Search Results

The GuardianTM burr hole cover system is intended for use following cranial surgery as an implantable 14-mm (0.55-in) burr hole cover for the skull. It can also be used to secure a lead with a 1.29-mm (0.051-in) or 1.39-mm (0.055-in) diameter

The GuardianTM burr hole cover system is used to close a cranial burr hole and secure an implanted, compatible lead, when applicable. The burr hole cover system is nonpyrogenic and has three main features: base, clip, and cover. The base is intended for burr holes with a 14-mm (0.55-in) diameter. It contains two grooved slots to hold a lead in place. The clip fits into the base to hold the lead. The locking mechanism temporarily holds a lead in place before the burr hole cover is secured. The cover snaps onto the base, closing the burr hole and locking a lead in place.

The document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a modification to the Guardian™ Burr Hole Cover System to include an "MR Conditional" statement in the labeling. The acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them are related to this MR Conditional status.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state a "test set" in the context of medical imaging or diagnostic device performance evaluation. Instead, the testing was for the "MR Conditional" status. This typically involves physical testing of the device itself according to specific MR safety standards. Therefore, the "sample size" would refer to the number of physical devices tested to assess their behavior in an MR environment. The document does not specify the exact number of units tested.

• Data Provenance: The testing was conducted "following the FDA Guidance, 'Establishing Safety and Compatibility of Passive Implants in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment'." This implies a laboratory or testing facility setting, rather than clinical patient data. The country of origin of the data is not specified, but the submission is to the US FDA.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and the Qualifications of Those Experts

This question is not directly applicable to this type of submission. Establishing "MR Conditional" status for a passive implant primarily involves engineering and physics expertise for conducting MR safety tests and interpreting their results according to established international standards (e.g., ASTM F2052, F2119, F2182). It does not typically involve a panel of medical experts establishing "ground truth" on patient images or outcomes. The "ground truth" in this context is the objective measurement of MR-related effects (e.g., heating, artifact, force).

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

Not applicable. MR safety testing data is typically objective and quantitative, and does not require adjudication by medical experts in the way clinical diagnostic study results might.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission is for a burr hole cover system (a passive implant), not a diagnostic imaging AI algorithm.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an algorithm. The "standalone" performance refers to the device's inherent physical properties and behavior in an MR environment.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for determining MR Conditional status is based on objective, quantifiable measurements from MR safety testing protocols defined in recognized standards (e.g., SAR measurements, temperature rise, displacement force, torque, image artifact assessment). This is not derived from expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the traditional sense of a diagnostic study.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device. The testing involved physical devices.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device