the mobile fluoroscopy system is to provide fluoroscopic images of the patient during diagnostic, interventional, and surgical procedures such as orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endoscopic, urologic, neurologic, critical care and emergency procedures.

The OEC Elite comes with four image receptor (detector) options: the choice of 21x21 cm or 31x31 cm (new) Thallium-doped Cesium Iodide Cs] solid state flat panel X-ray detector with Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) light imager; or the choice of a 9 inch or 12 inch of the same existing image intensifier as in the OEC 9900 Elite.

This document describes the OEC Elite, a mobile fluoroscopy system. It does not contain information on human performance studies or the establishment of ground truth by expert consensus for evaluating clinical tasks. Instead, it focuses on non-clinical engineering and imaging performance testing against defined metrics.

Here is an analysis based on the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

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

The document outlines acceptance criteria based on performance metrics for Solid State X-ray Imaging Devices (SSXI) and compares the OEC Elite to its predicate device, OEC 9900 Elite.

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

The document refers to "additional engineering bench testing" and "imaging performance evaluation using anthropomorphic phantoms." It does not specify a distinct "test set" in terms of clinical images or patient data, nor does it provide a sample size for such a set. It appears the performance evaluations were conducted on the device itself and phantoms.

The data provenance is through non-clinical testing using anthropomorphic phantoms in a laboratory setting at GE OEC Medical Systems, Inc. (GE Healthcare).

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 evaluation was based on non-clinical engineering and imaging performance metrics, primarily using anthropomorphic phantoms and objective measurements. There was no mention of human experts establishing ground truth for a clinical test set in this context.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

This information is not applicable as there was no clinical test set requiring human adjudication to establish ground truth. The evaluation focused on technical performance metrics against a predicate device.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The device described (OEC Elite) is a mobile fluoroscopy system, a medical imaging hardware device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool that assists human readers. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply to this submission.

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

This is not applicable in the context of an x-ray imaging system. The OEC Elite is a hardware device that produces images, not an algorithm, and the performance criteria relate to image quality and system functionality, not algorithmic output without human intervention.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical testing was established by objective measurements of physical performance metrics (e.g., DQE, spatial resolution) on the OEC Elite and compared to the established performance of the predicate device (OEC 9900 Elite) and reference devices. Additionally, compliance with recognized standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1 Ed. 3 series, 21CFR Subchapter J) served as a form of "ground truth" for safety and efficacy.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable. The OEC Elite is a medical imaging hardware system, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set."

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

This information is not applicable as there was no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC 9800 Plus is designed to provide fluoroscopic and spot-film imaging of the patient during diagnostic, surgical and interventional procedures. Clinical application may include cholangiography, endoscopic, urologic, orthopedic, neurologic, vascular, cardiac, critical care and emergency room procedures.

The OEC® 9800 Plus is a system used to assist trained Surgeons. The system is used to provide X-Ray images while the Surgeon performs a medical procedure. Images from the system help the Surgeon to visualize the patients' anatomy. This visualization helps to localize surgical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-surgical anatomy, in vivo-surgical activity and post surgical outcomes.

The proposed device will add an alternative supplier for the X-Ray Tube. The current tube and the proposed tube have the same specifications and will be interchangeable. Verification activities confirmed that the proposed tube meets the same specification as the current supplier's tube.

The proposed device will add an alternative supplier for the Radiological Imaging Unit (RIU) or Image Intensifier. The current RIU and the proposed RIU have the same specifications and will be interchangeable. Verification activities confirmed that the alternate RIU meets the same specification as the current supplier's RIU.

The proposed device will provide an optional wireless foot switch and hand switch. The new option is equivalent to the predicate in that functionality is identical. The wireless option provides placement flexibility and reduced cable clutter.

Two printed circuit board assemblies have been combined into a single board in the proposed device due to parts obsolescence. Both the proposed and predicate assemblies share common specifications as confirmed through verification testing.

The proposed device will include a LCD monitor which replaces the obsolete CRT monitor. Both the proposed and predicate assemblies share common specifications as confirmed through verification testing.

The proposed device includes an alternative solid state drive. This drive provides a faster write speed. Both drives meet their specifications.

