Search Results

The Flamingo™ WALLSTENT® Esophageal Endoprosthesis is intended to be used for the - palliative treatment of strictures of the esophagus, - including cardia, due to a malignant process - palliative treatment of tracheo-esophageal fistulae due to a malignant process.

The Flamingo™ WALLSTENT® Esophageal Endoprosthesis is a self expanding prosthesis constructed of biomedical superalloy with an elastomeric polymer covering. The prosthesis is a braided wire structure which is covered with elastomeric polymer over approx. 75 % of it's length. The outward radial force, the conical shape of the stent along with the ends of the device serve to stabilize the placed. The stent's purpose is to increase or maintain the inner lumenal diameter of the esophageal passage or to close tracheo-esophageal fistulae. The stent is placed by means of a delivery system. The delivery system is a coaxial tubing assembly which constrains the prosthesis until it is released in a controlled manner. The release of the stent is accomplished by the sliding of the outer coaxial tube. The prosthesis is packaged constrained on the delivery system ready for placement. The system is sterile and intended for single use only.

This document describes the Flamingo™ WALLSTENT® Esophageal Endoprosthesis, a medical device for treating esophageal strictures and tracheo-esophageal fistulae due to malignant processes. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, or any of the other specific details requested in the prompt related to a comparative effectiveness study, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth establishment.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary from 1999, which primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices based on design, materials, manufacturing methods, and indications for use. It's a regulatory document for market clearance, not typically a detailed report of clinical study results or performance metrics as requested by the prompt for AI/diagnostic devices.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request using the provided input, as the information is not present in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Docking-Extension Wire is intended for extension of the working length of an already introduced guide wire when exchanging over-the-wire interventional devices during an angioplasty procedure.

The SCHNEIDER Docking-Extension Wire is used to elongate the working length of compatible SCHNEIDER extendable guide wires. The stainless-steel Docking-Extension Wire has an outer diameter of 0.014" (0.36 mm) and a length of 130 cm. Its distal end bears a preformed superelastic connecting hypotube. This superelastic property allows the proximal end of the quide wire to be fixed in the hypotube to such an extent. that axial forces can easily be transmitted. A docking aid enables easy introduction of the extendable end of the guide wire into the hypotube. The device is compatible with the SCHNEIDER extendable guide wires (C-Thru, Hannibal and Clyde). The currently marketed guide wires had been slightly modified at the proximal end to create a tapered end in order to be accommodated into the hypotube of the Docking-Extension Wire. This modification does not in any way affect the safety or performance of the guide wire.

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (Docking-Extension Wire), not a study evaluating an AI device. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI performance, ground truth, and expert evaluation are not applicable.

Instead, the document details the equivalence testing performed to demonstrate that the new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing the applicable categories:

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

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

• The document does not specify the sample sizes (number of devices tested) for the comparative performance testing or the biocompatibility testing.
• The data provenance is from testing conducted by SCHNEIDER (Europe) GmbH in Switzerland. This is prospective testing specifically for the submission.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device equivalence study, not an AI study relying on expert-established ground truth for medical image interpretation or diagnosis. The "ground truth" here is the performance of the predicate device and established biocompatibility standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable. There was no human adjudication process involved in comparing the device's technical performance. The evaluation was based on objective physical and chemical tests against the predicate device and recognized standards.

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 therefore no MRMC study was conducted or is relevant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The "ground truth" for the performance testing was the performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate device (ACS DOC™ Extension Wire) and established international standards for biocompatibility testing. The goal was to prove "equivalence in technological characteristics."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI model, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set for an AI model, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Clyde Coronary Guidewire is intended for use in percutaneous procedures to reach and cross stenotic lesions prior to the insertion of a coronary balloon dilation catheter.

The Clyde Coronary Guidewire is a 0.014" guidewire manufactured in lengths of 100-400 cm. The guidewire is made of a stainless steel, PTFE coated proximal shaft, which tapers down to a flexible distal tip. The tip area consists of a radiopaque tungsten spring coil. The distal 3 cm of the coil are very flexible and shapeable.

The provided text (K970528) describes a 510(k) submission for the "Clyde Coronary Guidewire." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study with acceptance criteria for device performance as would typically be seen for a new technology or algorithm.

