Search Results

2 Way Latex Foley Catheters

Indicated where routine drainage of the bladder is required ether postoperatively or for patients with conditions requiring urine drainage.

3 Way Latex Foley Catheter

Indicated where routine drainage of the bladder is required either postoperatively or for patients with conditions requiring urine drainage and for patients requiring bladder irrigation.

The Rüsch Latex Gold Foley Catheter is available as 2 Way catheter, with a proximal funnel, non-return inflation valve and bladder fixation balloon, and 3 Way catheter which includes an additional irrigation channel with proximal funnel. The catheter is manufactured of natural latex, provided sterile, single use, and disposable. The inflation valve is designed for use with Luer lock syringe tips. Balloon inflation volumes in millimeters, as well as shaft size in French gauge (Fr.), Charrière (Ch.), or millimeters (mm), are indicated on the funnel of each individual catheters are siliconized, or surface finished with Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The Gold Foley Catheter maximum use/indwelling period is less than 30 days. The device has different models of catheters namely PURE GOLD, Gold Pediatric, Gold, and the Gold Haematuria.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device: the Rüsch Latex Gold Foley Catheter. This document largely focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device for regulatory clearance. It does not describe acceptance criteria for an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) or a study proving its performance against such criteria. The document explicitly lists nonclinical testing conducted for the physical Foley catheter, such as biocompatibility, sterilization validation, accelerated aging, and performance/functional testing per ASTM standards for a physical medical device.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria for an AI/software device, its performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, or details about MRMC studies, as these types of studies were not conducted or described in this document for the Rüsch Latex Gold Foley Catheter.

The document pertains to a physical medical device. The "acceptance criteria" discussed implicitly are related to the successful completion of the listed nonclinical tests and demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device, YiKang Latex Foley Catheter (K173340), for FDA clearance. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the nonclinical testing detailed in section 7 of the document.

Here's how I can answer based on the provided text, interpreting "acceptance criteria" and "study" in the context of a physical medical device:

Acceptance Criteria for the Rüsch Latex Gold Foley Catheter (Based on Nonclinical Testing):

Study Information (for a Physical Medical Device):

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated as numerical sample sizes. The document refers to "testing" and "assessment" for each standard. The data provenance is internal testing conducted by the manufacturer (Teleflex Medical, Inc.) to comply with FDA recognized standards. The data is retrospective in the sense that the tests were performed on manufactured devices.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. These are laboratory-based, objective performance tests on the physical device, not subjective expert reviews of data like in AI/SaMD studies. The "ground truth" is defined by the standards (e.g., successful sterilization, acceptable biocompatibility levels, functional performance specifications).
3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Testing is objective and based on meeting specified numerical or qualitative limits defined by the standards.
4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No. This is a physical device, not an AI/SaMD.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: No. This is a physical device, not an AI/SaMD.
6. The type of ground truth used:
   • Biocompatibility: In vitro and in vivo biological responses as defined by ISO 10993 series of standards (e.g., cell viability, skin irritation, systemic toxicity, tissue reaction on implantation).
   • Sterilization: Sterility assurance level (SAL) achieved through validated processes per ISO 11137.
   • Accelerated Aging: Functional performance of the device and integrity of the sterile barrier system after simulated aging.
   • Performance/Functional Testing: Physical and mechanical properties (e.g., balloon inflation, flow rate, material integrity) as specified by ASTM 623-19.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML model.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) for a traditional medical device (Foley catheter) and does not contain the information requested for AI/SaMD performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

2 Way SoftSimplastic Catheters:

Indicated where routine transurethral drainage of the bladder is required either postoperatively or for patients with conditions requiring transurethral urine drainage.

3 Way SoftSimplastic Catheters:

Indicated where routine transurethral drainage of the bladder is required either postoperatively, for patients with conditions requiring transurethral urine drainage and for patients requiring bladder irrigation.

