Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The NEUROVENT is indicated for use in ventricular pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage applications. It can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP).

The NEUROVENT IFD-S is indicated for use in ventricular pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage applications. It can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP).

The NEUROVENT IFD-R is indicated for use in ventricular pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage applications. It can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP).

The NEUROVENT-P is indicated for use in parenchymal pressure monitoring and can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP).

The NEUROVENT-PX is indicated for use in parenchymal pressure monitoring and can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP).

The NEUROVENT-P-TEMP is indicated for use in parenchymal pressure monitoring and can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP). Additional measurement of the brain temperature allows the direct measurement of the cerebral tissue temperature.

The NEUROVENT-TEMP is indicated for use in ventricular pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage applications. It can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP). Additional measurement of the brain temperature allows the direct measurement of the cerebral tissue temperature.

The NEUROVENT-TEMP IFD-S is indicated for use in ventricular pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage applications. It can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP). Additional measurement of the brain temperature allows the direct measurement of the cerebral tissue temperature.

The NEUROVENT-TEMP-IFD-R is indicated for use in ventricular pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage applications. It can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP). Additional measurement of the brain temperature allows the direct measurement of the cerebral tissue temperature.

The NEUROVENT-PTO is indicated for use in parenchymal pressure monitoring and can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP). Additional measurement of the brain temperature allows the direct measurement of the cerebral tissue temperature. Additional measurement of the oxygen partial pressure is an adjunct monitor of trends indicating the perfusion status of cerebral tissue local to sensor placement. The measured values are relative within an individual and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions as to diagnosis or therapy.

The NEUROVENT-PTO-2L is indicated for use in parenchymal pressure monitoring and can be used for the measurement of the intracranial pressure (ICP). Additional measurement of the brain temperature allows the direct measurement of the cerebral tissue temperature. Additional measurement of the oxygen partial pressure is an adjunct monitor of trends indicating the perfusion status of cerebral tissue local to sensor placement. The measured values are relative within an individual and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions as to diagnosis or therapy.

The BOLT(-DRILL) KITs are indicated to provide a cranial access for RAUMEDIC neurosurgical precision pressure catheters of the RAUMEDIC NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM.

The DRILL KITs are indicated to provide a cranial access for RAUMEDIC neurosurgical precision pressure catheters of the RAUMEDIC NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM.

The Tunneling KITs are indicated to provide a cranial access for catheters of the RAUMEDIC NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM.

The RAUMEDIC® NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM consists of several different models of probes and probe catheters capable of performing one or several different functions:

• Models with a dedicated lumen can be used for drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
• Models equipped with ICP sensors can determine the level and change in intracranial pressure (ICP).
• Models equipped with temperature thermistors can monitor intracranial temperature.
• Models equipped with fiber optic sensors can monitor partial tissue oxygen pressure (ptiO2).

The RAUMEDIC® NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM is intended to be used in conjunction with previously cleared RAUMEDIC® EASY logO Monitor (K130529), RAUMEDIC® MPR2 logO DATALOGGER (K171666), RAUMEDIC® NPS3 (K103206) or RAUMEDIC® NPS2 X (Brand name for NPS2 cleared in K103206).

The RAUMEDIC® NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM includes components needed to facilitate the surgical implantation of NEUROVENT® catheters.

The RAUMEDIC® NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM can be used in MR environment under specific constraints (MR conditional). Those constraints vary by device type, implantation method (bolting or tunneling), and magnetic field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla).

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for NEUROVENT Devices does not contain the specific details required to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria, particularly for performance metrics.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Device Identification: Listing all device names, regulation numbers, classification, and product codes.
• Regulatory Equivalence: Stating that the device is substantially equivalent to previously cleared predicate devices based on intended use, indications for use, and technological characteristics.
• Intended Use/Indications for Use: Detailed descriptions of what each NEUROVENT component is used for (e.g., ICP monitoring, CSF drainage, brain temperature, tissue oxygen partial pressure).
• MR Safety Testing: A list of ASTM and ISO/TS standards used to confirm the device's MR conditional status, along with the specific tests performed (magnetically induced displacement force, torque, image artifacts, heating, malfunction for various fields).

Crucially, the document explicitly states: "Based on performance testing and the available information concerning the referenced comparison devices, the RAUMEDIC® NEUROMONITORING-SYSTEM is equivalent in that: - The devices have the same intended use and indication for use. - Performance characteristics are suitable for designated indications for use."

