Search Results

Collymer Self-Assembling Scaffold is intended for the management of wounds including: partial and full-thickness wounds, pressure ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, chronic vascular ulcers, tunneled/ undermined wounds, surgical wounds (donor sites/grafts, post-Moh's surgery, post-laser surgery, podiatric, wound dehiscence), trauma wounds (abrasions, lacerations, second-degree burns, skin tears) and draining wounds.

Collymer Self-Assembling Scaffold is a wound management device composed of a purified, self-assembling (scaffold-forming) collagen derived from porcine dermis. This two-part device consists of a collagen solution and a self-assembly reagent. Combining the two solutions initiates collagen self-assembly. The resulting collagen scaffold is suitable for cellularization and vascularization, providing a moist wound environment.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the GeniPhys Collymer Self-Assembling Scaffold (K250329) does not include information about any clinical studies or the performance of a device based on acceptance criteria.

The clearance letter explicitly states:
"Clinical Testing: Clinical testing was not necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence of Collymer Self-Assembling Scaffold to the predicate device."

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, as no such clinical study data is presented in this document.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through:

• Comparison of Indications for Use and Technological Characteristics to a predicate device (Integra Flowable Wound Matrix, K072113) and several reference devices.
• Non-Clinical Testing: Biocompatibility assessments, viral inactivation studies, sterility assessments, shipping studies, and stability evaluations. For these non-clinical tests, it is stated that "All results met the acceptance criteria" or "The acceptance criteria were met," but the specific numerical acceptance criteria themselves are not detailed, nor are the specific performance results beyond a qualitative statement of meeting the criteria.

To directly answer your specific points based on the provided document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not explicitly provided in the document for any clinical performance. For non-clinical tests, only a qualitative statement that acceptance criteria were met is given.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as no clinical test set is described. For non-clinical tests, sample sizes are not specified.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no clinical test set is described.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable as no clinical test set is described.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No, the document states clinical testing was not necessary.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device (wound scaffold), not a software algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable as no clinical study or test set with a "ground truth" (in the context of AI/diagnostic device performance) is described.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as the document refers to a physical device and not a machine learning model that would have a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as no training set is described.

In summary, this 510(k) clearance relied on substantial equivalence to a predicate device and extensive non-clinical testing, rather than a clinical study demonstrating performance against specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device