Search Results

The device is intended to provide electrical stimulation and neuromuscular reeducation for the purpose of rehabilitation of weak pelvic floor muscles for the treatment of stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence in women and to maintain urinary continence in women.

Levina Pelvic Floor Muscle Stimulator is a non-implantable, home use device for the treatments of stress, urge, and mixed urine incontinence through the intravaginal probe's electrical stimuli to the muscles of the pelvic floor to induce Kegel-like contractions, which help users to achieve pelvic floor muscle strengthening for maintaining urinary continence in women. The subject device includes a remote control, a stimulator pod and a vagina stimulation probe. Both the remote control and the stimulator pod are powered by an off-the-shelf 3.7V lithium-ion polymer battery. The remote control has a 1.77" TFT LCD screen and 4 buttons to control the stimulator pod. The stimulator pod has two output channels and will perform electrical stimulation according to the parameter settings sent by the remote control. The device is supplied with a reusable (single-patient use) vaginal, dual-electrode, stimulation probe.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Levina Pelvic Floor Muscle Stimulator, which is a medical device. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of clinical performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, human reader improvement with AI, etc.) is not present.

However, the document does contain information about "Non-Clinical Testing" with "pre-determined acceptance criteria" which were met. I will extract and organize the available information based on your request.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

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

The document states: "All pre-determined acceptance criteria were met." but does not provide specific numerical targets or the results from the non-clinical tests in a detailed table format. It lists the types of tests performed.

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

This document primarily discusses non-clinical engineering and software testing. It does not refer to "test sets" in the context of clinical data (e.g., patient cases) or population-based data. Therefore, this information is not applicable or available in this 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 applicable as the document does not describe a clinical study involving experts establishing ground truth for a test set.

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

This information is not applicable as the document does not describe a clinical study involving adjudication of a test set.

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 information is not applicable. The device is a "Pelvic Floor Muscle Stimulator," an electrical therapy device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is a physical stimulator and not an algorithm-only diagnostic or AI solution. The "Software Verification and Validation Testing" refers to the embedded software in the device, not a standalone AI algorithm for interpretation.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" would be defined by the technical specifications and requirements outlined in the referenced international standards (e.g., ISO 10993, IEC 60601 series). For example, electrical safety "ground truth" would be the specified limits for leakage current or dielectric strength. There is no clinical "ground truth" discussed in this document.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable. The document describes a physical medical device and its non-clinical engineering and software testing, not a machine learning model that would require a "training set."

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Pelvic Floor Muscle Stimulator (Model name: MagBelle AF180) is intended to provide entirely non-invasive electromagnetic stimulation of pelvic floor musculature for the purpose of rehabilitation of weak pelvic muscles and restoration of neuromuscular control for the treatment of male and female urinary incontinence.

The Pelvic Floor Muscle Stimulator (model: MagBelle AF180) is a non-invasive therapeutic device which produces electromagnetic field that interacts with the tissues in the pelvic region of the human body. The electromagnetic field delivered in the muscular tissue area triggers the muscle stimulation. MagBelle AF180 consists of the main unit and the chair applicator. The MagBelle AF180 is equipped with a color touch screen that facilitates the use of the device. The on-screen information guides the user step-by-step through the entire therapy procedure. The therapeutic parameters can also be set using the touch screen, buttons and knob on the device. During the device keeps information about the applied therapy type, remaining therapy time and main therapy parameters on the screen. The subject device should only be used under the continued supervision or licensed practitioner. The device supports 3 different function modes: Magnetic stimulation function, Kegel biofeedback training function and Triggering magnetic stimulation function of Magnetic stimulation function and Kegel biofeedback training function).

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a "Pelvic Floor Muscle Stimulator" (MagBelle AF180). This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving independent effectiveness through a comprehensive clinical study with extensive statistical analysis of acceptance criteria. Therefore, the details requested in the prompt, such as specific acceptance criteria and detailed study outcomes with statistical measures, are not fully elaborated in the provided document in the typical format of a standalone clinical trial report.

However, based on the information provided, here's a summary of the available details regarding acceptance criteria and the study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that "All pre-determined acceptance criteria were met" for non-clinical testing. For the clinical data, the acceptance criterion was implicitly that the subject device's pelvic floor muscle strength measurements were "comparable" to a reference device. Specific quantitative criteria and detailed performance metrics are not provided in this regulatory summary.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Kegel Biofeedback functionality test: 100 urinary incontinence patients (male and female, age range: 22-70).
• Data Provenance: The study was conducted "in a hospital set-up," implying a prospective study. The country of origin of the data is not explicitly stated but is likely China, given the submitter's location.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• Number of Experts: At least one clinician was involved in manually testing pelvic floor muscle strength using the modified Oxford Grading Scale. The document doesn't specify the number of additional clinicians or their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, specialty beyond "clinician").

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document implies a comparison method where the subject device's measurements were calibrated and compared against manual assessment by a clinician and a reference device. It does not describe a formal expert adjudication method like "2+1" or "3+1." The clinician's manual assessment appears to serve as a form of ground truth or benchmark activity.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not performed or described. This device is a therapeutic device, not an AI diagnostic algorithm that assists human readers.

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

• The device itself is a standalone therapeutic device with a "Kegel Biofeedback functionality." The study assessed the performance of this functionality in measuring pelvic floor muscle strength, comparing its output to manual assessment and a reference device. This qualifies as evaluating a standalone function of the device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the Kegel Biofeedback functionality, the ground truth was established by:
  • Expert Clinical Assessment: Manual testing of pelvic floor muscle strength by a clinician using the modified Oxford Grading Scale.
  • Comparison to a Reference Device: Measurements from the subject device were compared to those from the legally marketed reference device, K201014 (MyOnyx System).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of the clinical data presented. The 100 patients were used for verification and calibration of the Kegel biofeedback mode, which might imply a form of internal "training" or adjustment during development, but it's not described as a distinct training set for an AI/algorithm in the traditional sense. The focus here is on device function verification.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• As a training set is not explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described. However, for the verification of the Kegel biofeedback mode, the calibration and comparison process involved manual assessment by a clinician and comparison with a reference device.

Ask a specific question about this device