Search Results

The Healicoll Topical Collagen Wound Dressing is intended for the topical wound management that includes:

• Partial and full-thickness wounds. .
• Pressure ulcers. .
• Venous ulcers. .
• Chronic vascular ulcers. .
• Diabetic ulcers. .
• Trauma wounds (abrasions, lacerations, second-degree burns, skin tears), .
• Surgical wounds (donor sites/grafts, post-Mohs' surgery, .
  post-laser surgery, podiatric, wound dehiscence)

Helicoll is a translucent, off-white, semi-occlusive, self-adhering and ready to use pre-sterilized Type-1 Collagen Sheet for Second-degree Burn, Chronic Ulcers and other topical Wound Managements. Helicoll is flexible with moderate tackiness. Helicoll is a reconstituted collagen sheet free of contaminants like lipids, elastin and other immunogenic proteins. Helicoll maintains a physiologically moist microenvironment at the wound surface. This device is intended for one time use only.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for a collagen wound dressing called HELICOLL. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and detailing safety and biocompatibility testing. It does not contain information about formal acceptance criteria for device performance (like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity) or a study proving the device meets such criteria in a clinical context.

The document discusses:

• Safety and Efficacy: Evaluated through a series of in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests, listed in the "Safety and Efficacy" section (pages 2-3).
• Conclusion: The results of "in vitro product characterization studies and biocompatibility studies indicate that Helicoll, the Collagen Topical Wound Dressing, is safe and substantially equivalent to its predicate devices."

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of the questions as the required information (performance acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert involvement, adjudication methods, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth for performance, how ground truth for training was established) is not present in the provided text. The document focuses on regulatory approval based on safety and biocompatibility for a collagen wound dressing, not on a clinical performance study with defined performance metrics.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

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

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable/Not provided. The "tests" mentioned are biocompatibility studies (e.g., In vitro Hemolysis, Cytotoxicity, Intracutaneous Toxicity, Dermal Sensitization, Muscle Implantation, Acute Systemic Toxicity, USP Pyrogenicity, Mutagenicity, Embryonic Cytotoxicity, Acute Oral Toxicity, Systemic Antigenicity, Skin Irritation, LAL Chromogenic Assay, Heavy Metal analysis). These use animal models (Rabbit, Guinea Pigs, Mice) and in vitro methods, not human clinical test sets with data provenance in the way a diagnostic or AI device would.
• Data Provenance: The studies are described as conducted using standard biological evaluation methods (e.g., Rabbit RBCs for hemolysis, rabbits for intracutaneous toxicity, guinea pigs for dermal sensitization, mice for acute systemic toxicity). The specific labs or countries are not mentioned beyond "ENCOLL Corp." as the applicant. These are lab/animal studies, not clinical data from countries.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Not applicable/Not provided. Ground truth in the context of clinical performance (e.g., disease presence) is not relevant for these biocompatibility tests. The "ground truth" for these tests is the observed biological response according to established protocols.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable/Not provided. Adjudication methods are typically for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of clinical data, which is not the nature of the biocompatibility tests 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

• No. This is a collagen wound dressing, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted device, so an MRMC study comparing human readers with/without AI assistance is not applicable.

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

• No. This is a medical device (wound dressing), not an algorithm or AI. Standalone performance is not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For the biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" is based on the biological responses observed in the in vitro and animal models, interpreted against established safety standards for medical device materials. This is not clinical expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the usual sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. There is no concept of "training set" for a physical medical device undergoing biocompatibility testing.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device