The Rusch SoftSimplastic Foley Catheter is a balloon retention type catheter and is single use, disposable and sterile. The catheters are made of transparent PVC. They have a 2 lumen or 3 lumen shaft with proximal funnel, inflation valve and a distal retaining balloon made of latex. Balloon capacity is in ml and the shaft size in French gauge (Fr.) as indicated on the funnel of each individual catheter.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Rusch SoftSimplastic Foley Catheter, not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the information required to answer the prompt regarding acceptance criteria and studies for an AI/ML device (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies) is not present in the document.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Rusch Simplastic Foley Catheters) based on:

• Intended Use: Similar indications for use for bladder drainage and irrigation.
• Technological Characteristics: Similar balloon retention type, materials (PVC), sizes, lumens, sterilization method, single-use, and radiopacity. The key differences highlighted are a change in PVC plasticizer, extended shelf life, and slightly different size ranges.
• Non-Clinical Performance Testing: This includes:
  • Biocompatibility testing (e.g., cytotoxicity, sensitization, systemic toxicity, implantation) according to ISO 10993 standards.
  • Bench performance testing (e.g., visual inspections, strength, connector security, balloon safety, flow rate, kink stability, tensile force, radiopacity) according to ISO 20696, ASTM F623, and ASTM F640 standards.
  • Sterilization and Packaging validation according to ISO 11135-1, ISO 10993-7, ISO 11607, ASTM D4169, ASTM F1886, ASTM F88, EN 868-5, and ASTM F2096.

The document explicitly states: "Differences in technological characteristics between the subject and predicate devices do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness." and "Performance test results demonstrate that the subject device is as safe and effective as the predicate device."

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies for an AI/ML device based on the provided text. The document pertains to a traditional medical device demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical bench and biocompatibility testing, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring clinical performance studies against defined ground truth with human reader involvement.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Hudson RCI Voldyne Volumetric Exerciser is intended as an inspiratory deep breathing positive exerciser for adult and pediatric (above 5 yrs) patients. It is a single patient, multi-use device used in hospital or home care setting.

The Hudson RCI® Voldyne® Volumetric Exerciser ("Voldyne") is a volumetric incentive spirometer. It is a single patient multi-use device. The primary interface of the user with the device is through a mouthpiece. The device contains two chambers; one for the flow chip, and one for the piston. The piston chamber is marked with a graduation from 500 ml to 4,000 ml (for the Voldyne 4000) or 250 ml to 2,500 ml (for the Voldyne 2500 and Voldyne Pediatric) on the front and the back of the main housing. The flow chip chamber for the device is marked with a happy face symbol with arrows pointing to the optimum position of the Voldyne Pediatric version includes a sticker sheet with clouds and trees graphics, which can be placed onto the device. When the patient inhales the flow chip and piston rise due to the negative pressure created; this indicates breathing volume and flow, while the device provides an exercise incentive to patients who require sustained maximal inspiration (SMI).

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the Teleflex Medical, Inc. Hudson RCI® Voldyne® Volumetric Exerciser (K182847). The 510(k) submission seeks to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Besmed Volumetric Incentive Spirometer (K141355).

Based on the provided text, the device is an incentive spirometer, a medical device used for inspiratory deep breathing exercises. The information provided heavily focuses on justifying substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria in a clinical study with an "AI" component. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI device performance, expert review, MRMC studies, and ground truth definitions for AI models is not present in the provided 510(k) summary, as this is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML software as a medical device (SaMD).

Here's an analysis of the available information:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results in the format typically seen for AI/ML device evaluations against specific metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC. Instead, it relies on demonstrating equivalence to the predicate device and meeting applicable standards and internal performance specifications for a mechanical device.

The closest to "acceptance criteria" and "reported performance" for an incentive spirometer device, as presented in this document, are:

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

This information is not provided in the document as it pertains to a clinical study dataset for an AI/ML device. The performance data refers to device engineering tests (e.g., shelf life, cleaning validation, biocompatibility, mechanical performance tests like volume accuracy and leakage). Details on specific sample sizes for these engineering tests are not provided in this summary, nor is data provenance in the sense of 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)

This is not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device requiring expert ground truth for classification or diagnostic accuracy.

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

This is not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device requiring expert adjudication for ground truth.

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

A MRMC study comparing human performance with and without AI assistance was not done. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

A standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

The concept of "ground truth" as it relates to AI/ML models is not applicable here. For this physical medical device, the "ground truth" for its performance is derived from:

• Physical measurements: Accuracy of volume, leakage tests, engagement tests.
• Compliance with standards: ISO 10993 (biocompatibility), ISO 5356-1 (conical connectors).
• Bench testing: Age testing (pre and post aging).

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as this is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set."

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

This information is not applicable as this is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" with established ground truth.

In summary:

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a traditional medical device (incentive spirometer). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing predicate device through comparative feature analysis and engineering performance testing (e.g., biocompatibility, mechanical performance). It does not involve any Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) components, and therefore, many of the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, clinical study designs for AI, expert reviews, and ground truth for AI models are not addressed in this document. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the engineering and biocompatibility tests conducted, not a clinical trial or AI performance study.

