Search Results

Bilayer Matrix Wound Dressing is indicated for the management of wounds including: partial and full thickness wounds, pressure ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, chronic vascular ulcers, surgical wounds (donor sites/grafts, post-Moh's surgery, post-laser surgery, podiatric, wound dehiscence), trauma wounds (abrasions, lacerations, second-degree burns, and skin tears) and draining wounds. The device is intended for one-time use.

Bilayer Matrix Wound Dressing is an advanced woundcare device comprised of a porous matrix of cross-linked bovine tendon collagen and glycosaminoglycan and a semipermeable polysiloxane (silicone) layer. The semi-permeable silicone membrane controls water vapor loss, provides a flexible adherent covering for the wound surface and adds increased tear strength to the device. The collagen-glycosaminoglycan biodegradable matrix provides a scaffold for cellular invasion and capillary growth.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Bilayer Matrix Wound Dressing." It describes the device's intended use, description, and the results of certain tests. However, it does not include the detailed information required to answer your specific questions regarding acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study design you outlined.

Specifically, the document states:

• Tests and Test Results: "Biocompatibility studies have demonstrated Bilayer Matrix Wound Dressing to be noncytotoxic, non-pyrogenic, non-irritating, non-sensitizing, non-hemolytic and non-toxic."
• Conclusion: "Valid scientific evidence through biocompatibility and physical property testing provide reasonable assurance that Bilayer Matrix Wound Dressing is safe and effective under the proposed conditions of use..."

This indicates that biocompatibility and physical property testing were performed, and the device met the criteria for those tests. However, the document does not elaborate on:

1. Specific Acceptance Criteria Values: It only states the device was "noncytotoxic," for example, but doesn't provide the quantitative metric or threshold used to define "noncytotoxic."
2. Detailed Study Design for each test: It doesn't describe the sample sizes, origin of data, "experts" involved, adjudication methods, or how ground truth was established for these biocompatibility and physical property tests.
3. Performance in Clinical Scenarios: The document does not describe a study involving clinical performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or how human readers (if any) would perform with or without the device in a diagnostic context. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI diagnostic tool, so many of your questions related to AI performance, multi-reader studies, and ground truth based on pathology or outcomes data are not directly applicable or addressed in this type of submission.

Therefore, given the provided text, I cannot complete the table or answer most of your detailed questions about the study that "proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the way you've framed them for an AI/diagnostic device.

Here's what can be extracted based on the document:

Regarding your specific questions, based only on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: See table above. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not detailed in the summary, only the qualitative outcome (e.g., "noncytotoxic").
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned for the biocompatibility or physical property tests.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable or mentioned. Biocompatibility tests usually follow standardized protocols, not expert consensus for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable or mentioned.
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 a physical wound dressing, not an AI 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 biocompatibility, ground truth is typically established by the defined pass/fail criteria of the standardized test protocols (e.g., ISO standards for biocompatibility).
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable; this device does not use machine learning or AI models requiring a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission for a wound dressing, focusing on its material properties and equivalence to predicate devices, rather than an AI or diagnostic device that would involve the extensive clinical validation and performance criteria you've outlined.

Ask a specific question about this device