Search Results

The Expandacell™ Anti-Fog Instrument Wipe is identical to an existing medical device, K923843/A and K791736. These Anti-Fog Instrument Wipes, marketed by Xomed/ Merocel and Dixide, Inc. have a proven track record that establishes this product line as safe and effective for use in surgery.

The Expandacell™ Anti-Fog Instrument Wipe is identical to an existing medical device, K923843/A and K791736. These Anti-Fog Instrument Wipes, marketed by Xomed/ Merocel and Dixide, Inc. have a proven track record that establishes this product line as safe and effective for use in surgery. There is no modification in the proposed device and the predicate devices that alters safety and effectiveness. The proposed product is identical in intended use, materials, anatomical sites, target population, physical safety, biocompatibility and performance to the predicate device stated.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and a hypothetical study, followed by detailed answers to your questions based on the actual information in the K964334 document:

Analysis of the Provided Text (K964334):

The provided text for K964334 is a 510(k) summary for a device called "Expandacell™ Anti-Fog Instrument Wipe." Crucially, this document does not describe a study involving specific acceptance criteria or performance metrics for the device itself. Instead, it relies on the concept of substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

The core argument is that the Expandacell™ Anti-Fog Instrument Wipe is identical to previously cleared devices (K923843/A and K791736) in terms of:

• Intended use
• Materials
• Anatomical sites
• Target population
• Physical safety
• Biocompatibility
• Performance

Because the device is claimed to be identical to predicate devices that already have a "proven track record that establishes this product line as safe and effective," the submission asserts that no new safety and effectiveness concerns are raised, and therefore, no new performance study is needed to demonstrate new acceptance criteria are met.

Therefore, for many of your questions, the answer will be that this information is not applicable or not provided in this type of 510(k) submission, as it's not a performance study report but a substantial equivalence claim.

Detailed Answers to Your Questions (Based on K964334):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated as performance metrics in this document. The implicit acceptance criterion is that the device is "identical" to predicate devices that are already deemed safe and effective.
   • Reported Device Performance: No specific performance metrics (e.g., fogging duration, clarity improvement percentage) are reported for the Expandacell™ Anti-Fog Instrument Wipe itself in this document. Its performance is assumed to be equivalent to the predicate devices due to its identical nature.

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

   • Sample Size: Not applicable. No new test set or performance study was conducted or reported in this 510(k) summary for the Expandacell™ Anti-Fog Instrument Wipe.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable.

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. No new ground truth validation was performed as no new performance study was conducted.

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

   • Not applicable. No new performance study was conducted.

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. This is an anti-fog instrument wipe, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device. An MRMC study is not relevant to this type of product.

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

   • No. This product is an instrument wipe, not an algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable. The "ground truth" for the Expandacell™ Anti-Fog Instrument Wipe's safety and effectiveness relies on the historical "proven track record" and regulatory clearances of the predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm-based device and does not involve a training set.

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

   • Not applicable. No training set was used.

Ask a specific question about this device