Search Results

The Twin Star Extremity Compartment Monitor and Fluid Collection System (ECM-III) is intended for the immediate or continuous measurement of intracompartmental pressures and/or the withdrawal of fluid for subsequent analysis. The measured compartmental pressures can be used as an aid in the diagnosis of compartment syndrome.

The Twin Star Extremity Compartment Monitor and Fluid Collection System (ECM-III) consists of four major components; an Introducer, a Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection (PMFC) Catheter, a Fluid Collection (FC) Catheter, and a Compartment Pressure Monitor. The Introducer consists of tear-away plastic sheath placed over a stainless steel trocar. The Introducer provides an access to the targeted muscle compartment to facilitate the placement of the indwelling Pressure Monitoring Fluid Collection / Fluid Collection catheter. The indwelling Catheter is designed to monitor intramuscular compartment pressure as well as provide a means to sample interstitial fluid for laboratory analysis. The indwelling Catheter is designed for use up to 24 hours. The Twin Star Extremity Compartment Monitor and Fluid Collection System (ECM-III) provides a means of displaying the intracompartmental pressure.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Twin Star Extremity Compartment Monitor and Fluid Collection System (ECM-III). It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitor and Fluid Collection Catheter System (CMS-II)).

However, the document does not provide specific acceptance criteria in a quantitative format, nor does it detail a study that proves the device meets such criteria in terms of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, the performance data section focuses on verification and validation activities related to safety standards rather than clinical efficacy.

Therefore, many of the requested bullet points cannot be answered based on the information provided in this 510(k) summary.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be extracted:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The document states: "A risk assessment was conducted which covered (1) all aspects of the possible effects on the safety and effectiveness of the modified device, (b) described each device modification under consideration, (c) the verification and validation activities with acceptance criteria, (d) scientific justification for each activity and (e) acceptance criteria."

However, it then only lists the types of testing performed (ASTM 4169-09, electrical safety IEC 60601-1, EMC Emissions and Immunity IEC 60601-1-2) and concludes: "Results from this testing provide assurance that the proposed device has been designed and tested to assure conformance to the requirements for its intended use."

It does not explicitly state the quantitative acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., accuracy, precision) related to its intended use (measurement of intracompartmental pressures) or the reported numerical performance outcomes against those criteria. It only implies that the device conforms to safety standards.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
Not available in this document. The listed tests are engineering/safety compliance tests, not clinical performance studies with patient data.

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. No clinical expert-driven ground truth establishment is mentioned for this type of device (a pressure monitor).

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 device is a measurement tool, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging system requiring reader studies.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. This is a medical device for direct measurement, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
For device performance in terms of pressure measurement accuracy, the "ground truth" would typically come from calibrated reference instruments. The document implies such testing was part of the "verification and validation activities with acceptance criteria," but it does not detail the specifics of how this ground truth was established or what values were considered ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

In summary:

This 510(k) document primarily addresses the safety and the claim of substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on similar technological characteristics and performance attributes (like "Monitoring Pressure Electrical Safety Vacuum Source Principles of operation"). It describes engineering and safety compliance testing, but it does not provide the kind of detailed clinical performance acceptance criteria, study data, or ground truth methodologies that would typically be found for diagnostic devices involving human interpretation or complex algorithms.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitor and Fluid Collection Catheter System (CMS-II) is intended for the immediate or continuous measurement of intracompartmental pressures and/or the withdrawal of fluid for subsequent analysis. The measured compartmental pressures can be used as an aid in the diagnosis of compartment syndrome.

The Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter System (CMS-II) consists of four major components; an Introducer, a Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection (PMFC) Catheter, a Fluid Collection (FC) Catheter, and a Compartment Pressure Monitor. The Introducer consists of tear-away plastic sheath placed over a stainless steel trocar. compartment to facilitate the placement of the indwelling Pressure Monitoring Fluid Collection / Fluid Collection catheter. The indwelling Catheter is designed to monitor intramuscular compartment pressure as well as provide a means to sample interstitial fluid for laboratory analysis. The indwelling Catheter is designed for use up to 24 hours. The Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitoring provides a means of displaying the intracompartmental pressure.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitor and Fluid Collection Catheter System (CMS-II). This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through performance testing rather than establishing acceptance criteria and detailed study results for a novel AI device.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific performance metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment is not available in the provided text, as these are typically part of studies for novel devices or AI algorithms.

