Search Results

The Isolyser SDS is a sharps container intended for use in non-clinical settings for the disposal of contaminated sharps.

The Isolyser Syringe Disposal System (SDS) has the same uses as other sharps containers in commercial distribution: to provide safe and effective disposal of medical sharps. The major difference between the Isolyser SMS 1000 and the SDS relate to the setting in which the device will be used. The SDS is intended for use in non-clinical settings while the Isolyser SMS 1000 is used in clinical settings. As is true for the Isolyser SMS 1000, the SDS is closable, puncture resistant and leakproof on the sides and the bottom. The fluorescent orange BIOHAZARD warning labels are clearly visible with lettering in contrasting color and are affixed by adhesive to the SDS containers. Like the SMS 1000, the SDS container maintains a stable and upright position. There is no feature to bend, break, or shear the needle off the hub of the syringe. When the SDS is full, the user adds water to the SDS to activate the "Gel-loc" system. After replacing the cap on the SDS, the user shakes the container well. The user then places the SDS into the carton provided and seals it with tape. The user then disposes of the sealed carton according to local, state and federal laws. The disposal methods for the SMS 1000 and the SDS are quite similar. As is true for SMS 1000, the SDS containers are designed so that no user is required to reach by hand into the container to retrieve the contaminated reusable sharps. As indicated on all labels for SDS containers, safe and effective disposal of the waste is easily accomplished.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Isolyser SDS container, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Isolyser SMS 1000). It is not a study that provides performance data against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted directly from the provided text because this type of regulatory submission establishes equivalence based on similar design and intended use, rather than presenting detailed experimental results against a new set of performance criteria for the new device.

Here's what can be gathered, and what cannot:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Not applicable. The document establishes substantial equivalence by stating the new device (Isolyser SDS) has "essentially the same technical characteristics" as the predicate device (Isolyser SMS 1000) and that "The data demonstrate that the performance of the Isolyser SDS is substantially equivalent to other legally marketed sharps containers." No specific acceptance criteria or quantitative performance data are reported for the SDS container itself.

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

Not applicable. No "test set" in the context of performance evaluation (e.g., measuring puncture resistance or leak-proof properties against a standard) is described. The document relies on the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate device (Isolyser SMS 1000) and the similarity in design and function.

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

Not applicable. This is not a study involving expert review or ground truth establishment in a diagnostic or clinical sense.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication 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:

Not applicable. This is a medical device for sharps disposal, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or software device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

Not applicable. In the context of substantial equivalence for a sharps container, the "ground truth" is typically an existing set of regulatory standards and the demonstrated performance of the predicate device. The claim is that the new device meets these implicit standards through its similarity to the predicate.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

Not applicable.

Summary of what can be inferred from the document:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): The implied acceptance criteria are the safety and effectiveness standards already met by legally marketed sharps containers, specifically the predicate device, Isolyser Sharps Management System ("SMS") 1000 (K943626).
• Study Proving Device Meets Criteria: The "study" (or rather, the basis for the 510(k) submission) is a comparison to a predicate device (Isolyser SMS 1000). The document argues that the Isolyser SDS "has essentially the same technical characteristics as the Isolyser SMS 1000" and that "The materials and method of manufacturing the SDS container itself is nearly identical to the methods used to manufacture the SMS 1000." The only difference noted is the disposal method ("Gel-Loc System" for SDS vs. "catalyst" for SMS 1000), which the submitter claims "does not materially affect the safety or effectiveness of the device."
• Conclusion: The submission concludes that "The data demonstrate that the performance of the Isolyser SDS is substantially equivalent to other legally marketed sharps containers." The FDA's letter concurs with this finding of substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

A surgeon's vest contructed of OREX nonwoven fabric for use as additional protection for surgeons during a surgical procedure.

A surgeon's vest contructed of OREX nonwoven fabric for use as additional protection for surgeons during a surgical procedure. The material is flame resistant, and is resistant to fluid penetration. The material also has low lint characteristics, meets suitable strength requirements for its intended use, and is resistant to tearing. The material is dissolvable after use in an OREX processor or may be disposed of using the hospital or healthcare facilities standard disposal method.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "OREX Surgeon's Vest." It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device ("Surgeon's Vest Isolyser/White Knight") rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance metrics as you would find for a diagnostic or AI-powered device.

Therefore, many of your requested points are not applicable to the information provided in this 510(k) summary. I will address the points that are relevant and explain why others cannot be answered from this document.

Detailed Breakdown based on the provided text:

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

   • Not applicable in the format requested for specific quantitative metrics. This 510(k) summary describes that "All testing conducted on the fabric used in this product was tested according to guidance documents published for biocompatibility." It also states, "The results from these tests were found to be acceptable when compared to that of the predicate device. In some instances test results were found to exceed those of the predicate device."
   • It generally implies acceptance criteria are met if the new device's performance is comparable to or better than the predicate device for parameters like flame resistance, fluid penetration resistance, low lint characteristics, suitable strength, and tearing resistance. However, no specific numerical thresholds or performance values are provided.

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

   • Not provided. The document does not specify sample sizes for any of the testing conducted on the fabric. It also doesn't mention data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective).

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. This device is a physical product (a surgeon's vest) and its performance is evaluated through material property testing, not through expert-based interpretation of data for ground truth establishment.

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for subjective evaluations often involving multiple readers or experts, which is not the case for material property testing described here.

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 a physical product, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI assistance metrics are irrelevant.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical product, not an algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable in the requested sense. The "ground truth" for this device would be established by standardized material testing methods and compliance with relevant industry or regulatory standards for attributes like flame resistance, fluid penetration, strength, and tearing resistance. Comparison to the predicate device's performance serves as the benchmark.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable. This is a physical product being tested for material properties, not an AI model requiring a training set.

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

   • Not applicable. See point 8.

Summary based on the provided text:

The document describes a 510(k) submission aiming to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the OREX Surgeon's Vest to a predicate device. The primary method of showing this equivalence relies on material testing of the OREX nonwoven fabric according to "guidance documents published for biocompatibility." The results of these tests were found to be "acceptable when compared to that of the predicate device," and in some cases "exceeded those of the predicate device." This general statement of acceptability and superiority relative to the predicate device serves as the implicit "acceptance criteria" and "performance demonstration" within the context of this regulatory submission for a physical medical device. Specific quantitative data, sample sizes, expert involvement, or AI-related metrics are not provided as they are not relevant to this type of device and submission.

Ask a specific question about this device