Ask a specific question about this device

Force Fiber® Non-absorbable Surgical Sutures are indicated for use in approximation and/or ligation of soft tissues, including use in cardiovascular surgeries and the use of allograft tissue for orthopedic surgeries.

Force Fiber Suture - Black is a non-absorbable, sterile, surgical suture composed of Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) dyed black using D&C Black #4 not to exceed 1.0% by weight. It is an uncoated braid offered in a variety of cut lengths, with or without needles, and provided sterile for single use only. Force Fiber Suture - Black is available in sizes 0, 1 and 2, and meets all surgical suture requirements established by the USP for non-absorbable surgical sutures except for oversize diameter.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Force Fiber® Suture - Black." It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than presenting a study where specific performance criteria are measured against acceptance criteria. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment is not present in this document.

However, I can extract the general acceptance criteria and what is reported about the device's performance based on the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Suture diameter
• Tensile strength
• Needle attachment | "Force Fiber Suture - Black is available in sizes 0, 1 and 2, and meets all surgical suture requirements established by the USP for non-absorbable surgical sutures except for oversize diameter."
  "Force Fiber Suture - Black is tested in accordance with USP - non-absorbable surgical sutures for suture diameter, tensile strength and needle attachment, and meet the requirements of the Class II Special Controls Guidance: Surgical Sutures; Guidance for Industry and FDA; June 3, 2003." |
  | Material Biocompatibility (ISO 10993-1:2018) | Evaluation through biological qualification safety tests as outlined in ISO 10993-1: 2018 --Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 1: Evaluation and Testing. This implies meeting the safety requirements for medical devices in contact with the body. | "All materials used in the fabrication of the Force Fiber Suture - Black were evaluated through biological qualification safety tests as outlined in ISO 10993-1: 2018 --Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 1: Evaluation and Testing." |
  | MRI Safety | "MR Safe" designation, meaning it poses no known hazards in MR environments. | "Force Fiber Suture - Black is tested to demonstrate it is "MR Safe" and poses no known hazards in MR environments." |
  | Substantial Equivalence | No differences in technological characteristics and performance characteristics compared to predicate devices, and the difference (addition of black dye) does not raise new questions of safety or efficacy, making it as safe and effective as currently marketed predicate devices. This is the primary "acceptance criterion" for a 510(k) pathway. | "Force Fiber Suture – Black is substantially equivalent to its predicate Force Fiber Suture devices because there are no differences in technological characteristics and performance characteristics between the proposed and predicate devices. The proposed sutures have the same fundamental design and intended use as the predicate devices. The difference between Force Fiber Suture - Black and its predicate Force Fiber Suture devices is the addition of black dye... This difference does not raise new questions of safety or efficacy. Therefore, Force Fiber Suture - Black is as safe and effective as its currently marketed predicate devices." |

Information Not Available in the Document:

Because this document is a 510(k) summary demonstrating substantial equivalence for a surgical suture, not a clinical study report for an AI/imaging device, the following information is not provided:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in this context. The testing mentioned refers to material properties and biocompatibility, not performance against a specific "test set" of patient data.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth as typically understood for AI algorithms (e.g., diagnostic accuracy) is not relevant here.
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 surgical suture, not an AI-assisted diagnostic 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 consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For material properties, the "ground truth" would be established by validated testing methods and specifications (e.g., USP standards), not expert consensus on medical images or outcomes.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device requiring a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document describes a medical device (surgical suture) and demonstrates its compliance with established regulatory standards (USP, ISO) and substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices. It does not involve AI or imaging diagnostics, and therefore, many of the requested data points related to those types of studies are not relevant or present.

Ask a specific question about this device

The subject device is a tubular device that is inserted through the urethra to pass urine from the bladder.

