Search Results

The AMS Large Pore Polypropylene Mesh is indicated for tissue reinforcement and long-lasting stabilization of fascial structures of the pelvic floor in vaginal wall prolapse where surgical treatment is intended, either as mechanical support or bridging material for the fascial defect.

The AMS Large Pore Polypropylene Mesh is a knitted mesh of polypropylene fibers. The mesh can be cut to any desired shape or size and resists unraveling.

The provided text is for a 510(k) summary for a medical device (AMS Large Pore Polypropylene Mesh). It details the device's description, indications for use, and a comparison to a predicate device. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study results, or the other requested particulars related to a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria.

The summary states: "The new device has been tested in accordance with FDA's 'Guidance for the Preparation of a Premarket Notification Application for a Surgical Mesh' and has been shown to be equivalent to the listed predicate device." This indicates that the regulatory requirements for showing substantial equivalence were met, but it doesn't provide the granular data requested.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of the questions based on the provided text.

Here is what can be inferred or explicitly stated from the provided text:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics. It only states that the device was "shown to be equivalent to the listed predicate device."

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

• Sample size for test set: Not specified.
• Data provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The document only mentions "testing" was performed.

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

Not specified, as no human expert-based ground truth is mentioned for the testing of a surgical mesh's physical characteristics.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. The testing described appears to be physical/mechanical testing of the mesh, not a clinical assessment requiring expert adjudication.

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 not an AI-enabled device that would involve human readers or an MRMC study.

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

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

7. The type of ground truth used

Not explicitly stated. For a surgical mesh, "ground truth" would typically refer to physical and mechanical properties being measured against established standards or the properties of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning/AI device that would involve a training set.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AMS Large Pore Polypropylene Mesh is indicated for tissue reinforcement and long-lasting stabilization of fascial structures of the pelvic floor in vaginal wall prolapse where surgical treatment is intended, either as mechanical support or bridging material for the fascial defect.

The AMS Large Pore Polypropylene Mesh is a knitted mesh of polypropylene fibers. The mesh can be cut to any desired shape or size and resists unraveling.

This document describes the AMS Large Pore Polypropylene Mesh, its intended use, and the basis for its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it contains limited information regarding a formal study with acceptance criteria and a detailed comparison of device performance against those criteria. The provided text is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than presenting a full clinical trial or complex performance study with defined acceptance criteria in the way a medical AI device might.

Here's an analysis based on the available text, addressing your points where possible:

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

The provided text does not include a specific table of acceptance criteria for performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy) in the way one would see for an AI diagnostic device. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the demonstration of "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices, meaning it performs similarly in relevant aspects. The study mentioned is a mechanical characterization study.

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

The text mentions "a variety of mechanical characteristics" were tested. However, it does not specify the sample size for this testing, nor does it provide details on data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This would typically involve laboratory testing of the mesh material itself, not human subject 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 product is a surgical mesh, a physical medical device, not a diagnostic or AI-driven tool that requires expert interpretation for ground truth establishment. Therefore, this question is not applicable to the provided document. The "ground truth" for mechanical characteristics would be established through standardized engineering and material science tests.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for expert consensus in diagnostic studies, which is not relevant for a mechanical mesh 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. The device is a surgical mesh; it does not involve human readers, AI assistance, or diagnostic interpretation.

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

Not applicable. The device is a surgical mesh, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device would be based on standardized laboratory testing and measurements of the material's mechanical properties and biocompatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for a machine learning model, this question is not relevant.

Summary of the Study and Evidence provided:

The provided 510(k) summary explains that the AMS Large Pore Polypropylene Mesh underwent two primary evaluations to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices:

• Biocompatibility Testing: The material used in the mesh was "demonstrated to be biocompatible." The details of this testing (e.g., specific ISO standards followed, animal studies, in vitro tests) are not provided in this summary but would have been part of the full 510(k) submission.
• Mechanical Characterization: The mesh was "tested for a variety of mechanical characteristics in accordance with FDA's Guidance for the Preparation of a Pre-market Notification for a Surgical Mesh." The critical finding states that the device "has a reputation of equivalence to the listed predicate devices" (Gynemesh Prolene Soft Mesh, Ethicon Prolene Soft Mesh, AMS Sacral Colpopexy Sling). This implies that its mechanical properties (e.g., tensile strength, pore size, elasticity) were found to be within acceptable ranges and comparable to those of already approved meshes.

The acceptance criteria for this type of device are implicitly that its biocompatibility and mechanical properties are comparable to or better than those of the predicate devices, ensuring similar safety and effectiveness for its intended use as tissue reinforcement in pelvic floor prolapse. The study confirming this "equivalence" was likely a series of laboratory-based material characterization tests.

Ask a specific question about this device