Search Results

The SIS Wound Dressing II is intended for the management of wounds including: partial and full-thickness wounds, pressure ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, chronic vascular ulcers, tunneled/undermined wounds, surgical wounds (donor sites/grafts, post-moh's surgery, post-laser surgery, podiatric, wound dehiscence), trauma wounds (abrasions, lacerations, second-degree burns, and skin tears), and draining wounds. The device is intended for one-time use.

The SIS Wound Dressing II is primarily composed of porcine collagen that is supplied in sheet form in sizes ranging from 2 x 4 cm to 20 x 40 cm.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the SIS Wound Dressing II. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, rather than proving efficacy through clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance metrics.

Therefore, the document does not contain information on acceptance criteria, a study proving device meeting acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or detailed ground truth methodologies as one would expect for a novel device requiring extensive clinical validation.

Here's a breakdown of why this information is absent and what is provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This is not present. The 510(k) summary states, "The SIS Wound Dressing II was subjected to a panel of tests to assess biocompatibility. The SIS Wound Dressing II passed the requirements of all tests." It does not specify what those requirements (acceptance criteria) were, nor does it provide detailed performance results beyond a blanket "passed."

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): No sample sizes for any clinical performance testing are mentioned because such testing was not the primary focus of this 510(k). The tests focused on biocompatibility, which typically involves in-vitro or animal studies, not human test sets for efficacy.

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. There was no "ground truth" establishment for a clinical test set in the context of this 510(k).

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication is described.

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 wound dressing, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical wound dressing, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For the biocompatibility tests, the ground truth would typically be established by standardized pass/fail criteria for specific biological responses (e.g., cytotoxicity, irritation, sensitization). This type of "ground truth" is inherent to the specific biological test methods, rather than expert consensus on clinical findings.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. The device is a physical wound dressing and does not involve AI or machine learning that would require a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as no training set exists for this device.

What the document does state regarding "proof" and "acceptance criteria" (implicitly):

• Acceptance Criteria Mentioned: "The SIS Wound Dressing II was subjected to a panel of tests to assess biocompatibility. The SIS Wound Dressing II passed the requirements of all tests." The specific requirements are not detailed, but the implicit acceptance criterion is "passing all biocompatibility tests."
• Study Proving Acceptance: The "study" is the unnamed "panel of tests to assess biocompatibility."
• Conclusion: "This device is, with respect to intended use and technological characteristics, substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." This is the ultimate "proof" sought in a 510(k) submission – that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate. The biocompatibility tests are part of the data supporting this claim of substantial equivalence.

In summary, this 510(k) document is concerned with demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through materials analysis and biocompatibility testing, rather than detailed clinical performance studies with specific statistical acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device