The Teleflex Rusch®FloCath Quick™ 18 French (Fr.) Coudé Hydrophilic Intermittent Catheter is single use, disposable and sterile. The catheter is made of clear polyvinylchloride (PVC) with vertically cut and softly rounded, polished eyes and has a hydrophilic coating. It is composed of a shaft with a proximal funnel and a tip. The funnel is made of PVC. The shaft size is an 18 French gauge and is identified on the packaging. The funnel is color coded red to facilitate size identification. The catheter is 40 cm in overall length. The FloCath Quick is an integrated package that contains the FloCath catheter with a blue protective catheter sleeve and a packet of sterile 0.9% saline. Before opening, the sterile saline pouch is broken to hydrate the catheter. The protective catheter sleeve allows for touchless insertion. The sleeve can also be pushed back and used as an extension to the catheter. The FloCath Quick packaging has a packaging hole to facilitate opening the catheter. Either the packaging hole or the adhesive patch on the catheter pack can be used to hang up the catheter in an appropriate, convenient location while the catheter is hydrated.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Rusch FloCath Quick 18 Fr. Coudé Hydrophilic Intermittent Catheter), which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria for performance metrics in a clinical context.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of algorithm performance or clinical outcomes are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document, as it primarily details bench testing and a comparison to a predicate device for regulatory clearance.

However, I can extract the relevant bench testing performance data which serves as the "study" for this type of submission and interpret the "pass" results as meeting implicit acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence.

Here's the information that can be extracted, with explanations for what is not applicable:

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

For a 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" for bench testing are generally that the device performs comparably to the predicate or meets established standards, and in all reported cases, the device "Passed". Specific numerical acceptance thresholds are not explicitly detailed in this summary for each test, but "Pass" indicates they were met.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size for any of the bench tests conducted.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The testing described is bench testing, not clinical data, so terms like "retrospective or prospective" do not directly apply.

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)

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). The "ground truth" concept is usually associated with clinical or image-based studies where expert consensus or diagnostic outcomes are used. This submission focuses on engineering bench tests and material biocompatibility, which do not typically involve experts establishing "ground truth" in this manner. The evaluations are based on compliance with international standards and internal protocols.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). Adjudication methods are relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical endpoints, not for objective bench testing of device performance parameters.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). This device is a urological catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not relevant.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). As stated above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A) in the traditional sense. For the bench tests, the "ground truth" or reference for assessment is established by the specified international and industry standards (e.g., EN 1616:1997, ASTM F623:2013, ISO 10993 series, ISO 11135-1:2014). Passing these standards serves as verification that the device meets defined engineering and safety specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no training set or ground truth in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Rusch Hydrophilic Intermittent catheters (Rusch FloCath Quick, Rusch FloCath Quick Kit, Rusch FloCath Intermittent Catheter, Rusch MMG H2O PVC Catheter Kit, Rusch MMG H2O Singles) are tubular devices that are inserted through the urethra to pass urine from the bladder.

The Teleflex Rusch Hydrophilic Intermittent catheters (Rusch FloCath Quick, Rusch FloCath Quick Kit, Rusch FloCath Intermittent Catheter, Rusch MMG H2O PVC Catheter Kit, Rusch MMG H2O Singles) are single use, disposable and sterile. The catheters are made of clear polyvinylchloride (PVC) with vertically cut and softly rounded polished eyes and are coated with a hydrophilic coating. They are composed of a shaft with a proximal funnel and a tip. The funnel is made of PVC. The shaft size ranges from 6-20 French gauge. The funnel is color coded to facilitate size identification. The Rusch® FloCath™ Quick is an "all-in-one catheter" that allows for convenience and the Rusch® MMG H2O™ is a closed system with integrated collection bag that allows for "no touch" catheterization due to an introducer tip that helps bypass the first 1.5" of the urethra.

This document describes the Teleflex Rusch Hydrophilic Intermittent catheters (comprising Rusch FloCath Quick, Rusch FloCath Quick Kit, Rusch FloCath Intermittent Catheter, Rusch MMG H2O PVC Catheter Kit, and Rusch MMG H2O Singles). This submission is for a 510(k) premarket notification, indicating a claim of substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily a claim of superiority or novel performance requiring extensive clinical studies typically associated with AI/ML devices. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI-specific studies (e.g., sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, training set details) is not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

The submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence through "bench testing" and biocompatibility studies.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly list numerical "acceptance criteria" for each performance characteristic with corresponding reported values in a table format that would be typical for an AI/ML device. Instead, it states that "The bench testing performed verifies that the performance of the subject devices are substantially equivalent in terms of critical performance characteristics to the predicate device." and "The testing performed verifies that the performance of the subject devices are substantially equivalent in terms of critical performance characteristics to the predicate device." It also adds, "Overall, the results are comparable to the predicate and support a determination of substantial equivalence."