The proposed device will include a different model of an OEM injector system. Both the proposed and predicate OEM injector systems share common specifications as confirmed through verification testing.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the OEC® 9800 Plus, structured according to your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

This 510(k) summary primarily describes modifications to an existing fluoroscopic imaging system (OEC® 9800 Plus) rather than a novel device. The core acceptance criteria revolve around demonstrating that the modified components (X-Ray tube, RIU/Image Intensifier, wireless switches, PCBs, LCD monitor, solid state drive, OEM injector system) perform equivalently to the original components and that the overall system maintains its safety, effectiveness, and intended use as the predicate device.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details:

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

   • The document does not specify numerical sample sizes for test sets (e.g., number of images, number of patients, number of devices tested).
   • The testing described is primarily retrospective in the sense that the device is a modification to an already cleared product. The testing involved verification and validation of component changes and system performance against established specifications.
   • Data provenance: Not explicitly stated as "country of origin for data" in the context of clinical data, as no clinical studies on human patients were performed. The testing seems to be internal to GE Healthcare Surgery, likely performed at their facilities or those of their component suppliers.

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

   • The document states "testing performed by users with relevant clinical experience" for the "Product Simulated Use Testing."
   • It does not specify the number of experts, nor their specific qualifications (e.g., "Radiologist with 10 years of experience"). It's a general statement about "users with relevant clinical experience."

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

   • No formal adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus for image interpretation) is mentioned. This is typical for a 510(k) submission for modifications where the focus is on engineering verification and validation rather than new clinical claims requiring extensive reader studies.

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 study was done. This submission is for modifications to an existing fluoroscopic imaging system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The purpose was to demonstrate equivalence of new components and maintain overall system performance, not to evaluate human reader performance with or without AI.

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

   • This question is not applicable. The device is an image-intensified fluoroscopic X-ray system, a hardware and software system for image acquisition and display, not a standalone AI algorithm. The performance evaluated was the system's ability to produce images and function correctly.

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

   • For component-level changes, the "ground truth" was the specifications of the predicate device's components. The new components had to match or exceed these specifications.
   • For system-level functionality and performance (like image quality, electrical/mechanical tests), the "ground truth" was established engineering design input requirements and established standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, 21 CFR 1020.30-32).
   • For "Product Simulated Use Testing," the "ground truth" for meeting user needs was likely based on the assessment/feedback of "users with relevant clinical experience" against the intended use and established functional requirements.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

   • Not applicable as there is no training set for an AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC® Brivo® Mobile C-Arm X-Ray Products are designed to provide digital spot-film imaging and fluoroscopic image quidance for all adult and pediatric populations for orientations between patient anatomy and surgical instruments. The product is used for general surgical applications and musculoskeletal procedures to visualize, for example, implant localization/s or needle positions for aspirations, injections or biopsy. The OEC® Brivo® is not indicated for interventional use.

The OEC® Brivo® is a system used to assist trained physicians. The system is used to provide X-Ray images while the physician performs a medical procedure. Images from the system help the physician to visualize the patients' anatomy. This visualization helps to localize surgical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-surgical anatomy, in vivo-surgical activity and post-surgical outcomes. The system is composed of two primary physical elements. The first is referred to as the "C-Arm" because of its "C" shaped image gantry; the second referred to as the "Workstation" because this is the primary user interface to the system. The system employs X-Rays as its imaging technology. An X-Ray Generator located in the base of the C-Arm creates high voltage. High voltage is carried to the X-Ray tube across a set of cables. The X-Ray tube emits X-Rays that are directed toward the patient under the control of the operator. The Physician defines the desired view for the specific clinical procedure and directs the operator. The X-Rays pass through the patient and are captured by the image intensifier (II). Image intensifier images are captured by a camera and displayed on the image monitor located on the Workstation. The system operator and/or Physician view the images as they are displayed and they may choose to store the images for later review.

This document describes the 510(k) Premarket Notification Submission for the GE Healthcare OEC® Brivo® Mobile Fluoroscopic Imaging System. This is a medical imaging device, not an AI/ML algorithm, so many of the requested criteria for AI/ML studies are not applicable.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, focusing on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a fluoroscopic imaging system and not an AI algorithm performing a specific task like classification or detection, the "acceptance criteria" are related to compliance with medical device standards and the generation of clinically useful images. Device performance is demonstrated through various non-clinical tests.

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • External Image Quality Evaluation: Implied to be images from "human cadavers." No specific number is provided.
  • Product Simulated Testing Performance Use: Uses "anthropomorphic phantoms." No specific number of phantoms or images is provided.
  • Functional Product Simulated Use Testing: Uses "simulated clinical workflow" with no specific numbers of cases or procedures given.
• Data Provenance:
  • The "External Image Quality Evaluation" used human cadavers, implying pre-collected or specifically prepared cadaveric data.
  • The "Product Simulated Testing Performance Use" used anthropomorphic phantoms.
  • The document does not mention specific countries of origin for the cadaver or phantom data.
  • The testing described is prospective in nature, as it involves active testing of the device.

