Search Results

The Model PMT850 device is a pulsed shortwave diathermy device. The Model PMT850 system consists of a Generating Unit connected by a cable to the Treatment Applicator. The Treatment Applicator and cable are a single unit which is connected or disconnected easily from the Generating Unit. The Generating Unit connects to a standard AC electrical outlet by a grounded 3-prong UL/CSA approved, medically rated electric cord.

Treatment with the Model PMT850 requires placing the Treatment Applicator on top of any standard dressing over the area to be treated, setting the dials on the Generating Unit, and turning the device on. There are 6 possible pulse frequency and 6 possible power control settings on the generating unit of the Model PMT850, providing 36 setting options for treatment. Suggested treatment settings are discussed in the Operating Manual for the Model PMT850.

AI/ML Overview

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Model PMT850, a nonthermal shortwave therapy (SWT) device. The purpose of the submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the demonstration of "substantial equivalence" to the predicate device, K903675, MRT sofPulse shortwave diathermy. This equivalence is based on similar intended use, indications for use, and technological characteristics, and confirmed through performance studies.

Characteristic / Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance (Model PMT850)
Intended Use	Same as predicate: palliative treatment of postoperative edema and pain in superficial soft tissue.
Indications for Use	Same as predicate: palliative treatment of postoperative edema and pain in superficial soft tissue.
Technological Characteristics	Equivalent to predicate (power supply, operating principle, energy transfer mechanism, treatment applicator, device physical conformation, packaging, operating frequency, RF output impedance, RF pulse width, RF pulse waveform, pulse frequency, pulse duty cycle, exposure timer). The PMT850 requires lower peak RF generator power for equivalent peak power from the applicator.
Applicator Field Measurements	Results support substantial equivalence with the predicate device.
Output Energy Comparison	Results support substantial equivalence with the predicate device.
Conformance to Electrical Safety Standards (e.g., UL 60601-1)	Will comply prior to marketing.
Conformance to Electromagnetic Compatibility Standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1-2)	Will comply prior to marketing.
Biocompatibility Testing of Treatment Applicator Covering	Passed tests for cytotoxicity/irritancy (ISO 10993-5) for its high-grade polyethylene foam (device itself does not contact patient skin).

Note: The document explicitly states, "The only technical specification that differs is the lower peak RF generator power required for the Model PMT850 Generating Unit to provide an equivalent amount of Peak Power as the predicate from the Treatment Applicator for each of the six power settings." This difference is deemed not to affect safety or effectiveness.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the performance testing (Applicator Field Measurements and Output Energy Comparison). It mentions that the testing was conducted by two independent laboratories. The data provenance is implied to be from these laboratory tests, likely conducted in the United States (given the FDA submission and the sponsor's location in Arizona). The studies were likely prospective in nature, as they involve testing a new device against a predicate.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The "ground truth" here would relate to the objective measurements of device performance, which were conducted by independent laboratories. The document does not specify the qualifications of the personnel performing these tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This type of adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is typically associated with expert review of medical images or clinical outcomes for diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment effect studies. For the engineering performance tests described (Applicator Field Measurements, Output Energy Comparison), an adjudication method is not applicable as the results are quantitative measurements against predefined specifications or comparison with a predicate. The document states testing was done by "two independent laboratories," suggesting independent verification rather than 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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a physical therapy device, not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool that would require human reader studies.

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

This refers to the performance of a device without human input, which could be considered analogous to the "performance studies" (Applicator Field Measurements and Output Energy Comparison) conducted. These tests were evaluating the intrinsic performance characteristics of the Model PMT850 itself and its comparison to the predicate, making it a form of standalone performance assessment in an engineering context. However, it's not an "algorithm" in the sense of AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for these performance studies was the established technical specifications and measured output of the legally marketed predicate device (MRT sofPulse shortwave diathermy). The Model PMT850's performance was compared to this benchmark to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

There is no training set in the context of this device. A training set is relevant for machine learning algorithms. This submission pertains to a physical medical device demonstrating equivalence based on engineering specifications and direct performance comparisons.

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

As there is no training set for this device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1