Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K150172
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2015-04-07

    (71 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    874.4420
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    ACCLARENT SE Inflation Device

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The ACCLARENT® SE Inflation Device is an instrument intended to inflate, deflate and monitor pressure in balloon catheters used in sinus procedures.

    Device Description

    The ACCLARENT SE Inflation Device is an instrument intended to inflate, deflate and monitor pressure in balloon catheters used during sinus procedures. When used in a Balloon Sinuplasty dilation procedure, the inflation device enables the user to inflate the sinus balloon catheter, monitor the pressure within the balloon, and deflate the balloon. The device has a pressure gauge that indicates the atmospheric pressure at which the attached balloon is inflated, a high pressure syringe barrel that indicates the amount of fluid in the chamber, a mechanism to lock/unlock the piston, an ergonomic piston handle, and high pressure tubing used to attach the inflation device to the balloon catheters. The ACCLARENT SE Inflation Device should only be used with Acclarent Sinus Balloon Catheters with balloon sizes less than or equal to 7mmx24mm. Consult the individual Acclarent sinus balloon catheter carton labels for balloon size information.

    AI/ML Overview

    The Acclarent SE Inflation Device is an instrument designed to inflate, deflate, and monitor pressure in balloon catheters used in sinus procedures.

    Here is an analysis of its acceptance criteria and the supporting study information, based on the provided text:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document broadly states that "Bench testing met all acceptance criteria for attributes such as dimensional attributes, cycle fatigue, and reliability following three years of simulated accelerated aging." Specific numerical acceptance criteria are not detailed in the provided text. However, the performance is reported as meeting these criteria.

    Acceptance Criteria CategoryReported Device Performance
    Dimensional AttributesMet acceptance criteria
    Cycle FatigueMet acceptance criteria
    Reliability (after 3 years simulated accelerated aging)Met acceptance criteria
    Intracutaneous ReactivityPass
    SensitizationPass
    In Vitro CytotoxicityPass
    Systemic ToxicityPass
    Sterility Assurance LevelDemonstrated 10⁻⁶
    Ethylene Oxide ResidualsMet ISO 10993-7:2008 requirements
    Packaging Shelf LifeEstablished at three years

    2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

    The provided document does not specify the sample sizes for the "bench testing" that evaluated dimensional attributes, cycle fatigue, and reliability. It also does not specify the provenance of any data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). Given that this is a premarket notification for a Class I device and clinical data was deemed "not necessary," it is highly likely that the testing was conducted in a laboratory setting.

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

    The document does not describe the use of experts to establish a "ground truth" for the test set. Given that the performance data mainly involves bench testing (physical and chemical properties), expert consensus, as typically understood in clinical or image-based studies, would not be applicable here.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. The reported studies are focused on bench testing and biocompatibility, not expert review or adjudication of data.

    5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

    No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "Clinical data was not necessary to establish the safety and efficacy of the ACCLARENT SE Inflation Device."

    6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was done

    This question is not applicable as the device is a manual surgical instrument (an inflation device), not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent to its physical and material properties.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    For the bench testing, the "ground truth" would be established by engineering specifications, material standards, and validated testing protocols. For biocompatibility, the ground truth is established by the accepted standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series) which define acceptable biological responses. For sterility, the ground truth is a sterility assurance level of 10⁻⁶ validated per AAMI/ANSI/ISO 11135-1: 2007.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. The device is a physical instrument, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

    Not applicable, for the same reason as point 8.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1