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

• Number of Experts:
  • Functional Product Simulated Use Testing: "an orthopedic surgeon and trained clinical technicians." This suggests at least one orthopedic surgeon and an unspecified number of technicians.
  • External Image Quality Evaluation: "orthopedic surgeons and clinical representatives." This suggests at least two types of evaluators, with an unspecified number for each.
• Qualifications of Experts:
  • "orthopedic surgeon"
  • "trained clinical technicians"
  • "clinical representatives"
  • No specific years of experience or board certifications are provided in the document.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus). The evaluations appear to be direct assessments by the stated experts and technicians. For "External Image Quality Evaluation," where multiple types of evaluators are mentioned, it states "Evaluation of the images by orthopedic surgeons and clinical representatives demonstrated OEC® Brivo® produces useful images," which might imply a collaborative or individual assessment without a formalized adjudication process for discrepancies.

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 MRMC study was done. This device is a fluoroscopic imaging system, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for image interpretation by clinicians. The study aims to demonstrate the device's ability to produce useful images and comply with standards, not to measure reader performance improvement with AI assistance.

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

• N/A. This is a hardware imaging system, not an algorithm. Its performance is its standalone performance in generating images. The evaluations of image quality and functional use are assessments of the system's output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For image quality and clinical utility:
  • Expert assessment/consensus: Orthopedic surgeons and clinical representatives evaluated the "usefulness" of images produced from cadavers and phantoms.
  • Functional verification: The "Product Simulated Use Testing" confirmed the system conforms to user needs and intended uses by an orthopedic surgeon and technicians.
  • Compliance with standards: Verification against established regulatory and international standards (e.g., 21 CFR, IEC 60601 series).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• N/A. This document describes a traditional medical device (fluoroscopic imager), not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The "design inputs" and "user needs" for its functions would have guided its development, rather than a data-driven training process.

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

• N/A. As no training set is applicable for this type of device, no ground truth for a training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC® 9900 Elite is designed to provide fluoroscopic and spot-film images of the patient during diagnostic, surgical and interventional procedures. Examples of clinical application may include cholangiography, endoscopy, urologic, orthopedic, neurologic, vascular, cardiac, critical care and emergency room procedures.

The OEC® 9900 Elite is a system used to assist trained physicians. The system is used to provide X-Ray images while the physician performs a medical procedure. Images from the system help the physician to visualize the patients' anatomy. This visualization helps to localize surgical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-surgical anatomy, in vivo-surgical activity and post-surgical outcomes.

The proposed device will add an alternative supplier for the X-Ray Tube. The current tube and the proposed tube have the same specifications and will be interchangeable. Verification activities confirmed that the proposed tube meets the same specification as the current supplier's tube.

The proposed device will add an alternative supplier for the Radiological Imaging Unit (RIU) or Image Intensifier. The current RIU and the proposed RIU have the same specifications and will be interchangeable. Verification activities confirmed that the alternate RIU meets the same specification as the current supplier's RIU.

The proposed device will provide an optional wireless service platform to allow the user to connect to hospital intranet PACS system. The predicate product features a hard-wired connection. Verification testing confirmed that all specifications, including data security, were met.

Two printed circuit board assemblies have been combined into a single board in the proposed device. Both the proposed and predicate assemblies share common specifications as confirmed through verification testing.

The proposed device will provide an optional wireless foot switch and hand switch. The new option is equivalent to the predicate in that functionality is identical. The wireless option provides placement flexibility and reduced cable clutter.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification Submission for the GE OEC 9900 Elite Mobile Fluoroscopic Imaging System. This submission describes modifications to an existing device rather than a new device requiring extensive clinical trials for performance validation. Therefore, the document discusses verification activities to confirm that the modifications meet the same specifications as the predicate device, rather than a study with specific acceptance criteria related to clinical performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement.

Based on the provided text, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

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

The acceptance criteria are implicitly that the proposed modifications (alternative X-Ray tube, alternative Radiological Imaging Unit (RIU), wireless service platform, combined printed circuit boards, and wireless foot/hand switch) meet the "same specifications" as the current/predicate components and demonstrate "equivalent functionality." The reported device performance is that these criteria were met through verification testing.

