Search Results

The device is intended to be used for drawing osteomedullary substances from the sternum or from the iliac crest.

A manually operated biopsy needle used for aspiration or explantation of bony substance.

This document describes a medical device, the ISAN®-Sternal-Iliac Crest Aspiration-Biopsy Needle, and outlines its intended use, function, and a comparison to a predicate device. It also lists several tests performed to demonstrate safety, performance, and efficacy. However, it does not provide acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria related to its intended function (drawing osteomedullary substances).

The listed tests (Intracutaneous Reactivity, Acute Systemic Toxicity, Pyrogen Test, Cytotoxicity) are safety-related biological compatibility tests, not performance studies of the core biopsy function.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the input:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated for performance of the biopsy function. For the listed tests, the implicit acceptance criterion is "Passed."
   • Reported Device Performance:
     • Intracutaneous Reactivity: Passed
     • Acute Systemic Toxicity: Passed
     • Pyrogen Test: Passed
     • Cytotoxicity: Passed

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

   • Cannot be determined from the provided text. The document refers to "tests," but does not detail the methodology, sample sizes of these tests, or data provenance.

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):

   • Cannot be determined from the provided text. The listed tests are laboratory-based biological evaluations, not diagnostic performance studies that would typically involve expert ground truth establishment.

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

   • Cannot be determined from the provided text. (See reasoning for point 3).

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 MRMC study was done. This device is a manually operated biopsy needle, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • For the biological tests, the "ground truth" would be the standard laboratory protocols and negative/positive controls as per relevant ISO or ASTM standards for biocompatibility testing. The document does not specify these. For the core function of the biopsy needle, no performance study data is provided, so no ground truth type can be identified.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Cannot be determined. This is a physical medical device, not an AI model requiring a training set.

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

   • Not applicable. (See reasoning for point 8).

In summary, the provided document focuses on the safety of the biopsy needle through biocompatibility testing, but lacks detailed information regarding performance efficacy related to its primary function (drawing osteomedullary substances) and the associated acceptance criteria and studies.

Ask a specific question about this device