However, it does NOT provide:

• A table of specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., ICP accuracy within X mmHg, temperature accuracy within Y °C, ptiO2 accuracy within Z mmHg).
• The reported device performance metrics against those criteria.
• Details about the "performance testing" beyond the MR safety tests. This implies that the performance characteristics (accuracy, precision, etc., for measuring ICP, temperature, ptiO2) were either derived from the predicate devices, established using bench testing, or considered suitable without presenting detailed clinical performance data in this 510(k) summary. Given the device type, it's highly likely a combination of bench and possibly animal/cadaveric testing, as well as reliance on the long-established performance of similar predicate devices, was used.
• Information about clinical study design. There is no mention of human subject data, test sets, training sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, or MRMC studies. The phrases "anticipated clinical performance" and "does not raise new issues of safety or effectiveness" suggest reliance on the substantial equivalence principle rather than novel clinical trial data.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot complete the requested information for acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, beyond the MR safety aspects.

I will indicate "Not provided in the document" for sections where the information is missing.

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

2. Sample sized 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 provided in the document. The document primarily refers to "performance testing" and "MR safety requirements" being "tested and confirmed" to meet standards, rather than a clinical test set from human subjects.
• Data provenance: Not provided. The MR safety tests are likely laboratory-based.

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/Not provided. The document does not describe a study involving expert-established ground truth for performance evaluation of vital sign monitoring. The evaluation methodology focuses on substantial equivalence and laboratory testing for MR compatibility.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a monitoring system and a kit for surgical access, 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

• Not applicable. The performance evaluation discussed pertains to the physical and functional aspects of the hardware (catheters, sensors, and their compatibility with MR environments), not a standalone algorithm.

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

• For the MR safety testing, the "ground truth" would be established by the specifications and measurement techniques defined in the referenced ASTM and ISO/TS standards.
• For the core physiological measurements (ICP, temp, ptiO2), the "ground truth" would typically refer to the accuracy of the sensors against calibrated reference standards in laboratory or animal models. This specific detail is not provided, but it's implied compliance with recognized industry standards or internal validation that is deemed "suitable for designated indications for use" and "equivalent."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. The document does not describe the use of machine learning or AI, and therefore, no "training set."

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Heager Medical Laser Family device is intended for delivery of laser light to soft tissue in the contact and non contact mode during surgical procedures. The device's 980nm laser is generally indicated for use in incision, excision, vaporization, ablation, hemostasis or coagulation of soft tissue in ear, nose and throat and oral surgery (otolaryngology), dental procedures, gastroenterology, general surgery, dermatology, plastic surgery, podiatry, urology, gynecology. The device is further indicated for laser assisted lipolysis. The device's 1470nm laser is intended for delivery of laser light to soft tissue in non-contact mode during general surgery procedures, indicated for the treatment of reflux of the saphenous veins associated with varicose veins and varicosities.

The Heager Medical Laser Family generates a 980nm wavelength laser to act on a target tissue to achieve hemostasis, ablation, and coagulation of the target tissue. The Heager Medical Laser Family generates a 1470 nm wavelength laser that acts on the water molecules of the target tissue to achieve the function of treatment of reflux of the saphenous veins associated with varicose veins and varicosities.

The Heager Medical Laser Family has following characteristics:

• Dual wavelengths
• Temperature monitoring system

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical laser device, not a study report. Therefore, it does not contain the specific details about acceptance criteria and study results you requested in the format typically found in a clinical or performance study.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Heager Medical Laser Family, here's what can be extracted and what information is not available within this document:

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

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative, measurable way for device performance in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technical specifications and adherence to recognized electrical and safety standards.

The "reported device performance" is primarily presented as technical specifications and compliance with safety standards rather than clinical performance metrics.

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 available in the provided document. As this is a 510(k) for a laser surgical instrument, the primary "test set" would be the device itself tested against engineering and safety standards, not a clinical data set in the way an AI/diagnostic device would have. The document explicitly states: "No clinical study implemented for the Diode laser therapy 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 information is not available. Given that "No clinical study implemented," there would be no ground truth established by experts in a clinical context for the purpose of a study demonstrating effectiveness. The "ground truth" here is the adherence to engineering standards and technical specifications.

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

This information is not available. Adjudication methods are typically associated with clinical studies involving human observers or raters, which were not conducted for this 510(k) submission.

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 and not available. This is a laser surgical instrument, not an AI software/diagnostic device that would involve human readers or AI assistance in interpretation.

