Search Results

CP Medical's synthetic, absorbable placement sleeve accessory is intended to be used with absorbable seeding spacers to facilitate the introduction of radionuclide seeds and spacers into the body during Brachytherapy procedures. It is used to orient, hold, carry and maintain spacing of the radionuclide seeds and the spacer component.

The Carrier Sleeve is indicated for use in soft tissues or organ tissue but should not be used during cardiovascular or neurological procedures.

The CP Medical CARRIER SLEEVE consists of synthetic absorbable polymer or copolymer material, braided and non-braided, which is used with absorbable seeding spacers to facilitate the introduction of radionuclide seeds and spacers into the body during Brachytherapy procedures.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Carrier-Sleeve," an accessory for brachytherapy procedures. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a formal study. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth generation is not applicable or not present in this type of submission.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not applicable. This 510(k) submission does not present a table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance in the manner of a formal performance study with quantitative metrics. The basis for clearance is demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

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

Not applicable. There is no mention of a "test set" for performance evaluation in this 510(k). The submission relies on a comparison of technological characteristics to predicate devices.

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

Not applicable. Ground truth establishment for a test set is not part of this 510(k) submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. There is no "test set" or adjudication method 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

Not applicable. This device is an accessory for brachytherapy procedures (a "sleeve"), not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is irrelevant and not performed.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical accessory and does not involve an algorithm or standalone performance in the context of AI.

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

Not applicable. There is no mention of establishing ground truth for a performance study. The ground for substantial equivalence is based on comparing the intended use and technological characteristics to predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" as it is not an AI or machine learning algorithm.

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

Not applicable. As above, there is no training set mentioned or implied.

Summary of the Study that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria (as presented in this 510(k)):

The "study" or justification for the device meeting acceptance criteria (in this context, being suitable for market) is a comparison of technological characteristics and intended use to legally marketed predicate devices, demonstrating substantial equivalence.

• Predicate Device(s):

  • CP Medical, K013975, Placement Sleeve for Brachytherapy Procedures
  • RIVER Medical Absorbable Seeding PDO Spacer component (K021311)

• Comparison: The submission states, "The proposed device, the CP Medical CARRIER SLEEVE is comprised of a synthetic absorbable material and is intended to facilitate the loading, delivery and implantation of radioactive seeds and spacers. Similarly, the predicate devices are composed of synthetic absorbable material intended to facilitate the loading, delivery and implantation of radioactive seeds and spacers."

• Conclusion (from FDA letter): The FDA reviewed the 510(k) and "determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices." This determination is the "proof" that the device meets the relevant regulatory acceptance criteria for market clearance via the 510(k) pathway.

In essence, the "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) are met by demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, primarily through a comparison of design, materials, intended use, and other relevant characteristics. This document does not describe a traditional clinical or performance study with quantitative acceptance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

CP Medical's synthetic, absorbable placement sleeve accessory is intended to be used with absorbable seeding spacers to facilitate the introduction of radionuclide seeds and spacers into the body during Brachytherapy procedures. It is used to orient, hold, carry and maintain spacing of the radionuclide seeds and the spacer component.

The CP-Sleeve is indicated for use in soft tissues or organ tissue but should not be used during cardiovascular or neurological procedures.

The CP Medical CP-SLEEVE consists of absorbable polymer or copolymer material, braided and non-braided, which is used with absorbable seeding spacers to facilitate the introduction of radionuclide seeds and spacers into the body during Brachytherapy procedures.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "CP-Sleeve," an accessory for brachytherapy procedures. It declares the device to be substantially equivalent to previously marketed predicate devices.

Here's an analysis based on your requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not contain a table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance data in the typical sense of quantitative metrics for device functionality or clinical outcomes. This submission is a 510(k), which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing extensive de novo performance data.

The "performance" described is in terms of the device's functional characteristics and intended use being similar to the predicate:

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

The document does not describe a specific "test set" or provide sample sizes for performance studies. 510(k) submissions typically rely on a comparison to predicate devices, and sometimes include bench testing or limited clinical data if necessary to prove equivalence. This document primarily focuses on the description of the device and its intended use in relation to predicates. Therefore, there's no information on:

• Sample size for a test set.
• Country of origin of data.
• Retrospective or prospective nature of data.

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

Since there is no described test set or performance study involving human interpretation of data, there is no information about experts used to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

As no test set involving human interpretation is described, there is no information on an adjudication method.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, and consequently any associated effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance, was not performed or reported in this 510(k) submission. This is a traditional medical device (an accessory sleeve), not an AI/software device.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

As this is a physical medical device and not an algorithm/software, a standalone AI algorithm performance study was not conducted.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Given the nature of this 510(k) submission for a physical accessory device, the "ground truth" is established through bench testing and comparison to the known performance and characteristics of the predicate devices. There isn't a "pathology, outcomes data, etc." ground truth in the context of an algorithm or diagnostic device. The ground truth here is the established safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate devices, which the CP-Sleeve claims to be substantially equivalent to in material, function, and intended use.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

There is no mention of a training set or its sample size. This type of information is relevant for AI/machine learning models, not for a physical brachytherapy sleeve.

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

As there is no training set, there is no information on how its ground truth was established.

Ask a specific question about this device