Search Results

The Contreet Foam is indicated for use in the management of moderately to highly exuding leg ulcers and pressure sores. The dressing can also be used for 2nd degree burns, donor sites, post operative wounds and skin abrasions. Contreet Foam Nonadhesive is additionally indicated for diabetic foot ulcers.

Contreet Foam Dressing is a wound dressing with silver as the active component. The dressing provides an optimal moist wound healing environment, combining an effective antibacterial barrier activity with exudates management.

Contreet Foam Non-adhesive is suitable for use on fragile skin due to the absence of adhesive. The film backing is waterproof and semi permeable.

Contreet Foam Adhesive has a hydrocolloid adhesive border and a central absorbent foam pad containing silver. The film backing is waterproof and semi permeable.

The dressing demonstrates in-vitro antibacterial activity for up to 7 days in certain strains known to be detrimental to wound healing such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, B-haemolytic Streptococcus, MRSA and VRE.*

*The list of bacteria that Contreet Foam has demonstrated in-vitro antibacterial activity towards is as follows: Acinetobacter, C. albicans, C. perfringens, E. cloacae, E. faecalis, E. faecium, E. coli, hemolytic Streptococcus Gr.A, MRSA (Methicillin resistant S. aureus), anaerobic Peptostreptococcus , P. mirabilis, P. vulgaris, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus. Coaqulase negative Staphylococcus, S. epidermidis. VREF (Vancomvcin resistant E. faecium).

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Contreet Foam Dressing, an antimicrobial wound dressing. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and detailing the device's characteristics and intended use.

However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria, detailed study designs, or performance metrics from clinical trials or comparative effectiveness studies that would allow for a comprehensive description of how the device meets specific acceptance criteria.

The 510(k) submission process primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, often through in-vitro testing and comparison of technological characteristics, rather than extensive clinical efficacy studies with predefined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, many of the requested sections cannot be filled from the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted and what information is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

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

• Not provided. The document focuses on in-vitro data and substantial equivalence, not a clinical trial with a defined test set of patients. The antibacterial activity is stated as "in-vitro."

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):

• Not applicable/Not provided. No clinical "test set" requiring expert ground truth is described in the provided 510(k) summary for performance evaluation.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. No clinical "test set" and associated adjudication is described.

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:

• No such study was mentioned or performed. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical wound dressing, not an algorithm.

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

• For the antibacterial activity, the ground truth was based on laboratory strain identification and quantification in in-vitro tests.
• For substantial equivalence, the "ground truth" is regulatory equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and intended use.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not provided. This is a physical medical device, not an AI model requiring a training set in the typical sense.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. No training set for an AI model is involved.

Summary of Device Acceptance:

The Contreet Foam Dressing was accepted for market by the FDA based on a 510(k) Premarket Notification, which determined that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. The primary "study" proving this was a comparison of its technological characteristics and performance to the predicates, including the demonstration of in-vitro antibacterial activity. There were no clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria outlined in this summary. The FDA's letter states: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification... and have determined the device is substantially equivalent... to legally marketed predicate devices." This means that due to its similarity to already approved devices, no new significant safety or effectiveness questions were raised that would require extensive clinical studies for this particular submission.

Ask a specific question about this device