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

This information is not applicable and not available. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

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

The "ground truth" in this 510(k) context is primarily compliance with recognized electrical, safety, and performance standards (e.g., IEC standards) and technical specifications of the device, demonstrated through non-clinical testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not available. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning model for this type of laser device 510(k) submission.

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

This information is not applicable and not available for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece of RFMagik are intended for use in dermatologic and general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis.

RFMagik is a medical device combined with RF current, to function as an electrosurgical device for use in dermatology and general surgical procedures. It is possible to select and change modes, parameters, outputs, etc. using the panel on the main body. It consists of the main device, LCD screen, two handpieces, single use electrodes, electrode pad, NE pad cable, food switch.

There are three handpieces. RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece that delivers RF energy through the disposable electrode in the handpiece.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for an RF Electrosurgical Device (RFMagik). It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance results, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, or clinical study details. The section on "Clinical Testing" explicitly states: "Clinical testing is not a requirement and has not been performed."

The document focuses on:

• Regulatory details: Device classification, product codes, indications for use.
• Technological comparison: Detailed comparison of the subject device (RFMagik) with a primary predicate device (RFMagik Lite) and a reference device (AGNES). This comparison highlights similarities and differences in handpieces, electrodes, output power, etc., and explains why these differences do not affect substantial equivalence.
• Non-clinical testing: Biocompatibility, sterility, shelf-life, and performance bench testing. An "Ex Vivo Study" was conducted on tissue types (liver, skin, muscle) for thermal testing.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for the test set, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC study details, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, or how training ground truth was established. This information is typically found in specific study reports or sections of a 510(k) submission that go beyond what is published in the clearance letter itself.

The document indicates that the substantial equivalence was primarily demonstrated through bench testing and comparison to predicate devices, rather than clinical trials or extensive human-in-the-loop performance studies.

Summary of what CANNOT be provided from the given document:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: Not present.
2. Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No clinical test set. Ex vivo study mentioned, but specific sample sizes are not detailed.
3. Number of experts and qualifications for ground truth: Not applicable as no clinical study with expert ground truth review was performed.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not conducted.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable as this is a physical electrosurgical device, not an AI algorithm.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable for a clinical study. Ex vivo study used physical tissue, but no "ground truth" akin to medical image labeling.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable as there is no mention of an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid is a single use disposable device intended to be worn by operating room personnel to protect a surgical wound from contamination.

The tested drugs are:

Simulated Gastric Acid Fluid was also tested with a minimum breakthrough greater than 240 minutes.

Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid is a sterile and disposable device. This glove is made of synthetic polyisoprene rubber inside coated with synthetic material to ease donning the glove. The device is intended to be worn on hands, usually in surgical settings, to provide a barrier against potentially infectious materials and other contaminants. These gloves were tested for use with Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid as per ASTM D6978-05 Standard Practice for Assessment of Medical Gloves to Permeation by Chemotherapy Drugs.

The device conforms to the following FDA recognized consensus standards: ASTM D3577-19, ASTM D6124-06, ASTM D5151-19, ASTM D412-16, ISO 11137-1:2006 + AMD1:2013 + AMD2:2018, ISO 11137-2:2013 + AMD1:2022, and ASTM D6978-05.

Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid is available in the following sizes: 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, and 9.0.

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device: "Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves, Green Color, Tested For Use With Chemotherapy Drugs and Gastric Acid." This document outlines the general requirements for the device and details the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, it does not contain any information regarding clinical studies, AI/ML device performance, or human-in-the-loop studies. The device is a physical medical glove and not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, the requested information elements related to AI/ML and clinical study methodologies are not applicable to this submission.

The document focuses on demonstrating the physical, chemical, and biological safety and performance of the gloves according to recognized consensus standards.

Here's the relevant information that can be extracted:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The device underwent non-clinical testing against several recognized standards. The "Results" column consistently states "PASS," indicating that the device met the specified acceptance criteria for each test.

Chemotherapy Drug Permeation Results:

Warning: Carmustine: 15.8 minutes and Thiotepa: 24.6 minutes. Do not use with Carmustine and Thiotepa.

