Search Results

Elasto-gel Manuka Honey wound Dressings are indicated for use in management of wounds. Full and partial thickness wounds, pressure ulcers, (stages 1 -IV) venous stasis ulcers, diabetic ulcers, abrasions, surface wounds, traumatic wounds (healing by secondary intention), donor site wounds, and surgical wounds

Elasto-Gel Manuka dressings are supplied as a gel(amorphous) or gel sheet. Elasto-Gel Manuka Honey sheet dressing is a sterile primary single use dressing comprised of aninsoluble polyacrylamide polymer matrix in the form of a continuous sheet with plasticizer of glycerine, honey, and water. The dressings will be supplied in many sizes, for example: 2x3", 4x4,6x8, and possibly other additional sizes and shapes The amorphous gel is a mixture of a super absorbent crosslinked sodium polyacrylic acid, glycerine, honey and water. The crosslinked polyacrylamide polymer is insoluble in the wound fluid but has a relatively high capacity for absorption of the wound fluid, while releasing the glycerine, honey, and water into the wound film to capit establish a chemical equilibrium. The Elasto-Gel Manica Honory and Match Houng Informulated to produce a high viscosity fluid mixture suitable for filling wound cavities. The gel sheet is a moderately adhesive soft gel sheet that will protect the wound from shear friction and pressure, suitable as a protective padding and cushioning device as well as functioning as a dressing.

The provided text describes a medical device, the "Elasto-Gel Manuka Honey Wound Dressing," and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study designed to prove the device meets specific performance criteria in the way typically expected for an AI/ML medical device.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a wound dressing, which relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices. The "Performance Testing" section simply states: "The biocompatibility testing and case studies demonstrates that these dressings are safe for then immediation [sic]" (Page 3, Section 7). This implies general safety and efficacy based on established methods for wound dressings, rather than specific performance metrics and a dedicated study to meet those metrics.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and comparative effectiveness (MRMC) or standalone performance is not applicable or not present in the provided text for this specific device.

However, I can extract what limited information is available and explain why other sections are not covered by the text.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not applicable in the context of specific performance metrics for an AI/ML device. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence in terms of indications, materials, and general properties, rather than quantifiable performance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, or image analysis metrics. The "Performance Testing" section (Page 3, Section 7) broadly states that "biocompatibility testing and case studies demonstrates that these dressings are safe."

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

Not applicable. No "test set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm is described. "Case studies" are mentioned, but no specifics on their size, nature (retrospective/prospective), or data provenance (country of origin) are provided.

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" establishment by experts for a test set is described.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. No adjudication method 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

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance comparison is relevant.

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

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

7. The type of ground truth used

Not applicable for an AI/ML context. For a wound dressing, ground truth would typically relate to clinical outcomes (healing, infection rates, pain reduction), which are generally assessed in clinical trials or case studies. The document only vaguely refers to "case studies" and "biocompatibility testing."

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI/ML model requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable. This device is a wound dressing, not an AI/ML model requiring a training set with ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device