Search Results

FILM DRESSING
ARGLAES-AB Antimicrobial Film Dressings are sterile, transparent, and self-adherent dressings intended for the local management of pressure sores, incisions, donor sites, minor burns, abrasions and lacerations, superficial leg ulcers and other dermal ulcers.
ARGLAES-AB Antimicrobial Film Dressings are also intended to help secure and protect intravenous catheters.

ISLAND DRESSING
ARGLAES-AB Antimicrobial Barrier Island Dressings are sterile wound dressingscomposed of a calcium alginate pad presented on a visually clear, selfadherent, antimicrobial barrier film backing.
ARGLAES-AB Antimicrobial Barrier Island Dressings are intended for the local management of exuding wounds, including infected and non-infected:

• Pressure Ulcers
• Venous Ulcers
• Diabetic Ulcers
• Arterial Ulcers
• Donor Sites and other bleeding surface wounds
• Dermal lesions, trauma injuries or incisions.
  ARGLAES-AB Antimicrobial Barrier Island Dressings are contraindicated for third degree burns or for use on individuals with a known sensitivity to silver.

ARGLAES-AB™ Antimicrobial Barrier Film Dressings are sterile, visually clear, oxygen and moisture vapor permeable, and self-adherent dressings for use in wound care and venipuncture site management. ARGLAES-AB™ dressings are an effective protection against microbial contamination.
ARGLAES-AB™ Antimicrobial Barrier Island Dressings are sterile wound dressings composed of a calcium alginate pad presented on a visually clear, self-adherent, antimicrobial barrier film backing. The ARGLAES-AB™ island dressing combines the advantages of a calcium alginate wound dressing together with ARGLAES-AB™ antimicrobial barrier film protection against wound site contamination.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device submitted to the FDA in 1999. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices for wound care dressings with antimicrobial barrier properties.

Based on the content, here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation of "Acceptance Criteria": In a 510(k) submission, formal "acceptance criteria" for performance are often outlined by the FDA and/or derived from recognized standards. This summary focuses on demonstrating equivalence, so the "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly linked to the performance characteristics of the predicate devices and the specific claims being made (sustained antimicrobial barrier). The success criterion for the in vitro tests was that the film "demonstrate sustained antimicrobial barrier activity."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample size (number of dressings tested) for the in vitro 7-day antimicrobial barrier (strike-through) tests. It lists the microbial strains challenged but not the number of replicates or individual dressings used for each challenge.
• Data Provenance: The studies were "in vitro," meaning they were conducted in a laboratory setting, not on human or animal subjects. The country of origin of the data is not explicitly stated, but the submitter is "MAERSK MEDICAL, LTD." from England. The studies are described as "preclinical performance studies," and there is no indication of retrospective or prospective human clinical data.

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

• Not Applicable: This was an in vitro laboratory study. There was no "ground truth" to be established by human experts in the context of diagnostic interpretation or clinical outcomes. The "ground truth" was the objective measurement of microbial growth through the barrier film in a controlled laboratory environment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable: As an in vitro study with objective measurements of microbial growth, there would be no need for an adjudication method by human observers.

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 a study involving AI, human readers, or diagnostic image interpretation. It's an in vitro performance study of a wound dressing.

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

• Not Applicable: See point 5. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Objective Laboratory Measurement / Experimental Result: The ground truth for the antimicrobial barrier studies was the measurable outcome of the in vitro experiments – specifically, whether the microbial strains successfully "struck through" the ARGLAES-AB™ film within the 7-day test period. A "sustained antimicrobial barrier activity" was the desired objective result.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable: There is no "training set" in this context. This is a traditional medical device (wound dressing) being evaluated for physical and biological properties, not a machine learning model.

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

• Not Applicable: See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device