Search Results

BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel provides a moist wound environment that is supportive to wound healing. It indicated for the dressing and management of minor burns; superficial cuts, lacerations, and abrasions; and minor irritations of the skin. A health care professional may be consulted prior to the first use of this product to determine whether these conditions exist. BIONECT Clear Hydrogel may also be used under the care of a health care professional for wounds such as partial to full thickness dermal uicers (pressure ulcers, venous stasis ulcers, arterial ulcers, diabetic ulcers), surgical wounds (post-operative incisions and donor sites), and second degree burns.

BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel is a clear, colorless, hydrogel that is prepared from sodium hyaluronate and purified water to form a hydrogel dressing. Sodium hyaluronate is a polysaccharide biopolymer that can increase the viscosity of the gel. BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel, since it is a hydrogel dressing, provides a soothing, moist environment that is supportive to wound healing.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel and related devices. However, it does not contain a study report with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance results in the format requested. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on technological characteristics and safety data.

Here's a breakdown of the information available and what is not present:

A. Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Table:

B. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" in the context of the requested performance study. The document mentions "clinical experience with BIONECT® Hydrogel and BIONECT® Hydrogel Gauze Pads in 22 clinical trials (17 controlled) conducted in Europe in patients with various types of ulcers, burns, and surgical wounds." The specific number of patients across these trials is not provided.
• Data Provenance: Europe (clinical trials). The data is described as "clinical experience," which implies retrospective analysis of previously conducted trials, though it doesn't explicitly state "retrospective" or "prospective." Given the timeframe (1999 submission), it's highly likely this refers to data already collected.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The document refers to "clinical experience" and "health care professionals" for indications but does not detail how ground truth was established for the clinical trials.

D. Adjudication method for the test set:

• This information is not provided in the document.

E. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

• This information is not applicable and not provided. The device is a hydrogel dressing, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

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

• This information is not applicable and not provided. The device is a medical product, not an algorithm.

G. The type of ground truth used:

• For the biocompatibility tests: Laboratory test results (cytotoxicity, dermal irritation, dermal sensitization).
• For the clinical experience: Implied clinical outcomes and observations by healthcare professionals in Europe. The document doesn't specify if this involved pathology, objective outcome measures, or expert consensus as a formal "ground truth" definition in the context of a modern AI study.

H. The sample size for the training set:

• This information is not applicable and not provided. The device is not an AI model that requires a "training set."

I. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

• This information is not applicable and not provided.

Summary of Missing Information:

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (hydrogel dressing), not the report of a study designed to evaluate an AI algorithm's performance against specific acceptance criteria. Therefore, many of the requested details related to sample sizes for training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and AI-specific ground truth establishment are not present because they are not relevant to this type of medical device submission. The performance assessment primarily relies on biocompatibility testing and existing clinical experience with similar products to demonstrate safety and substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel is indicated for the dressing and management of partial to full thickness dermal ulcers (pressure sores, venous stasis ulcers, arterial ulcers, diabetic ulcers), wounds including cuts, abrasions, donor sites, and post-operative incisions, irritations of the skin, and first and second degree burns.

BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel, since it is a hydrogel dressing, provides a soothing, moist environment that is supportive to wound healing. BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel is a clear, colorless, hydrogel that is prepared from sodium hyaluronate and purified water to form a hydrogel dressing. Sodium hyaluronate is a polysaccharide biopolymer that can increase the viscosity of the gel.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study to prove the device meets specific acceptance criteria. This type of submission relies on comparisons to already approved devices.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, specific study design, and performance metrics are not explicitly provided in the text. Here's a breakdown of the information available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

No specific, quantitative acceptance criteria or corresponding performance results are provided in the document. The submission focuses on demonstrating that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to an existing predicate device (BIONECT® Hydrogel) in terms of function, intended use, and technological characteristics.

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

No explicit test set or sample size data is provided for the BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel itself.

However, the document states: "Clinical experience with BIONECT® Hydrogel and BIONECT® Hydrogel Gauze Pads in 22 clinical trials (17 controlled) conducted in Europe in patients with various types of ulcers, burns, and surgical wounds indicates that BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel is safe for its intended use."

This refers to studies on the predicate devices, not the new device. The data provenance is Europe, and the studies were clinical trials. It's not specified if these were retrospective or prospective, though clinical trials are typically prospective.

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

This information is not provided. The submission relies on existing clinical data from the predicate devices which would have had outcomes assessed by clinical staff, but the specific number and qualifications of experts for establishing ground truth are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This information is not provided.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

No MRMC study is mentioned. The submission is a 510(k) for substantial equivalence, not a comparative effectiveness study of human readers with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done:

Not applicable. This is a medical device (hydrogel dressing), not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the "clinical experience" mentioned for the predicate devices, the ground truth would be based on clinical outcomes data (e.g., wound healing, absence of adverse events) observed directly in patients.

For the biocompatibility testing of the BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel, the ground truth would be established by the results of standardized in vitro and in vivo tests (cytotoxicity, dermal irritation, and dermal sensitization tests) against established safety benchmarks.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable as this is not an AI/algorithm-based device requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable.

Summary of what is available from the text:

• Device Performance (Claimed): The device functions by providing a soothing, moist environment supportive of wound healing, and is safe for its intended use.
• Proof of Performance (Implicit from 510(k) process): Substantial equivalence to predicate devices is claimed based on:
  • Similar function and intended use.
  • Similar technological characteristics (occlusion, bioburden level, moist wound healing).
  • Biocompatibility testing on the bulk solution of the BIONECT® Clear Hydrogel (in vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity, dermal irritation, and dermal sensitization tests) showing safe use.
  • Clinical experience with the predicate devices (BIONECT® Hydrogel and BIONECT® Hydrogel Gauze Pads) from 22 clinical trials (17 controlled) conducted in Europe.

Ask a specific question about this device