Here's a summary of the performance characteristics evaluated and the reported outcome:

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

The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each bench test performed. For physical tests like flow rate and friction, standard engineering practices would involve testing a statistically representative sample from multiple production lots. For biocompatibility, testing is typically performed on material extracts according to ISO standards, which define the sample sizes and controls.

As this is a physical device, not an AI/ML system, concepts like "data provenance" (country of origin of data, retrospective/prospective) are not applicable in the same way. The testing would have been conducted in a laboratory setting.

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

Not applicable. For a physical medical device submission like this, "ground truth" as it relates to expert consensus or labeling of images/data for AI training/testing is not relevant. The performance is assessed against engineering specifications, industry standards (e.g., ASTM F623, ISO 10993), and direct comparison to a predicate device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. This concept is typically relevant to AI/ML where human reviewers might adjudicate disagreements in interpretations. For physical device testing, the methods are typically standardized and objective (e.g., measuring flow rate, instrumental assessment of friction).

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. An MRMC study is designed for evaluating diagnostic or interpretive AI systems in a clinical setting by comparing human performance with and without AI assistance. This submission is for a physical urological catheter, not an AI-enabled diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm. Performance is assessed on the physical device itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the physical and biocompatibility testing, the "ground truth" is derived from:

• Engineering Specifications: The design specifications of the device.
• Predicate Device Performance: The known and established performance of the legally marketed predicate device (Rusch® FloCath - K000070). The subject device aims to be "substantially equivalent."
• International Standards: Adherence to standards such as ASTM F623 for physical properties and ISO 10993 series (1, 5, 10) for biocompatibility.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set or ground truth in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Percutaneous Surgical System with 5mm attachments is indicated for the means to penetrate soft tissue to access certain areas of the abdomen. The system is used to grasp, manipulate, cut, cauterize and deliver Hem-o-lok® ligating clips to soft tissue during laparoscopic surgery.

Teleflex Medical's Percuvance™ Percutaneous Surgical System is a micro-laparoscopic platform that comprises fourteen (14) unique components, which are combined in various configurations to create a multifunctional set of instruments for laparoscopic procedures. In accordance with IEC 60601-1:2005 (A1:2012), the Percuvance™ system is classified as a BF active accessory with a rated accessory voltage of 1000VPeak. System components include two reusable Handles (Ratcheted and Non-Ratcheted), which are manipulated by the surgeon and connect to a Shaft, which is available in two lengths (29 cm and 36 cm), affords various Tool Tips (or End Effectors) to be attached in order to perform basic surgical manipulations. The Percuvance™ Handles, Shafts, and Tool Tips are not compatible or interchangeable with components from other percutaneous systems. Initial access to the surqical site is achieved with the Introducer Tool Tip attached to the Shaft. Once inside the patient, the Introducer Tool Tip is extracorporealized through a pre-inserted, central trocar and is then exchanged for one of the other Tool Tips, which include Scissors, Gripper Grasper, Johans Grasper, Maryland Dissector, Hook Cautery, Spatula Cautery and Clip Applier. No ligating clips are provided with the Percuyance™ Percutaneous Surgical System: however, the Clip Applier Tool Tip is compatible with Teleflex M/L Hem-o-lok® ligating clip (SKU 544230). Finally, the Seal Bridge, which is available in two sizes (5 mm and 12 mm), is used to protect the trocar seal and to aid in maintaining insufflation when it used in conjunction with a trocar to facilitate the extracorporeal exchange of Tool Tips.

This FDA 510(k) summary describes a medical device, the Percuvance™ Percutaneous Surgical System, and its substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device. It does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or results from a study that typically involves human readers or AI.

Here's a breakdown of the information provided and what is missing in relation to your request:

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

• Not provided. The document states "Comprehensive bench testing was completed on the modifications identified below to ensure the system performed equivalently (or better) to the predicate system." However, specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance results in a table format are not present. The "Comparative Characteristics" table (pages 7-8) compares the proposed device to the predicate in terms of features and intended use, but not measured performance against pre-defined criteria.

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

• Not provided. The document mentions "bench testing" and "stability testing" but does not specify sample sizes for these tests or details about data provenance.

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 information is relevant for studies involving human interpretation or image analysis where ground truth is established by experts. This document describes a surgical instrument and its functional testing, not a diagnostic or interpretive device.

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. This is not an AI-based diagnostic or interpretive device. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI-related effectiveness is discussed.

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

• No. This is not an AI-based device.