Summary of Study Information (Not Applicable for this Device Type)

The provided document describes a Class I medical device (Sterile Powder Free Synthetic Rubber Surgeon's Gloves) which is a physical product, not a software device or an AI/ML-driven system. Therefore, the following requested information points related to AI/ML device performance and clinical study methodologies are not applicable. The submission primarily relied on non-clinical (bench) testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable, as this is a physical device tested via non-clinical laboratory methods according to recognized standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO). The specific sample sizes for each non-clinical test (e.g., number of gloves for tensile strength, number of samples for permeation, number of animals for biocompatibility) are part of the detailed test reports but are not summarized in this FDA summary document. Data provenance details like country of origin for test materials or retrospective/prospective nature are not specified as they are not relevant for this type of non-clinical testing.
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. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus is typically relevant for diagnostic AI/ML devices interpreting medical images or other complex data. For gloves, "ground truth" is established by adherence to quantitative physical, chemical, and biological performance standards.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical trials or expert review panels, not for standard physical/chemical testing of a device like a glove.
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: Not applicable. This device is not an AI system nor does it involve human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For this device, the "ground truth" is adherence to the specified performance criteria defined by the listed consensus standards (e.g., ASTM D3577 for physical properties, ASTM D6978 for chemotherapy permeation, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility). These standards define acceptable quantitative limits or qualitative responses (e.g., "not an irritant").
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" as it is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set."

Conclusion:

The FDA document K250313 confirms the clearance of sterile surgeon's gloves based on their adherence to established non-clinical performance and safety standards, including physical properties, sterility, and resistance to chemotherapy drugs and gastric acid. The document explicitly states that "[a] clinical study was not conducted in support of this submission." The questions related to AI/ML, clinical study designs, expert ground truth, and training data are not relevant to this specific device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IPL Hair Removal Device is an over-the-counter device indicated for the removal of unwanted hair such as but not limited to small areas such as underarm and facial hair below the chin line and large areas such as legs.

The device is also indicated for the permanent reduction in hair regrowth, defined as the long term, stable reduction in the amount of hair regrowing when measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regime.

The IPL Hair Removal Device is a personal, light-based, hair reduction device intended to be sold over-the-counter directly to the end user.

The device provides hair reduction using Intense Pulsed Light technology(suitable for model T21A, T21B and T22A, T22B). The device provides hair reduction using Intense Pulsed Light technology and cooling technology (suitable for model T14B, T16B, T19B, T15B, T17C, T18B, T21C, T21D, T25B, T25C).

The Intense Pulsed Light technology works below the skin's surface and does not involve any cutting or pulling, reducing hair growth with minimal pain. The device is only powered by the external power adapter and its IPL emission activation is by finger switch. The device contains a Quartz glass Xenon lamp and a skin sensor to detect appropriate skin contact. If the device is not properly and fully applied to the skin of the treatment area, the device will not emit light pulses; If the device is properly and fully applied to the skin of the treatment area, the device can emit light pulses in as quickly as 0.5 seconds. In automatic mode, it supports continuous flashing and automatic light emission.

In auto-recognition skin color mode, the skin tone sensor can detect and identify the color of skin, and determine the required intensity based on the recognized skin color. Make sure the skin tone sensor is in full contact with the skin. If a valid skin color is detected, the corresponding energy level is displayed. If it is not in full contact with the skin, the energy level is 0 and no light pulses are emitted.

The cooling technology based on the temperature difference electrical phenomenon through the semiconductor cooling chip inside the IPL main device and uses the principle of the Peltier effect to achieve the purpose of cooling function. The cooling panel is located around the light-emitting window (suitable for model T14B, T16B, T19B) and does not affect the irradiated area (spot size) of the light outlet; The cooling panel is constructed with sapphire, (suitable for model T15B, T17C, T18B, T21C, T21D, T25B, T25CB) and does not affect the irradiated area (spot size) of the light outlet.

The device is available in two designs: straight-panel and gun-shaped, both featuring a compact and lightweight form factor. Moreover, The enterprise has reserved an ample quantity of lamp heads to ensure maintenance accessibility and end-user convenience.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary contain information about the IPL Hair Removal Device. However, they do not include any specific details about acceptance criteria or a clinical study proving the device meets those criteria for hair reduction efficacy and safety on human subjects.

The document primarily focuses on technical comparisons to predicate devices and adherence to various electrical, photobiological, and biocompatibility safety standards. It mentions "Performance data supports that the device is safe and as effective as the predicate device for its intended use" (Page 7), but it does not describe what this performance data entails in terms of clinical efficacy trials.

Therefore, I cannot provide a detailed response to your request for acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets them, as the necessary information is not present in the provided text.