Therefore, many of the typical clinical study parameters requested (such as acceptance criteria table, sample sizes, expert qualifications, MRMC study, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set details) are not applicable or not present in this type of submission.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant information provided and why other requested details are absent:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Not applicable in this document. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (C-Thru Coronary Guidewire) based on design, materials, and intended use, rather than meeting specific quantifiable performance metrics through a clinical or algorithmic study with acceptance criteria.
• The "performance" discussed is related to the similarity in technological characteristics and a reduced biocompatibility battery.

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

• Not applicable. This submission doesn't describe a "test set" in the context of a performance study with patient data or an algorithmic evaluation. The assessment is primarily based on a comparison of device specifications and limited in-vitro testing.

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

• Not applicable. There is no "ground truth" establishment in the context of diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcome for this type of device submission. The evaluation is on the physical and material properties of the guidewire.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable. See point 3.

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

• No, not performed, and not applicable. This is a medical device (guidewire), not an AI/imaging diagnostic device. Therefore, a study involving human readers and AI assistance is irrelevant to this submission.

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

• No, not performed, and not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Not applicable. There is no "ground truth" in the sense of a reference standard for diagnostic performance. The "truth" in this context is the technical equivalence to a legally marketed device and compliance with material safety (biocompatibility).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an algorithm requiring machine learning.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Summary of Information from the Provided Text:

The document describes a 510(k) submission for a coronary guidewire, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device. The primary method for demonstrating safety and effectiveness is by proving substantial equivalence to a currently marketed predicate device.

Key takeaway from the provided information:

• Predicate Device: C-Thru Coronary Guidewire
• Method of Equivalence: Detailed comparison of design and materials between the Clyde and C-Thru coronary guidewires.
• Biocompatibility Testing: A reduced biocompatibility battery (consisting of hemolysis and cytotoxicity tests) was conducted due to the similarity in materials with the predicate device. The results indicated equivalence and safety.

This type of submission relies on showing that the new device is fundamentally similar to an already approved device, meaning it doesn't raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. Therefore, the detailed performance study parameters typically requested for new diagnostic algorithms or novel therapeutic devices are not present.

Ask a specific question about this device

The HANNIBAL™ steerable guide wires are designed to reach and cross stenotic lesions prior to the insertion on a coronary balloon dilatation catheter. Schneider steerable stont support guide wires are also designed to reach and cross stenotic lesions prior to the insertion of a coronary balloon dilatation catheter with mounted expandable stent, or of a stent delivery device. Any use other than that intended is not recommended.

The HANNIBAL " Guidewire is a 0.014" guidewire manufactured in lengths of 185-315 cm. The guidewire is made of stainless steel, HIHE coated proximal shatt, which tapers down to a flexible distal tip. The tip area consists of a radiopaque tungsten spring coll. which is attached to the distal flexible shaft port and soldered to the proximal taper of the shaft. The dietal part of the coil is very flexible and shapeable.

This 510(k) summary for the HANNIBAL™ Guidewire (K970494) does not provide information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets them in the AI/machine learning context you're asking about. This document is from 1997 and predates the widespread use of AI in medical devices and the establishment of regulatory frameworks for evaluating AI-based devices.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on technological characteristics and performance testing relevant to traditional medical devices like guidewires.

Here's why your requested information cannot be found in this document, and how it relates to the information provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document does not present acceptance criteria in the form of metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, which are common for AI/ML devices. Instead, it mentions "comparative performance testing" for characteristics like "bond strength, tip flexibility, coating adhesion, torque and compatibility with interventional devices." The "reported device performance" is summarized by the statement: "The results of all testing indicated that the HANNIBAL™ guidewire is equivalent to the ACS Hi-Torque Extra S'port™ guidewire and is, therefore, safe for the intended use." Specific quantitative values for these performance metrics are not given, nor are explicit acceptance thresholds.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable. This document refers to physical device testing, not a dataset for an AI model.

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): Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the AI sense is not relevant here. The "truth" for this device would be its physical conformance to specifications and its performance in mechanical and material tests.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.

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 for a physical guidewire, not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For a guidewire, "ground truth" relates to its material properties and mechanical performance meeting engineering specifications and safety standards. This is typically established through laboratory testing.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no AI model being trained.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary: The provided document is for a traditional medical device (a guidewire) and focuses on demonstrating its substantial equivalence to existing devices through standard engineering and biocompatibility testing. It does not involve any AI/ML components, and therefore, the acceptance criteria and study details requested for an AI device are not present.

Ask a specific question about this device