Search Results

NEOVEIL® Staple Line Reinforcement is indicated for use in surgical procedures in which soft tissue transection or resection with staple line reinforcement is needed. NEOVEIL® Staple Line Reinforcement of staple lines during lung resection, bronchial, bariatric, colon, colorectal, esophagus, gastric, mesentery, pancreas, and small bowel procedures.

NEOVEIL® Staple Line Reinforcement is composed of a biodegradable synthetic polymer, polyglycolic acid (PGA) and is offered as a nonwoven surgical mesh configured into sleeves. The device is applied to the surgical site via a mechanical stapler with two jaws, where one piece of the sleeve is slid over each jaw of the stapler. This is accomplished by attaching a similar-sized piece of nonabsorbable elastic knit to the PGA felt that is held together by means of PGA tacking threads. After deployment of the tube type reinforcement material, the non-degradable elastic knits, comprised of polyurethane and nylon, are removed and discarded along with the PGA tacking sutures. The PGA material is dyed with D&C Green No.6.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called NEOVEIL® Staple Line Reinforcement. It outlines a Special 510(k) submission, meaning the device is largely similar to a previously cleared predicate device with minor modifications. As such, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance testing rather than new extensive clinical studies.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly provide a table of acceptance criteria with numerical targets. Instead, it states that "The performance testing validated that NEOVEIL® Staple Line Reinforcement meets its product specification and performs as intended. Results confirm that the specification requirements for the subject device have been met."

The performance tests conducted include:

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 specify the sample size used for each of the internal tests. The testing was described as "simulated usability testing on final finished versions of NEOVEIL®™ using a relevant mechanical stapler." The data provenance is "internal GUNZE test methods," implying the testing was conducted by Gunze Limited. The country of origin for the data is not explicitly stated, but Gunze Limited is based in Japan. The testing described is prospective, as it was conducted to validate the modified device.

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 section is not applicable as the evaluation involved non-clinical performance testing of a physical device, not an AI or diagnostic tool where expert ground truth would be established.

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

This section is not applicable as the evaluation involved non-clinical performance testing of a physical device.

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 submission is for a physical medical device (staple line reinforcement), not an AI diagnostic tool. The "usability" mentioned refers to the device's interaction with a stapler, not human interpretation.

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

A standalone performance study was not applicable. This device is a physical product, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical performance testing was the product specifications and intended performance as defined by Gunze's internal test methods. The tests verified if the device functioned correctly (e.g., stapler insertion, firing, and staple formation) under simulated conditions.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

NEOVEIL™ is indicated for use in surgical procedures in which soft tissue transection or resection with suture or staple line reinforcement is needed. NEOVEIL™ can be used for reinforcement of suture or staple lines during lung resection, liver resection, bronchial, bariatric, colon, colorectal, esophagus, gastric, mesentery, pancreas, and small bowel procedures.

As packaged, NEOVEIL™ is a suture- and staple-reinforcement product composed of 100% bioabsorbable polyglycolic acid (PGA). This nonwoven product is dyed with D&C Green No.6 in order to make it readily visible to the surgeon. Two forms of NEOVEIL TM are provided. The Tube type model constitutes of pre-formed porous bio-absorbable nonwoven sheets and is intended for staple-line reinforcement. The Tube type model is provided in the form of sleeves, one for the cartridge and one for the anvil on a corresponding stapler. After deployment of the tube type reinforcement material, the non-degradable elastic knits, comprised of polyurethane and nylon, are removed and discarded along with the PGA tacking sutures. The Sheet type model is simply a porous fibrous bio-absorbable sheet which is intended for suture-line reinforcement. The thickness of the bioabsorbable NEOVEIL™ staple line reinforcement ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.85 mm. Mesh weave characteristics and pore size are not applicable since NEOVEIL™ is nonwoven material. Average basis weight of the NEOVEIL model ranges from 35 to 225 (g/m²).

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device called NEOVEIL™ Tube/Sheet Type Suture and Staple Line Reinforcement Material. This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing de novo performance criteria against acceptance thresholds. Therefore, the concept of "acceptance criteria" as typically applied to performance claims (e.g., specific sensitivity/specificity targets for an AI algorithm) is not present. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the comparison of technological characteristics and performance testing against a predicate device.

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on your request, interpreting "acceptance criteria" in the context of substantial equivalence:

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

The provided document describes a bench and in vivo animal testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not a study involving human subjects or AI performance. Therefore, many of your requested points related to AI algorithms, human readers, and ground truth in a clinical context are not applicable.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test set size: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of samples for each test, but general in-vitro and in-vivo testing was performed.
   • Data provenance: Not explicitly stated, but it would be from internal lab testing (in vitro) and animal studies (in vivo). No information about country of origin of data is provided beyond the submitting company being from Japan. The studies are prospective in nature (designed to demonstrate equivalence).

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

   • Not applicable as this is a device based on material property testing and animal studies, not expert-adjudicated clinical data to establish diagnostic ground truth. The "ground truth" here is the performance of the predicate device and established engineering/biological benchmarks.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable for this type of device submission. Performance is measured against physical and biological parameters, not through expert adjudication of qualitative outcomes.

4. 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 not an AI device.

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

   • No. This is not an AI device.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • For in vitro tests: Physical and mechanical property measurements (e.g., tensile strength, thickness, density, stiffness) are compared against the known properties of the predicate device and/or defined engineering standards.
   • For in vivo tests: Biological responses and functional performance in animal models (e.g., free bleed, air leak, burst, resorption rates) are compared against observations with the predicate device or accepted physiological norms for successful surgical repair.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no AI model to train.

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

   • Not applicable. There is no AI model to train.

Ask a specific question about this device