Search Results

The Mentor NovaSilk Mesh is indicated for tissuc reinforcement and long-lasting rne Memor of fascial structures of the pelvic floor in vaginal wall prolapse where surgical treatment is intended, cither as mechanical support or bridging matcrial for the fascial defect.

NovaSilk is a permanent, synthetic knitted polypropylenc mesh that is square in shape. It is a sterile, single use device which will be available in quantitics of three.

The provided text describes a medical device, the Mentor NovaSilk™ Mesh, and its clearance process through the FDA 510(k) pathway. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than explicit performance against predefined acceptance criteria for AI/ML devices or diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, much of the requested information for an AI/ML device is not applicable or not present in this document.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided and what is typically sought for AI/ML device evaluations:

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

For this device (surgical mesh), the "acceptance criteria" are not reported in terms of specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or AUC that would be relevant for an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device. Instead, acceptance for 510(k) clearance is primarily based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device and meeting general safety and effectiveness requirements through various tests.

The document lists the following characteristics assessed for NovaSilk:

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

This information is not provided. The testing described appears to be bench testing for material characteristics and biocompatibility, not a clinical study with patient "test sets" in the context of AI/ML evaluation.

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)

This is not applicable. The device is a surgical mesh, not a diagnostic tool requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a surgical mesh, not a diagnostic tool requiring adjudication of interpretations.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a surgical mesh, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a surgical mesh, not an algorithm.

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

This is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device would be its physical and biological properties conforming to established standards and demonstrating safety. The biocompatibility tests for pyrogenicity and cytotoxicity provide a form of "ground truth" regarding its biological safety.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The device is a manufactured medical product, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device