Search Results

The Arrow UltraCath Continuous Nerve block Catheter is placed next to nerve plexuses for continuous nerve block anesthesia or analgesia techniques for periods not exceeding 72 hours.

Stimulating continuous nerve block catheters consist of a stainless steel spring coil encased in a polyurethane outer jacket. The inner spring coil contributes a kink-resistance nature to the catheter when bent through small radii, and in stimulating catheters provides electrical conductivity. A ribbon wire is welded to both the proximal and distal ends of the inside of the coil to prevent stretching. The coils of the main catheter body are tightly wound axially (small pitch), with zero space between adjacent coils. The catheter tip is visible under ultrasound.

The plastic jacket of the Conductive Resin Tip UltraCath Continuous Nerve Block Catheter is made of transparent resin and the catheter tip is made of black electrically conductive resin that covers the internal stainless steel spring coil and seals the system against undesired fluid or air ingress or egress. Anesthetics are distributed into the patient body through a single end hole located at the catheter distal end. The catheter distal tip is made of electrically conductive resin which provides an electrical contact point. The distal end of the catheter is printed with centimeter markings to aid in depth determination during catheter insertion. There is also printed distance indicator at proximal end in order to indicate proper catheter insertion inside the adaptor. A stylet placed inside the catheter's spring coil provides stiffness during the insertion procedure.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and study proving a device meets them in the context of an AI/ML-based medical device. The document is a 510(k) summary for a physical medical device called the "UltraCath Continuous Nerve Block Catheter" and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through various performance and biocompatibility tests.

There is no mention of:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML device.
• Sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, or use of experts and adjudication for ground truth related to an AI/ML algorithm.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or standalone AI performance.
• Training set details for an AI/ML model.

The document lists various physical and chemical tests for the catheter, such as aspiration, column strength, flow rate, electrical leakage, and biocompatibility, but these are for the hardware itself, not an AI component.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Hudson RCI® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifier adds humidity to a patient's breathing gases.

Hudson RCI® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifiers add water vapor (molecular H₂O) to a dry medical gas that is suspended in the gas to be inhaled by the patient.

The Hudson RCI® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifiers are designed to add humidity to inspired gas, helping to control the drying and irritation of the respiratory mucosa. The humidifiers feature a micro-diffuser that produces smaller bubbles and greater surface agitation, allowing for a quiet operation and therapeutic humidity output.

Prefilled sterile reservoirs for AquaPak® Humidifiers come in four sizes; 190ml, 340ml, 540ml and 650ml. Each reservoir must be used with a suitable adaptor component, which connects the system to a flow-metered gas source and provides humidifier functionality.

Adaptor types provided with Hudson RC1® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifiers feature an audible pressure relief valve, which indicates a restriction of gas flow to the user.

The provided text describes the 510(k) Summary for the Hudson RCI® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifier. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through comparative characteristics and non-clinical performance testing. However, it does not contain the detailed information required to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study proving the device meets those criteria, particularly for a medical AI/ML device.

Here's an analysis of what can be extracted and what is missing based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document lists "Technology and Features" for the proposed device and predicate devices, which can be interpreted as performance specifications or criteria. It also mentions "Non-clinical Comparative Performance Testing" but doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for each test or detailed results.

Missing Information for Acceptance Criteria: The document describes the type of tests performed and the principle of the tests, but it lacks specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "Cannula Pop-Off strength must be > X Newtons") and the quantitative results (e.g., "Cannula Pop-Off strength was Y Newtons, which passed"). The "Reported Device Performance" column largely reflects the purpose of the test rather than the actual outcome against specific criteria.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

This document describes a physical medical device (humidifier), not an AI/ML device. Therefore, concepts like "test set," "training set," "data provenance," and "country of origin" as typically applied to AI/ML models are not directly applicable.

• Test Set/Training Set: Not applicable in the context of this traditional medical device. No data sets are mentioned for model training or testing.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

Not applicable for this type of device and study. The "ground truth" for a humidifier's performance would be derived from physical measurements and engineering specifications, not expert consensus on interpretations.

4. Adjudication Method

Not applicable for this type of device and study. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in evaluating subjective assessments, often in diagnostic imaging by multiple readers.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device where human reader performance with and without AI would be compared.

6. Standalone Performance

The non-clinical performance testing summarized in Section K (Packaging Integrity, Ink Adherence, Cannula Pop-Off, Bottle Burst, Occlusion, Spitting, Humidification Output) represents the standalone performance evaluation of the device as an engineering product. However, the details of these studies, including specific protocols, sample sizes for each test, and quantitative results against pre-defined acceptance limits, are not provided in this summary document.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical comparative performance testing, the "ground truth" would be objective physical measurements and engineering standards (e.g., pressure readings, humidity measurements in mg H2O/L, observation of spitting/flooding). The document indicates that some tests referenced standards (ISTA 2A, ASTM F2252) while others did not ("N/A").

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

Summary of What the Document Provides regarding "Acceptance Criteria" and "Study":

The document provides a high-level summary of non-clinical bench testing conducted to demonstrate that the Hudson RCI® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifier is substantially equivalent to predicate devices and will perform as intended.

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): The implied acceptance criteria for the new device are that its performance (flow rate, occlusion notification, humidity output) is comparable to the predicate devices and meets its own stated specifications, and that it passes specific functional and integrity tests (e.g., no spitting/flooding, package integrity, ink adherence).
• Study: The "study" referenced is a series of "Bench Testing" activities focused on:
  • Packaging Integrity (referencing ISTA 2A)
  • Ink Adherence (referencing ASTM F2252)
  • Cannula Pop-Off, Bottle Burst, Occlusion Test
  • Spitting Test
  • Humidification Output Test

The document states that these tests were performed to "verify that the performance of the proposed Hudson RCI® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifier is substantially equivalent to the predicate device, and that the Hudson RCI® AquaPak® Prefilled Humidifier will perform as intended."

Missing Detailed Information:
The K141353 summary is intentionally concise and does not include the full study reports. To fully answer your question with explicit acceptance criteria, detailed results, and sample sizes for each bench test, one would need to refer to the complete study reports submitted to the FDA, which are not part of this summary document. The information provided is sufficient for a 510(k) summary (demonstrating substantial equivalence) but not for a detailed scientific publication of a study.

Ask a specific question about this device