Search Results

The OXYLENS (hioxifilcon B) Spherical Soft Contact Lenses for daily wear are indicated for the correction of visual acuity in aphakic and not aphakic persons with non-diseased eyes with myopia or byperopia. The lens may be worn by persons who exhibit refractive astigmatism of 1.50 diopters of less where the astigmatism does not interfere with visual acuity.

The OXYLENS (hioxifileon B) Toric Soft Contact Lenses for daily wear are indicated for the correction of visual acuity in aphakic and not aphakic persons with non-diseased eyes with myopia or hyperopia and/or possesses refractive astigmatism not exceeding 10 Diopters.

The lenses are available within a planned replacement program with frequency of replacement determined by the practitioner.

The OXYLENS (bioxifilcon B) Soft (Spherical & Toric) Daily Wear Contact lenses are fabricated from hioxifilcon B, which in the dry (unhydrated) state may be machined and polished. The hydrophilic nature of this material allows the lens to become soft and pliable when immersed in an aqueous solution.

In the hydrated state, the lens conforms to the curvature of the eye covering the cornea and extending slightly beyond the limbus forming a colorless, transparent optical surface. The (hioxifilcon B) soft hydrophilic contact lens has a spherical back surface. The hydrophilic properties of the lens require that it be maintained in a fully hydrated state in a solution compatible with the eve. If the lens dries out, it will become hard and appear somewhat warped, however, it will return to its proper configuration when completely rehydrated in the proper storage solution.

The hydrophilic characteristics allow aqueous solutions to enter the lens and in its fully hydrated state the lens is approximately 48% water by weight.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study information for the Oxylens:

Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the device (Oxylens soft contact lenses) is seeking substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a standalone study with specific acceptance criteria for device performance in a clinical trial. The "acceptance criteria" here refer to demonstrating that the Oxylens device is functionally and materially equivalent to already-approved devices, meaning it meets the same safety and effectiveness profile.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison of physical properties and manufacturing methods, rather than presenting a clinical study with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement.

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

Since this is a substantial equivalence submission, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the characteristics of the predicate devices. The device "performance" is the Oxylens' material and manufacturing properties matching or being similar to those of the predicate.

Study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria:

The "study" proving equivalence is a comparison of the physical, chemical, and manufacturing characteristics of the Oxylens with those of the identified predicate devices ("Alden Classic" series, "Satureyes" and "Satureyes Toric" manufactured by Metro Optics, and "BENZ-G 3X" manufactured by Benz Research and Development). The document explicitly states: "The following matrix illustrates that the production method, lens function and material of the OxyLens (hioxifilcon B) Soft (Spherical & Toric) Daily Wear Contact Lens (Clear & Blue Visibility Tint, Lathecut from Lens Blank), are substantially equivalent to the predicate device(s). In addition, the water content, polymer, Dk value, refractive index, specific gravity, and light transmission are as well substantially equivalent to the predicate device."

This is a technical and material comparison, not a clinical efficacy or safety trial in the typical sense. The established safety profile (preclinical toxicology and manufacturing/chemistry data) of the device is equivalent to the BENZ-G 3X (hioxifilcon B), 510(k) #K964528.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable. This submission relies on material and manufacturing equivalency testing and existing data from predicate devices, not on a new clinical test set of patients or images.
• Data Provenance: The data provided relates to the physical and chemical properties of the lens material. The "established safety profile" is linked to a predicate device (BENZ-G 3X) which would have undergone its own review. The provenance of that underlying data is not detailed here. It is not a clinical study with patient 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)

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve expert review for a "test set ground truth" in the context of an AI or diagnostic device. The ground truth for material properties is established through standard laboratory testing.

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

• Not applicable. There is no clinical "test set" and thus no adjudication method for establishing ground truth from multiple readers/experts.

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 clinical study was done. This device is a contact lens, 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 device is a contact lens, not an algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" here is based on standard material science properties and manufacturing characteristics (e.g., water content, Dk value, refractive index) as determined by established laboratory methods, and the functional characteristics of existing, legally marketed contact lenses. This is a technical equivalency, not a medical "ground truth" derived from patient outcomes or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve machine learning or an AI algorithm, so there is no training set.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device