However, based on the text, I can infer the following:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a table format, nor does it provide specific reported device performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity. Instead, it indicates that "Bench testing was performed to support a determination of substantial equivalence and consisted of biocompatibility, electrical safety testing and design verification. Results from this testing provide assurance that the proposed device has been designed and tested to assure conformance to the requirements for its intended use."

   The performance attributes considered for substantial equivalence are:

   • Monitoring Pressure
   • Fluid Collection
   • Membrane Diameter
   • Single Patient Use
   • Pressure Sensor Location
   • Electrical Safety
   • Vacuum Source
   • Principles of operation

   While these are attributes, they are not presented as quantitative acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
   Not specified. The document only mentions "Bench testing" which implies laboratory-based tests rather than clinical data from a "test set" in the context of an AI study.

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. The device's performance was evaluated through bench testing and design verification, not against expert-established ground truth from a test set of patient data.

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

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 study was not done. This device is a physical medical device (pressure monitor and catheter system), not an AI algorithm designed to assist human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. Its "standalone" performance would be its inherent accuracy and reliability as a physical instrument, which would have been assessed during the "bench testing" and "design verification." However, specific metrics are not provided.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
   Not applicable in the context of clinical "ground truth" as might be used for an AI algorithm. For this device, the "ground truth" would be established by validated measurement standards and known physical properties during bench testing (e.g., a known pressure applied to calibrate the monitor, known fluid volumes).

8. The sample size for the training set:
   Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm with a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm with a training set.

Summary of the study and its purpose:

The document describes a submission for 510(k) clearance for the Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitor and Fluid Collection Catheter System (CMS-II). The purpose of the study (bench testing, design verification, and risk analysis) was to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, thereby ensuring the safety and effectiveness of the new device for its intended use (immediate or continuous measurement of intracompartmental pressures and/or fluid withdrawal for analysis to aid in the diagnosis of compartment syndrome). The studies performed confirmed biocompatibility, electrical safety, and overall system operation, but specific performance metrics are not detailed in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter System is intended for the immediate or continuous measurement of intracompartmental pressure and for the withdrawal of fluid for subsequent analysis. The measured pressures and the withdrawn fluid serve as an aid in the diagnosis of compartment syndrome.

The Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter System Consists of two major components i.e., an Introducer and an indwelling Catheter. The Introducer consists of a plastic sheath placed over a stainless steel trocar. The Introducer provides an access to the targeted muscle compartment to facilitate the placement of the indwelling Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter. The indwelling Catheter is designed to measure intramuscular compartment pressure as well as provide a means to collect a sample interstitial fluid for laboratory analysis. The indwelling Catheter is designed for use up to 24 hours. The Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter System is designed to be used with currently marketed equipment including a vacuum pump, infusion pump, pressure transducer and monitor.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the "Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter System." However, it does not include detailed acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study report with the specific information requested in your prompt. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Based on the available text, here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states: "Documentation has been provided which demonstrates that the Twin Star Compartment Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter System is substantially equivalent to other legally marketed predicate devices such as the Stryker Intra-Compartment Pressure Monitor System: Comparison of the Twin Star Compartment Syndrome Pressure Monitoring and Fluid Collection Catheter System with the predicate system to measure intracompartment pressure in an animal model and a human clinical study."

This indicates that a comparison was made, but the specific acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy within a certain mmHg, sensitivity, specificity, or specific performance metrics) for the Twin Star device are not explicitly stated. The document implies that the performance was comparable to the predicate device to establish substantial equivalence, but the quantitative results are not provided.

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not specified. The document mentions "an animal model and a human clinical study" were used for comparison, but the number of animals or human subjects is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The studies included "an animal model and a human clinical study." No information on the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective is available in this text.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified.

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

• MRMC Study: No, this device is a physical catheter system for measuring pressure and collecting fluid, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance is not applicable.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable. This is a hardware device for direct physiological measurement, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Type of Ground Truth: The document implies that the ground truth for performance comparison was obtained by measuring intracompartmental pressure using a "predicate system" (Stryker Intra-Compartment Pressure Monitor System) in both animal and human studies. This suggests the predicate device's measurements served as the reference for comparison, which is a form of comparative ground truth against an established device. For the fluid collection aspect, presumably, the ability to collect fluid for subsequent analysis was assessed.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size (Training Set): Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Ground Truth (Training Set): Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

In summary, the provided 510(k) summary focuses on establishing substantial equivalence for a physical medical device. It lacks detailed information regarding specific acceptance criteria, study sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth methodologies that would typically be found in a study report for an AI/ML or image-based diagnostic device.

Ask a specific question about this device