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

• Not explicitly described in terms of "ground truth" for clinical outcomes. The document refers to "bench testing" and "stability testing" to ensure the device performs "equivalently (or better) to the predicate system." The "ground truth" for these types of tests would be established engineering standards, material properties, and functional performance measurements against design specifications and predicate device performance. For biocompatibility, the ground truth is adherence to ISO standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI-driven device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI-driven device.

Summary of the Study and Device Performance (based on the provided text):

The document describes the Percuvance™ Percutaneous Surgical System, a micro-laparoscopic platform for grasping, manipulating, cutting, cauterizing, and delivering ligating clips during laparoscopic surgery.

The study to support its 510(k) clearance (K181852) was a substantial equivalence review against a predicate device (K153063 for the system, and K133202 for the clip applier technology and ligating clips).

Device Performance Information (extracted from the text):

The document states:

• "Comprehensive bench testing was completed on the modifications identified below to ensure the system performed equivalently (or better) to the predicate system."
• "Existing design, usability validations and packaging (ship) testing, performed on the predicate device still adequately covers the proposed device."
• "Stability testing was repeated on the sterile components and their packaging to support the legacy extended 3 year shelf life according to aging methods and test methods previously submitted in the predicate 510(k) in support of the initial 1 year shelf life."
• "Though the majority of the electrosurgical safety testing submitted for the system is still valid, certain electrosurgical safety tests were repeated at a third party test house to support the Shaft metal lock tube change."
• "Biocompatibility data submitted for the Percuvance system still adequately represents the proposed system, as no new patient contacting materials were introduced. However, as a result of Shaft's green ink band modification, which is pad printed on the Shaft's proximal knob, a full biocompatibility panel was completed. Additionally, cytotoxicity testing was performed on the Shaft metal lock tube change."

Conclusion from the document:
"Based upon the testing presented throughout the submission and in this 510(k) Summary, Teleflex Medical's Percuvance™ Percutaneous Surgical System is substantially equivalent in to the predicate device cleared to market via 510(k) K153063. The modifications to the proposed Percuvance™ Percutaneous Surgical System do not introduce any new issues of safety and effectiveness."

This submission relies on demonstrating that the modified device performs as well as the predicate device through various engineering and material tests, rather than a clinical study with specific acceptance criteria on diagnostic accuracy or reader performance typically seen with AI/imaging devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

Force Fiber® Non-absorbable Surgical Sutures are indicated for use in approximation and/or ligation of soft tissues, including use in cardiovascular surgeries and the use of allograft tissue for orthopedic surgeries.

Force Fiber®OrthoTape® Suture is indicated for use in approximation and/or ligation of soft tissues, including use of allograft tissue for orthopedic surgeries.

Bondek® and Bondek® Plus Synthetic Absorbable Surgical Sutures are intended for use in general soft tissue approximation and/or ligation, including use in ophthalmic procedures, but not for use in and neurological procedures.

Monodek Monofilament Synthetic Absorbable Surgical Sutures are indicated for use in all types of soft tissue approximation, including use in pediatric cardiovascular tissue where growth is expected to occur and ophthalmic surgery. Monodek® suture is not indicated in adult cardiovascular tissue, microsurgery and neural tissue. These sutures are particularly useful where the combination of an absorbable suture and extended wound support (up to six weeks) is desirable.

Polyglytone*6211™ Monofilament Synthetic Absorbable Surgical Sutures are indicated for use in general soft tissue approximation and/or ligation, including use in ophthalmic procedures, but not for use in cardiovascular surgery, neurological surgery, or microsurgery.

Force Fiber Suture is a non-absorbable, sterile, surgical suture composed of Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE). It is available as braided undyed (white), braided blue, co-braid of white UHMWPE and blue polypropylene (PP) monofilament strands, co-braid of white UHMWPE fibers and black Nylon monofilament strands, and co-braid of white UHMWPE fibers and green polyester (PET) fibers.

Force Fiber OthoTape Suture is an uncoated braid that is flat in shape and differs from USP requirements (not USP). It is available in 1mm, 1.5mm, 2.5mm, 3.5mm, 4mm and 5mm tape sizes and composed of undyed or blue Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE), or UHMWPE/ Green Polyester co-braid.

Bondek and Bondek Plus Suture is an absorbable, braided multifilament suture composed of a homopolymer of glycolic acid, polyglycolic acid. The Bondek suture material is coated with polycaprolactone-glycerol monostearate solution, and is available in green and beige (undyed) USP sizes 8-0 through 2. The Bondek Plus suture material is coated with polycaprolactone-co-polygolycolic acid, and is available in violet, green or beige (undyed) USP sized 6-0 through2.