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation with patient data. The "verification activities" mentioned are engineering and standards compliance testing, indicating a focus on hardware and software functionality and safety rather than a clinical dataset. Therefore, information about sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective nature of patient data is not provided.

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 study described. The verification testing focused on engineering specifications, not expert interpretation of medical images.

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

This information is not applicable. There was no clinical test set requiring expert adjudication.

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 MRMC study was done. This submission is for modifications to a fluoroscopic imaging system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The focus is on hardware and software equivalence, not human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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

No standalone algorithm performance was evaluated. The device is a "Mobile Fluoroscopic Imaging System," which is an imaging modality, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this submission was based on engineering specifications and voluntary standards compliance. The verification activities confirmed that the modified components met the established technical requirements and safety standards, which are the "ground truth" for this type of medical device modification.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This submission concerns hardware and software modifications to an existing imaging system, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there was no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OEC® 9900 Elite is designed to provide fluoroscopic and spot-film images of the patient during diagnostic, surgical and interventional procedures. Examples of clinical application may include cholangiography, endoscopy, urologic, orthopedic, vascular, cardiac, critical care and emergency room procedures.

The OEC® 9900 Elite is a system used to assist trained physicians. The system is used to provide X-Ray images while the physician performs a medical procedure. Images from the system help the physician to visualize the patients' anatomy. This visualization helps to localize surgical regions of interest and pathology. The images provide real-time visualization and records of pre-surgical anatomy, in vivo-surgical activity and post surgical outcomes. The system is composed of two primary physical elements. The first is referred to as the "C-Arm" because of its "C" shaped image gantry; the second referred to as the "Workstation" because this is the primary user interface to the system.

The provided text describes the GE OEC 9900 Elite Mobile Fluoroscopic Imaging System and its 510(k) premarket notification. However, it does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria in the way typically expected for performance-based medical device submissions (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, etc., with detailed statistical analysis).

The submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (OEC 9900 Elite, K082781) by stating that the modified device "employs the same fundamental scientific technology" and that "engineering testing and standards compliance testing were successfully conducted and did not raise any new safety questions or concerns or identify new risks."

Therefore, I cannot fulfill most of your request from the provided text, as the specific details you're asking for are not present.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the available information, highlighting what is not present:

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

• Information Not Provided: The submission does not specify numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., for image quality, resolution, contrast, etc.) nor does it report specific performance metrics against such criteria. The claim is substantial equivalence to a predicate device, implying that the performance is at least as good as the predicate.

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

• Information Not Provided: The document does not describe any specific "test set" of patient data or images used for performance evaluation. The "engineering testing and standards compliance testing" mentioned would typically involve technical performance verification (e.g., calibration, image quality phantoms) rather than clinical image interpretation by humans.

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)

• Information Not Provided: Since no clinical test set is described, there's no mention of experts or ground truth establishment in this context.

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

• Information Not Provided: No clinical test set or adjudication method is described.

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

• Information Not Provided: This device is a fluoroscopic imaging system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant to this submission and is not mentioned.

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

• Information Not Provided: This device is a direct imaging system, not an algorithm. Its performance is inherent to its imaging capabilities, with a human operator (physician or system operator) in the loop during its intended use. It does not have a "standalone algorithm" performance to report.

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

• Information Not Provided: No clinical ground truth is discussed in this submission. The "ground truth" for showing substantial equivalence relies on technical specifications and adherence to standards for the device's components and overall function, compared to the predicate.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Information Not Provided: This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set."

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

• Information Not Provided: This device is not an AI/ML algorithm, so there is no training set or associated ground truth establishment.

Summary based on the provided text:

The GE OEC 9900 Elite Mobile Fluoroscopic Imaging System K120613 submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (OEC 9900 Elite, K082781) rather than presenting a de novo performance study against explicit acceptance criteria.

The key statements regarding performance and safety are:

• "The modified OEC® 9900 Elite device employs the same fundamental scientific technology as the predicate device."
• "Engineering testing and standards compliance testing were successfully conducted and did not raise any new safety questions or concerns or identify new risks."
• "GE Healthcare considers the modified GE OEC® 9900 Elite to be safe, as effective, and performance is substantially equivalent to the predicate device OEC® 9900 Elite (K082781)."

This type of 510(k) submission typically does not include the detailed clinical performance studies, reader studies, or AI algorithm evaluation metrics you requested. The "study" referenced would be the engineering and standards compliance testing that validated the modifications did not alter the fundamental safety or effectiveness demonstrated by the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device