Specifically, the following information is missing from the provided document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance for clinical efficacy: The document states the device is indicated for "permanent reduction in hair regrowth," but no quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "X% hair reduction in Y% of subjects") or corresponding performance results from a clinical study are provided.
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: No clinical study data involving human subjects is described, so sample size and data provenance are not available.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth and qualifications: This would be relevant for clinical efficacy studies (e.g., expert assessment of hair counts or density). Such information is not present.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable as no clinical efficacy study details are provided.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not mentioned, as no clinical efficacy study is described.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable for a hair removal device, as its performance is inherently human-applied.
7. Type of ground truth used: For hair removal, ground truth would typically be objective measurements of hair count/density or expert photographic assessment. No such details are given.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the context of clinical efficacy demonstration.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The "Performance Data" section (Page 16) only lists compliance with:

• Biocompatibility Testing: ISO 10993 standards for cytotoxicity, irritation, and skin sensitization.
• Electrical Safety and EMC Safety: IEC 60601 series standards.
• Eye Safety: IEC 62471 standard.
• Software Verification and Validation: Stating "all software requirement specifications are met and all software hazards have been mitigated."

These are all technical and safety performance data points, not clinical efficacy data to support the "permanent reduction in hair regrowth" claim. The FDA clearance is based on substantial equivalence, implying that the device's technical specifications and safety profile are similar enough to previously cleared devices, which would have had their own supporting clinical data. However, the details of this device's specific clinical performance data are not included in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for placement in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit or multi-unit restorations. When a one-stage surgical approach is applied, the S.I.N. dental implants are intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

S.I.N. Dental Implant System implants with lengths of 18, 20, 22 or 24mm may be tilted up to 30º. When used in the mandible or maxilla with implants with lengths of 18, 20, 22 or 24 mm at an angulation of 30º, a minimum of four implants must be used and must be splinted. When placed in the maxilla with lengths of 18, 20, 22 or 24 mm at angulations between 0º and less than 30º, the S.I.N. Dental Implant System implants are only indicated for multiple unit restoration in splinted applications that utilize at least two implants.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System, which includes various endosseous implants with 16° Morse tapers interface connection. This submission adds to the S.I.N. Dental Implants System, the Versalis S implants line.

The Versalis S implant line has the Versalis S and Versalis S Plus implants, and both have a Morse taper connection with an internal 16° cone taper. The Versalis S implants have implant body lengths from 8.5 to 24mm and body diameter Ø from 3.5 to 7.0mm., they are manufactured from unalloyed titanium conforming to ASTM F67, with a double acid-etched surface treatment. The Versalis S Plus implants have implant body lengths from 8.5 to 24mm and body diameter Ø from 3.5 to 7.0mm., they are manufactured from unalloyed titanium conforming to ASTM F67, with a double acid-etched surface treatment plus hydroxyapatite surface coating.

All subject device dental implants are manufactured from unalloyed titanium conforming to ASTM F67 Standard Specification for Unalloyed Titanium for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R50250, UNS R50400, UNS R50550, UNS R50700), Grade 4. The material used to manufacture the dental implants in this submission (conforming to ASTM F67) is identical to the material used to manufacture the device implants cleared in primary predicate K170392 and in additional predicate K222231.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental implant system. It does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that an AI/ML device meets acceptance criteria. The "Performance Data" section discusses non-clinical testing for the dental implant itself, such as sterilization validation, shelf-life testing, and biocompatibility, as well as fatigue testing and MRI environment compatibility. This is for a physical medical device, not a software device that relies on AI/ML.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information as it is not present in the given document.

To reiterate, the document is about a physical dental implant system and the performance data pertains to its physical properties, sterility, and biocompatibility, not to the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The eufy Wearable Breast Pump S1 is a powered breast pump intended to be used by lactating women to express and collect milk from their breasts. It is intended for a single user.

The eufy Wearable Breast Pump E10 is a powered breast pump intended to be used by lactating women to express and collect milk from their breasts. It is intended for a single user.

The eufy Wearable Breast Pump is an electrically powered wearable single breast pump. There are two models, eufy Wearable Breast Pump S1 (T8DO2) and eufy Wearable Breast Pump E10 (T8DO3). S1 consists of a Pump Hub, Diaphragm, Milk Container, Pouring Spout, Heating Pins, Flange, Duckbill Valve and charging pins. E10 consists of Pump Hub, Diaphragm, Milk Container, Pouring Spout, Flange and Duckbill Valve.

