Search Results

Intended for medical purposes for use on infants from 3 to 18 months of age, with moderate-to-severe non-synostotic positional plagiocephaly, including infants with plagiocephalic-, and scaphocephalic-shaped heads by applying mild pressure to prominent regions of an infant's cranium in order to improve cranial symmetry and/or shape. These devices are also indicated for adjunctive use for infants from 3 to 18 months of age synostosis has been surgically corrected, but who still have moderate-to-severe cranial deformities including plagiocephalic-, and scaphocephalic- shaped heads.

The Ottobock MyCRO Band is a non-sterile temporary orthosis to aid in the correction of head shape caused by positioning in infants three (3) to eighteen (18) months of age. As such, this device is manufactured to match patient anatomy and may only be used on the patient for which the cranial orthosis was designed. The orthosis uses contact and growth zones to guide the growth of the head. The contact zones define limits for growth, while the growth zones leave space in areas required for forming the natural head shape. An adaptable closure allows for adjustability as the child grows. The orthosis is made of thermoplastic material with a soft, washable lining on the interior.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device called "MyCRO Band," a cranial orthosis used for infants with positional plagiocephaly. However, the document does not contain the information necessary to describe acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as requested in the prompt.

Specifically, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (STARband®) based on similar indications for use, intended use, basic principles of operation, and basic design, along with non-clinical testing. It mentions "Scanner Evaluation utilized a worst-case challenge reference object of known dimensions to assess 3D imaging devices for adequate accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility" and "Verification testing included dimensional analysis, fit assessment, and mechanical testing of test samples," but it does not provide:

• A table of specific acceptance criteria and reported device performance values related to clinical outcomes or direct head shape correction metrics.
• Sample sizes for a clinical test set (as the described tests are non-clinical).
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Information on experts establishing ground truth or adjudication methods.
• Any multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone algorithm performance (as this is a physical orthosis, not an AI/algorithm-based device).
• Type of ground truth used related to clinical efficacy.
• Training set sample size or ground truth establishment for a training set (again, not an AI/algorithm device).

The "Summary of Testing" section lists:

1. Biological evaluation per ISO 10993-1:2018
2. Cytotoxicity testing per ISO 10993-5:2009
3. Irritation and Sensitization testing per ISO 10993-10:2010
4. Scanner evaluation, including repeatability/reproducibility study
5. Verification testing

While these tests "successfully met the predetermined acceptance criteria," the specific criteria and the detailed results demonstrating the device's efficacy in correcting cranial deformities (beyond dimensional accuracy of the scanner or fit of the orthosis) are not provided in this 510(k) summary. These are typically covered in a more detailed study report that is part of the full 510(k) submission but not included in this high-level summary.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the specific details of acceptance criteria and proven device performance based solely on the provided text. The text focuses on the engineering and biocompatibility aspects for demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than a detailed clinical performance study as would be seen for an AI/algorithm device or a device with novel mechanisms of action requiring extensive clinical validation.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended for medical purposes for use on infants from 3 to 18 months of age, with moderate-to-severe non-synostotic positional plagiocephaly, including infants with plagiocephalic-, and scaphocephalic-shaped heads by applying mild pressure to prominent regions of an infant's cranium in order to improve cranial symmetry and/or shape. These devices are also indicated for adjunctive use for infants from 3 to 18 months of age whose synostosis has been surgically corrected, but who still have moderate-to-severe cranial deformities including plagiocephalic-, brachycephalic-, and scaphocephalic-shaped heads.

The Ottobock MyCRO Band is a non-sterile temporary orthosis to aid in the correction of head shape caused by positioning in infants three (3) to eighteen (18) months of age. As such, this device is manufactured to match patient anatomy and may only be used on the patient for which the cranial orthosis was designed. The orthosis uses contact and growth zones to guide the growth of the head. The contact zones define gentle limits for growth, while the growth zones leave space in areas required for forming the natural head shape. An adaptable closure allows for adjustability as the child grows. The orthosis is made of thermoplastic material with a soft, washable lining on the interior.

The MyCRO Band is a cranial orthosis intended for infants aged 3 to 18 months with moderate-to-severe non-synostotic positional plagiocephaly, including plagiocephalic, brachycephalic, and scaphocephalic-shaped heads. It works by applying mild pressure to prominent regions of an infant's cranium to improve cranial symmetry and/or shape. It is also indicated for adjunctive use in infants with surgically corrected synostosis who still have moderate-to-severe cranial deformities.

Because the MyCRO Band functions similarly to the predicate device (Orthomerica Products, Inc., STARband® K180109), the acceptance criteria are based on comparative testing rather than specific performance metrics. The summary provided outlines the types of non-clinical tests conducted and their successful completion, rather than specific numerical acceptance criteria.

Here's the information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

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

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes for each test set (e.g., number of test samples for fit assessment, number of scans for scanner evaluation). It refers to "test samples" and "representative simulated cranial shapes."

The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The testing described appears to be primarily technical and comparative against established standards or predicate device characteristics, rather than requiring expert adjudication for ground truth.

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

An adjudication method is not mentioned, likely because the tests are technical and objective (e.g., passing a specific ISO standard, dimensional analysis, repeatability metrics).

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a physical cranial orthosis, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would involve human readers.

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

This concept is not applicable as the device is a physical cranial orthosis, not an algorithm or AI system.

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

The "ground truth" for the tests appears to be:

• Biocompatibility: Established ISO standards (ISO 10993-5:2009, ISO 10993-10:2010).
• Scanner Evaluation: Known dimensions of a "worst-case challenge reference object" and the performance of previously cleared devices.
• Software Validation: Internal device specifications and criteria for interoperability.
• Simulated Cranial Fit Assessment: The fit of manufactured samples to "representative simulated cranial shapes" derived from 3D images.
• Manufacturing Process Validation: Dimensional analysis and mechanical testing, compared to the process used for the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not provided. The development and testing of this physical orthosis does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device