Monodek Absorbable Surgical Suture is a monofilament suture that meets all USP requirements except for oversize diameter. Monodek is available in sizes 6-0 through 0 (metric sizes 0.7 through 3.5), undyed and dyed (violet). The suture may be supplied on ligating reels.

Polyglytone* 6211 suture, U.S.P size 2-0, is available, undyed (natural). The suture is monofilament, and may be provided with or without plegets.

The Teleflex surgical sutures are provided sterile (EO), for singe use only and may be provided in a variety of cut lengths with or without needles. A variety of attached needles are available from either 300 or 400 series stainless steel.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for Teleflex Surgical Sutures. It details various types of sutures (Force Fiber, Bondek, Monodek, Polyglytone) and their characteristics, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices for substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that a device meets acceptance criteria in the context of performance metrics for an AI/ML or diagnostic device. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared surgical sutures, primarily through similar technological characteristics and performance rather than a specific set of acceptance criteria and a study to meet them.

The only "testing" mentioned is non-clinical testing to demonstrate an "MR Safe" claim, which is a safety characteristic, not a performance metric in the traditional sense of AI/ML or diagnostic device performance.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth types, as this information is not present in the provided text. The document describes a traditional medical device (sutures) approval process, not an AI/ML or diagnostic device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Neonatal ConchaSmart Breathing Circuits are intended for neonatal and infant patients in professional healthcare environments as a conduit for respiratory gas between a patient and a ventilator or Infant Flow Generator (for single limb configuration) and include heated wire(s) for use with the Hudson RCI Neptune Heated Humidifier. The heated wires are intended to aid in maintaining the set patient temperature and minimize condensation in the ventilator tubing.

The Neonatal ConchaSmart Breathing Circuits are intended for neonatal and infant patients in professional healthcare environments as a conduit for respiratory gas between a patient and a ventilator or Infant Flow Generator (for single limb configuration) and includes heated wire(s) for use with the Hudson RCI Neptune Heated Humidifier. The heated wires are intended to aid in maintaining the set patient temperature and minimize condensation in the ventilator tubing.

These devices are made of corrugated tubing (10mm in diameter), which houses the heated wires and are kitted with various adaptors and connectors to aid the respiratory care clinician in system configuration. In general these heated wire circuits are connected to both a ventilator and a Hudson RCI Neptune Heated Humidifier. The single limb configuration is compatible with the CareFusion Infant Flow system.

All Neonatal ConchaSmart Breathing Circuits have a useful life of 21 days. Neonatal ConchaSmart Breathing Circuits are sold non-sterile.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the "Neonatal ConchaSmart Breathing Circuits." The submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The document details the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and performance data from non-clinical testing.

However, the information provided focuses on the physical and functional performance of the breathing circuits themselves, rather than an AI/ML-driven device's performance measured against acceptance criteria in a clinical or image-based diagnostic setting. Specifically, it does not contain the following information typically found in an AI/ML device submission for establishing acceptance criteria and proving performance:

• A table of acceptance criteria for AI/ML performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) and reported device performance against these.
• Sample sizes for test sets in an AI/ML context (e.g., number of images, patient cases).
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for an AI/ML test set.
• Number of experts and their qualifications for establishing ground truth for an AI/ML test set.
• Adjudication methods for AI/ML ground truth.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study details (effect size of human reader improvement with AI assistance).
• Standalone performance (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop) for an AI/ML device.
• Type of ground truth used (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) for an AI/ML device.
• Sample size for AI/ML training set.
• How ground truth for the AI/ML training set was established.

The document discusses engineering acceptance criteria related to standards for breathing circuits (e.g., resistance to flow, compliance, leakage, useful life, electrical safety, biocompatibility) and confirms that the device passed these tests. It indicates the device functions as intended with a specific humidifier.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information as the document describes a traditional medical device (breathing circuits) and not an AI/ML medical device where such acceptance criteria and study designs (related to AI model performance, human-in-the-loop studies, ground truth establishment for AI) would be relevant.

The acceptance criteria and study described in the document are limited to the physical and functional aspects of a non-AI/ML medical device.

The closest information provided related to "acceptance criteria" and "study proving it meets criteria" is:

Acceptance Criteria (Extrapolated from "Test Objective" and ISO Standards):

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study involved a series of non-clinical, laboratory-based tests.

