Search Results

3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing is indicated for use as a primary wound dressing over:

• abrasions
• ulcers
• trauma wounds
• surgical wounds
• first and second degree burns
• donor sites

3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing is a nonwoven dressing that contains (8 mg/gm of dressing) of silver sulfate. Silver ions released from the silver sulfate create an effective barrier. The soft, absorbent dressing is supplied sterile and may be custom cut to fit the wound. The porous, non-occlusive dressing conforms to the wound base and wicks drainage into the dressing where in vitro studies show that the silver ions may reduce the number of microorganisms, including bacteria and yeast.

The provided text describes a medical device called "3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing" and its clearance through a 510(k) premarket notification. This type of submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than conducting new clinical trials to prove effectiveness. Therefore, the information requested in the prompt, which pertains to clinical studies, acceptance criteria, expert ground truth, and AI performance, is largely not applicable to this document.

Here's a breakdown of why and what can be inferred from the provided text:

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

• Not Applicable. This document does not establish specific acceptance criteria for a new device's performance in a clinical setting in the way an AI/ML device would. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.
• What's reported:
  • Safety: Biocompatibility studies (Cytotoxicity, Intracutaneous Irritation, Skin Sensitization) were conducted and showed "No deleterious effects" and "results were comparable to or better than those reported for Acticoat™ Silver Coated Dressing."
  • Effectiveness: "in vitro reduction studies against a known number of microorganisms, such as gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria and yeast (Candida albicans)" were performed. The results "demonstrated that 3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing was substantially equivalent to Acticoat™ Silver Coated Dressing effectiveness."

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 directly for clinical efficacy. The "studies" mentioned are laboratory-based (biocompatibility and in vitro antimicrobial reduction), not human clinical trials.
• For biocompatibility: Standard battery of tests in rabbits (for Intracutaneous Irritation) and guinea pigs (for Skin Sensitization). The specific number of animals is not detailed.
• For in vitro effectiveness: Microorganisms (gram-negative, gram-positive bacteria, and Candida albicans) were used, but specific sample sizes (e.g., number of replicates or strains) are not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, but generally, regulatory studies follow international standards.

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 human experts were used to establish "ground truth" for clinical performance in this context. The evaluation was based on laboratory testing.

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

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for human expert review in clinical studies, which were not conducted for this 510(k) cleared device.

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. MRMC studies are specific to evaluating AI performance in diagnostic imaging or similar fields where human readers interpret cases. This device is a wound dressing.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical wound dressing, not an algorithm.

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

• For safety studies: Biocompatibility was assessed against established toxicological endpoints (e.g., irritation, sensitization) in animal models. The "ground truth" is the absence of adverse biological reactions.
• For effectiveness studies: The "ground truth" was the quantitative reduction of microorganisms in an in vitro setting, measured against controls and the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not Applicable. As above, no training set.

Summary of Device Acceptance (from the document):

The device was "accepted" or cleared by the FDA because it demonstrated Substantial Equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices (3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing (K040890) and Acticoat™ Silver Coated Dressing).

The study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria (i.e., Substantial Equivalence):

The submission relies on:

• Biocompatibility Studies: "A standard battery of biocompatibility studies was conducted: Cytotoxicity, Intracutaneous Irritation in rabbits, and Skin Sensitization in guinea pigs. No deleterious effects were observed with 3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing : results were comparable to or better than those reported for Acticoat™ Silver Coated Dressing." These results were also presented for the previously cleared 3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing (K040890).
• In Vitro Effectiveness Studies: "3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing was compared with Acticoat™ Silver Coated Dressing in in vitro reduction studies against a known number of microorganisms, such as gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria and yeast (Candida albicans). The results of this study demonstrated that 3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing was substantially equivalent to Acticoat™ Silver Coated Dressing effectiveness." These results were also presented for the previously cleared 3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing (K040890).

The FDA's letter states: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices..." This confirms that the presented studies and comparisons adequately met the FDA's criteria for substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing is indicated for use as a primary wound dressing over:

• abrasions
• ulcers
• trauma wounds
• surgical wounds
• first and second degree burns
• donor sites

3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Nonwoven Dressing is a cotton nonwoven mesh dressing which contains silver oxide. It is available as rectangle or square dressings of various sizes.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the 3M™ Tegaderm™ Silver Dressing, focusing on demonstrating its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Acticoat™ Silver Coated Dressing. The study conducted is a comparative effectiveness study, but it is not related to an AI/ML powered device. Therefore, many of the requested fields are not applicable to the information provided.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the device's performance, acceptance criteria, and the nature of the study.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for the Test Set

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • Biocompatibility: Not explicitly stated as a number of samples/patients. Standard tests were conducted using animal models (rabbits for intracutaneous irritation, guinea pigs for skin sensitization).
  • Effectiveness: Not explicitly stated as a number of samples. "Known number of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria" and "Candida albicans" were used in in vitro reduction studies. This implies laboratory cultures, not patient data.
• Data Provenance: In vitro laboratory studies and animal model studies. No human patient data is referenced.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth Establishment (Test Set)

• Not applicable. This study is not evaluating an AI/ML device where expert ground truth is typically established for image or data interpretation. The ground truth for biocompatibility is based on biological assays and observations, and for effectiveness, it's based on microbial growth reduction in a laboratory setting. No, human experts were not used in this context to establish a "ground truth" as it would be for an AI diagnostic device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. There was no adjudication method described as this was not a human expert-based evaluation or a clinical trial requiring such.

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

• No. This was not an MRMC study. The comparison was device-to-predicate in in vitro and animal model settings for safety and effectiveness. It does not involve human readers using or not using AI.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Biocompatibility: Biological assay results and observations in animal models (e.g., presence/absence of irritation, cytotoxicity).
• Effectiveness: Quantitative reduction of microbial growth in in vitro cultures.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. The descriptions are for preclinical studies of a medical device.

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

• Not applicable. No training set was used or described.

Ask a specific question about this device