Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(95 days)
Disposable Ureteral Guide Sheath
The Disposable Ureteral Guide Sheath is used to establish a conduit during endoscopic urological procedures facilitating the passage of endoscopes and other instruments into the urinary tract
The propose device, Disposable Ureteral Guide Sheath is used to establish a conduit during endoscopic urological procedures facilitating the passage of endoscopes and other instruments into the urinary tract. This device is divided into 4 types: Straight type (ZSR-UA), Y type (ZSR-UAY), W type (ZSR-UAW), Cross type (ZSR-UAC). The device is composed of guide sheath and dilator.The guide sheath consists of guide sheath tube and connector (straight, Y-shaped, W-shaped and cross-shaped). The proposed devices are sterilized by Ethylene Oxide Gas to achieve a SAL of 10-6 and supplied sterility maintenance package which could maintain the sterility of the device during the shelf life of 3 years.
The provided text describes the 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Disposable Ureteral Guide Sheath." It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing. The document does not detail a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria related to AI/algorithm performance or human reader improvement.
Therefore, I cannot provide information on acceptance criteria for AI performance, sample sizes for AI test sets, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth establishment for AI. These sections are not relevant to the provided text.
However, I can extract information regarding the non-clinical performance testing acceptance criteria and results as described in the document.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
For non-clinical performance testing, the document refers to compliance with standards. The 'Discussion' section under 'Comparison of technological characteristics with the predicate devices' (Table 1) provides some insight into the performance aspects considered, although explicit numerical acceptance criteria are not always stated, rather the outcome of testing.
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Test/Characteristic | Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from discussion) | Reported Device Performance (Implicit from discussion) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance - Bending Resistance | Guiding sheath tube and dilating tube bending (90° in both directions, 20 repetitions) | Tube body free of cracks, creases, and fractures; coating free of falling off; steel wire not separated from inner/outer rubber layers. | "The guiding sheath tube and the dilating tube were bent 90 ° in both directions... After 20 times of repetition, the tube body was free of cracks, creases, cracks and fractures, the coating was free of falling off, and the steel wire was not separated from the inner and outer rubber layers." (Meets criteria) |
| Performance - Coefficient of Friction (Hydrophilic) | After dipping in water, friction force | Not more than 0.5 N for static friction; average dynamic friction force of 25 repeated tests not greater than 0.5 N. | "After being dipped in water, the surface is smooth, and the friction force is not more than 0.5 N; The average dynamic friction force of 25 repeated tests shall not be greater than 0.5 N." (Meets criteria) |
| Performance - Peak Tensile Force | Joint between guiding sheath tube/dilating tube and connector | Able to bear a force of ≥ 20 N for 15s without breaking. | "The joint between the guiding sheath tube and the tube body of the dilating tube and the connector shall be able to bear a force of ≥ 20 N and shall not break for 15 s;" (Meets criteria) |
| Performance - Fracture Force (Locked connector) | Guiding sheath tube connector and expansion tube connector locked | Minimum fracture force ≥ 15N for 15s without breaking. | "The fracture force test shall be carried out when the guiding sheath tube connector and the expansion tube connector are locked. The minimum fracture force shall be ≥ 15N and shall not break for 15 s." (Meets criteria) |
| Biocompatibility | Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Acute Systemic, Pyrogenicity | Compliance with ISO 10993-1. | "Biocompatibility of the Disposable Ureteral Guide Sheath was evaluated in accordance with the FDA guidance "Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1"" and lists the specific tests. Implies successful completion ("this difference will not raise any issues in safety and effectiveness"). |
| Sterility & Shelf-life | Sterility Assurance Level (SAL), Packaging Integrity | SAL of 10-6 upon sterilization; maintenance of sterility for 3 years shelf life. | "sterilized by Ethylene Oxide Gas to achieve a SAL of 10-6 and supplied sterility maintenance package which could maintain the sterility of the device during the shelf life of 3 years." (Meets criteria) |
| General Performance | Overall performance for all physical characteristics not explicitly detailed above | Meets requirements of relevant standards (e.g., EN 1618 for catheters). | "All performance of the subject device has been tested according to relevant standards and meets the requirements of the standards..." |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
This document describes non-clinical engineering and bench testing, not a clinical study involving a "test set" of patient data in the way an AI/ML device would.
- Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a grand total for testing. For specific tests like "Coefficient of Friction," it mentions "25 repeated tests." For "Bending Resistance," it mentions "20 times of repetition."
- Data Provenance: This is bench test data, not patient data. The country of origin for the manufacturing company is Dongguan ZSR Biomedical technology Company Limited, China. The testing would have been conducted as part of their device development and validation process. It is neither retrospective nor prospective in the context of patient data studies; it's product validation testing.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
Not applicable. This is not a study involving expert readers establishing ground truth for diagnostic accuracy, but rather bench testing against engineering specifications and industry standards.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. This is not a study involving human interpretation or clinical adjudication.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done
No. This document does not pertain to an AI-assisted diagnostic device, nor does it describe an MRMC study.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
No. This document does not pertain to an algorithm, AI, or software device. It is for a physical medical device.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The "ground truth" for the performance testing described would be the engineering specifications and industry standards (e.g., specific force values for tensile strength, visual inspection for defects after bending, a defined Sterility Assurance Level). For biocompatibility, the 'ground truth' is compliance with the ISO 10993 series of standards.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This is for a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
Not applicable. There is no training set for this type of device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1