1. Sample Size Used for Test Set and Data Provenance: The document does not specify a "sample size" in terms of number of patient cases or images, as it is not an AI/ML study. It refers to testing "the proposed devices," implying physical units of the Neonatal ConchaSmart Breathing Circuits. The tests were performed in a lab setting, not using human data/patients, so "provenance" in the sense of country of origin or retrospective/prospective is not applicable.
2. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth: Not applicable for this type of device where laboratory measurements against international standards establish "truth."
3. Adjudication Method: Not applicable. Lab testing against defined physical and electrical parameters.
4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable. This is for AI/ML devices involving human readers.
5. Standalone Performance: Not applicable in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. The device performance itself is evaluated (e.g., its resistance to flow, electrical safety, etc.).
6. Type of Ground Truth Used: The "ground truth" here is adherence to specified parameters and performance limits defined by international standards (e.g., ISO 5367, IEC 60601-1, ISO 8185, ISO 5356-1, ISO 10993) and the manufacturer's design verification testing for compatibility and durability.
7. Sample Size for Training Set & How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device relying on a "training set" of data.

Ask a specific question about this device

MiniLap instruments are a family of minimally invasive devices with the means to penetrate soft tissue to access certain areas of the human anatomy. The devices are used to grasp. hold, and manipulate other soft internal tissues, as well as items such as hernia mesh, during pediatric and adult surgery.

The MiniPolar Instruments are used to cut and cauterize soft tissue during pediatric and adult surgery.

The MiniLap System with MiniGrip Handles grasping instruments have applications in a variety of general, thoracic, gynecologic, urologic, laparoscopic procedures for manipulation of tissue, as well as items such as hernia mesh, during pediatric and adult surgery.

Bipolar Grasper instruments with bipolar cautery have applications in a variety of general, thoracic, gynecologic (except for use in female sterilization), urologic, laparoscopic, and endoscopic procedures for manipulation and coagulation of tissue and for manipulation of items such as hernia mesh during pediatric and adult surgery.

The Teleflex MiniLap® Percutaneous Surgical System is a family of minimally invasive surgical devices that provide a surgeon with the means to penetrate soft tissue to access certain areas of the human anatomy, then grasp, hold and manipulate other soft internal tissue within the body that are related to the surgical procedure.

The MiniLap Percutaneous Surgical System has two families presented in this 510(k). The first is the MiniLap ThumbGrip Instruments, which have a thumb grip handle to control the instrument tips. These instruments are available in electrosurgical and non-electrosurgical configurations. The second product family discussed in this 510(k) is the MiniLap MiniGrip Graspers, which have a pistol grip handle that allows single handed device operation to control the jaws.

ThumbGrip Instruments and MiniGrip Graspers are disposable manual instruments designed for direct introduction to the surgical site without the need for a traditional insertion conduit. These instruments are used for grasping, holding and manipulating soft internal tissues. These percutaneous instruments provide the benefit of reduced trauma due to no surgical incision closure and the elimination of one or more trocars.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding the Teleflex MiniLap System. It does not describe an AI/ML medical device, but rather a set of minimally invasive surgical instruments. Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria, study details for AI/ML performance, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training sets, and ground truth establishment methods for an AI device cannot be extracted from this document.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the Teleflex MiniLap System to previously cleared predicate devices based on technological characteristics, materials, and performance data from engineering tests, rather than clinical study results involving AI performance metrics.

Here's a breakdown of why this document doesn't contain the requested information for an AI/ML device:

• Device Type: The Teleflex MiniLap System consists of mechanical and electrosurgical instruments (graspers, probes) for surgical procedures. It is not an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic tool.
• Performance Data Section: The "K. Performance Data" section refers to "Ship testing" (packaging integrity), "design verification and validation" (engineering tests), and testing to IEC standards for electrosurgical devices. It does not mention any clinical studies involving image analysis, AI algorithms, or human reader performance.
• Substantial Equivalence: The entire submission hinges on demonstrating that the new devices are "substantially equivalent" to existing, legally marketed predicate devices. This regulatory pathway (510(k)) often relies on non-clinical data and comparison to predicates, rather than extensive clinical efficacy trials typically required for novel AI technologies.

In summary, as this document pertains to traditional surgical instruments and not an AI/ML medical device, the specific details requested about AI/ML performance acceptance criteria and study methodologies are not present.

Ask a specific question about this device