Search Results

Therapeutic Ultrasound:

1. Pain relief
2. Reduction of muscle spasm
3. Localized increase of blood flow
4. Increase range of motion of contracted joints using heat and stretch techniques.

Neuromuscular Stimulation:

1. Symptomatic relief of chronic intractable pain, acute post traumatic pain or acute surgical pain
2. Temporary relaxation of muscle spasm
3. Prevention of post-surgical phlebo-thrombosis through immediate stimulation of calf muscles
4. Increase of blood flow in the treatment area.
5. Prevention or retardation of disuse atrophy in post-injury type conditions
6. Muscle re-education
7. Maintaining or increasing range of motion

The DU857 Dual Frequency Ultrasound Therapy and Muscle Stimulator System is comprised of the following main components:
· A system console including software and control electronics;
· A control and display panel;
· Device accessories including Muscle Stimulator electrodes (ME2221, Mettler Com.), ultrasound applicators (ME7513, Mettler Corp.), acoustic gel (Sonigel, Mettler Corp.) and cables, supplied by Alpha Tech.

The DU857 is a two-channel unit for therapeutic ultrasound and muscle stimulation folded into a specially designed cart. The microprocessor controlled DU857 provides Muscle Stimulator alternating current with enhanced reliability and user friendly interface. The DU857 offers 1 and 3 MHz ultrasound treatment.

The user friendly interface comprises keyboard, touch screen and audio feedback. The screen provides operator information about operation mode and signal intensities. Large control soft knobs on the touch screen make easy adjusting of power for ultrasound and muscle stimulation.

The provided document (K052340) is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "The DU857 Dual Frequency Ultrasound Therapy and Muscle Stimulator System." This type of submission is for substantiating that a new device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving its safety and effectiveness through clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria as you might see for a high-risk device or novel technology.

The document explicitly states:

• "Discussion of Non-Clinical Tests Performed for Determination of Substantial Equivalence are as follows: Not applicable"
• "Discussion of Clinical Tests Performed: Not applicable"

This means that the manufacturer did not perform studies with acceptance criteria in the way you're asking, for example, a study to demonstrate a certain level of diagnostic accuracy (like sensitivity, specificity, AUC) or a specific clinical outcome. Instead, substantial equivalence was established by demonstrating that the DU857 has the same intended use and similar technological characteristics to the predicate device (Mettler Electronics Corp., Sonicator Plus 930, Model ME 930, K013192), and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria, sample sizes, experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details as these types of studies were not performed or reported in this 510(k) submission.

The "acceptance criteria" in this context refer to demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on comparison of technical specifications and adherence to relevant safety standards, rather than performance metrics from a diagnostic or interventional study.

Here's what can be extracted based on the provided document and the typical nature of a 510(k) submission for this type of device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Not applicable. No clinical "test set" was used as no clinical study was performed for this 510(k) submission. The equivalence was established through technical comparison to the predicate device and adherence to recognized safety standards.

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

• Not applicable. No ground truth for a test set was established as no clinical study was performed.

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

• Not applicable. No adjudication method was used as no clinical study was performed.

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 ultrasound and muscle stimulator for physiotherapy, not a diagnostic AI device requiring MRMC studies.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical therapy device, not an algorithm-based diagnostic or therapeutic system that would have a "standalone performance" study in the typical sense.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical ground truth was established or used for performance evaluation in this 510(k). The "ground truth" for this submission concerned the technical specifications and safety profile of the device being equivalent to a predicate.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is hardware-based with some software for control, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

• Not applicable. As above, no training set or associated ground truth was relevant for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device