Search Results

The UMP Liberty Lite PFS System is a battery operated electrostimulation device with an intravaginal applicator that applies electrical stimulation through electrodes on the applicator, to help train neuromuscular tissue in the pelvic floor in order to improve or restore urinary continence in females.

The UMP Liberty Lite PFS System is a battery operated electrostimulation device with an intravaginal applicator that applies electrical stimulation through electrodes on the applicator, to help train neuromuscular tissue in the pelvic floor in order to improve or restore urinary continence in females. The patient uses the system once or twice per day at home. Fach session lasts for 15 to 30 minutes without the need for active involvement of the patient or the physician.

This 510(k) summary for the K960496 Liberty Lite System does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The document is a marketing clearance summary that describes the device, its intended use, and claims substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices (UMP Liberty System K943250 and Hollister InCare Applicator K891773). It focuses on:

• Device Description: Battery-operated electrostimulation device with an intravaginal applicator for pelvic floor muscle training to improve urinary continence in females.
• Substantial Equivalence Claims: Argues that the Liberty Lite Stimulator has equivalent waveforms to the UMP Liberty System, and the Liberty Lite Applicator has equivalent anatomical placement and active surface area to the InCare Applicator, despite physical construction differences. It also mentions material equivalence.
• Marketing Focus: Highlights the device's cost-effectiveness and user-friendliness.

It does not provide:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Details on any specific study (sample size, data provenance, retrospective/prospective).
3. Information on experts or ground truth establishment.
4. Adjudication methods.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study results.
6. Standalone performance data.
7. Type of ground truth used.
8. Training set details or how its ground truth was established, as this appears to be a medical device clearance, not an AI/algorithm-based product as commonly implied by these questions.

Ask a specific question about this device