The differences between S1 and E10 are as follows:

1. E10 has no heating function (S1 has a heating function);
2. The charging method is different (S1 for magnetic charging, E10 for Type-C charging).

The eufy Wearable Breast Pump is powered by an internal rechargeable lithium-ion polymer battery (3.7V 1460mAh). The eufy Wearable Breast Pump cannot be operated while it is being charged.

The eufy Wearable Breast Pump operates on embedded software, and software updates by end-users are supported. The subject device is intended for use in a home healthcare environment. An optional smartphone app may be used with the Breast Pump. The app may be used to control the operation of The Breast Pump (select mode and vacuum level, start and stop pumping), save pumping session history and display the quantity (in ml) of milk in the bottle on the user's smartphone. Use of the app is not mandatory to operate the Breast Pump.

The eufy Wearable Breast Pump is a closed-system breast pump with an anti-backflow diaphragm which physically separates the air-pumping system from the milk-flow system.

The eufy Wearable Breast Pump allows the user to power the breast pump on and off, and to operate the breast pump in two modes (stimulation, expression) and to control the vacuum settings within these modes. Each mode consists of 7 vacuum levels, capable of providing suction from -75 to -292.5mmHg, with cycle speeds ranging from 71 to 110 cycles/minute in stimulation mode and 39 to 60 cycles/minute in expression mode.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the eufy Wearable Breast Pumps (S1 and E10) do not contain information about a clinical study involving human subjects or AI components that would require acceptance criteria related to accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

The document describes non-clinical performance testing for the device, which primarily focuses on:

• Electrical Safety, Electromagnetic Compatibility: Compliance with standards like ANSI AAMI ES60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, HA60601-1-11, and IEC 62133-2.
• Performance testing: Verification of vacuum suction pressure & cycle speed, backflow protection, battery capacity, operating time/charging time, and use life testing. "Device specifications were met for all tests conducted." This statement indicates internal acceptance criteria were met, but the specific numerical criteria are not detailed in this summary.
• Packaging simulation testing: Compliance with ISTA 3A: 2018.
• Biocompatibility: Compliance with ISO 10993-1, 10993-5, 10993-10, and 10993-23. "The user-contacting materials were shown to be non-cytotoxic, non-irritating, and non-sensitizing." These are the acceptance criteria.
• Software: Evaluation based on FDA guidance documents for device software functions.
• Cybersecurity: Evaluation based on FDA guidance for cybersecurity in medical devices.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the way you've requested (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity), nor can I answer questions about sample size for a test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth establishment for clinical data, as this information is not present in the provided text.

The provided document indicates that the device has "embedded software" and an "optional smartphone app," but there's no mention of these software components being AI-driven in a way that would necessitate performance metrics like those typically seen for AI/ML devices (e.g., for diagnosis, prediction, or image analysis). The app primarily controls the pump and displays basic information like milk quantity.

Based on the provided text, the device is a powered breast pump, and its clearance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance and safety testing.

To summarize what can be inferred from the provided text regarding acceptance and testing:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for eufy Wearable Breast Pump

The acceptance criteria and study detailed in the provided 510(k) summary are focused on the safety and performance of the electromechanical device as a powered breast pump, rather than on diagnostic or AI-powered functions requiring clinical accuracy metrics.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• The document describes non-clinical performance testing on the device itself (e.g., how many units were tested for vacuum, battery life, etc.). The sample sizes for these engineering or lab tests (e.g., number of breast pumps tested) and their provenance (e.g., manufactured in China, tested in specific lab environments) are not detailed in this 510(k) summary. There is no mention of a clinical test set involving human subjects for performance evaluation.

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

• Not applicable. This information pertains to studies where expert interpretation (e.g., for medical images) forms the ground truth. The acceptance criteria here relate to physical device performance and safety standards, which are evaluated by engineers and lab technicians against predefined specifications.

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving multiple human readers or 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:

• No. An MRMC study was not conducted as this device is a breast pump, not an AI-driven diagnostic or interpretative tool for which human readers would interact.

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

• Not applicable. This applies to AI/ML algorithms, not the core function of a breast pump.

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

• For the performance testing, the "ground truth" or reference was engineering specifications and recognized international consensus standards (e.g., specified vacuum ranges, cycle speeds, battery capacities, biocompatibility definitions by ISO standards).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is not described as involving machine learning from a training set for its core function. The embedded software and app are for control and display, not for learning or prediction based on large datasets.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device