Search Results

STRATAFIX™ Symmetric PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Devices are indicated for general soft tissue approximation where use of an absorbable suture is appropriate.

STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is indicated for use in soft tissue approximation where the use of absorbable sutures is appropriate.

STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is indicated for use in soft tissue approximation where the use of absorbable sutures is appropriate.

STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Knotless Tissue Control Device is indicated for use in soft tissue approximation where the use of absorbable sutures is appropriate.

STRATAFIX™ Symmetric PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is an antibacterial (polydioxanone) monofilament, synthetic absorbable device prepared from the polyester, poly (pdioxanone). The empirical molecular formula of the polymer is (C+HgO3). The device contains IRGACARE®* MP (triclosan), a broad spectrum antibacterial agent, at no more than 2360 µg/m. STRATAFIX™ Symmetric PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is dyed with D&C Violet No. 2.

STRATIX™ Symmetric PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device consists of an absorbable thread with unidirectional anchors, equipped with a surgical needle at one end and a fixation tab at the other. The anchors and fixation tab design allows for tissue approximation without the need to tie surgical knots. Polydioxanone has been found to be nonallergenic, nonpyrogenic and elicits only a slight tissue reaction during absorption.

STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDSTM Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is an antibacterial monofilament, synthetic absorbable device consisting of dyed (violet) polyester, poly(p-dioxanone), the empirical molecular formula of which is (C4HgO3)x. The device contains IRGACARE®* MP (triclosan), a broad spectrum antibacterial agent, at no more than 2360 µg/m. The pigment for the violet dye is D&C Violet No. 2. Polydioxanone polymer has been found to be nonallergenic, nonpyrogenic and elicits only a slight tissue reaction during absorption.

The STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device, Variable Loop Design consists of barbed suture material, armed with a surgical needle on one end and a fixation loop at the opposite end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDSTM Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is designed to anchor with a closed loop at one end and a unidirectional barbed section on the other end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device barbs are oriented in one direction to allow tissue approximation without the need to tie surgical knots.

While the formation of barbs in the STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Device reduces the tensile strength relative to non-barbed suture material of the same size, tying of knots in non-barbed suture materials also reduces their effective strength. For this reason, the strength of the STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDSTM Plus Device can be compared to USP knot strength of non-barbed sutures. Additionally, USP designations for diameter are used to describe the STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Device suture material after barbing, except for minor variation in suture diameter with a maximum overage of 0.1 mm.

STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is an antibacterial monofilament, synthetic absorbable device prepared from a copolymer of glycolide and s-caprolactone. The device contains IRGACARE® MP (triclosan), a broad spectrum antibacterial agent, at no more than 2360ug/m. Poliglecaprone 25 copolymer has been found to be nonpyrogenic and elicits only a slight tissue reaction during absorption.

The STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device, Variable Loop Design consists of barbed suture material, armed with a surgical needle on one end and a fixation loop at the opposite end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Device is designed to anchor with a closed loop at one end and a unidirectional barbed section on the other end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Device barbs are oriented in one direction to allow tissue approximation without the need to tie surgical knots.

While the formation of barbs in the STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Device reduces the tensile strength relative to non-barbed suture material of the same size, tying knots in nonbarbed suture materials also reduces their effective strengths. For this reason, the strength of the STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Device can be compared to USP knot strength of non-barbed sutures. USP designations for diameter are used to describe the STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Plus Device suture material after barbing, except for minor variation in suture diameter with a maximum overage of 0.1mm.

STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Knotless Tissue Control Device is a monofilament. synthetic absorbable device prepared from a copolymer of glycolide and e-caprolactone. Poliglecaprone 25 copolymer has been found to be nonpyrogenic and elicits only a slight tissue reaction during absorption.

The STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Knotless Tissue Control Device, Variable Loop Design consists of barbed suture material, armed with a surgical needle on one end and a fixation loop at the opposite end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Device is designed to anchor with a closed loop at one end and unidirectional barbed section on the other end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Device barbs are oriented in one direction to allow tissue approximation without the need to tie surgical knots.

While the formation of barbs in the STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Device reduces tensile strength relative to non-barbed suture material of the same size, tving of knots in non-barbed suture materials also reduces their effective strengths. For this reason, the strength of the STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Device can be compared to USP knot strength of non-barbed sutures. USP designations for diameter are used to describe the STRATAFIX™ Spiral MONOCRYL™ Device suture material after barbing, except for minor variation in suture diameter with a maximum overage of 0.1mm.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for several STRATAFIX™ Knotless Tissue Control Devices. It primarily discusses substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and proposed labeling changes.

Crucially, this document states: "Summary of Technological Characteristics: The technological characteristics of the subject devices are identical to their predicate devices, therefore performance data are not necessary to establish substantial equivalence."

This means that the FDA determined that the applicant did not need to conduct new studies to prove the device met acceptance criteria because the device's technical characteristics, materials, and performance were considered identical to previously cleared predicate devices. The submission focuses on explaining the equivalence and justifying minor labeling changes.

Therefore, for the information requested in your prompt, the answer is largely that no new studies or performance data were deemed necessary or provided in this 510(k) submission to establish acceptance criteria for the device itself. The acceptance criteria are implicitly met by the substantial equivalence to the predicate devices, which would have undergone their own testing.

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

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

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated as new, independent criteria for this submission. The device is considered to meet the acceptance criteria of its predicate devices due to substantial equivalence. The document highlights that the subject devices are "identical to their respective predicate devices with respect to functionality, technological characteristics, intended uses, and indications." Performance specifications are also stated as unchanged.
   • Reported Device Performance: No new performance data is reported as no new studies were deemed necessary. The performance is presumed to be equivalent to the predicate devices. The document explicitly states: "performance data are not necessary to establish substantial equivalence."

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. No new test set data was generated or submitted for this 510(k) as the devices were found to be substantially equivalent to predicates without new performance studies.

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. No new test set requiring expert ground truth was generated or submitted.

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

   • Not applicable. No new test set requiring adjudication was generated or submitted.

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 surgical suture, 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 surgical suture, not an algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable. No new ground truth was established for this submission. The ground truth for the predicate devices would have been established through their original clearance processes, likely involving physical and mechanical testing, biocompatibility, and potentially animal or clinical studies to support their indicated uses.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable. This device is a surgical suture, not a machine learning model requiring a training set.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a surgical suture, not a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device

STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device is indicated for soft tissue approximation where use of an absorbable suture is appropriate.

The STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Device is an antibacterial monofilament, synthetic absorbable device consisting of dyed (violet) polyester, poly(p-dioxanone), the empirical molecular formula of which is (C4HgO3)x. The device contains IRGACARE®* MP (triclosan), a broad spectrum antibacterial agent, at no more than 2360 µg/m. The pigment for the violet dye is D&C Violet No. 2. Polydioxanone polymer has been found to be nonallergenic, nonpyrogenic and elicits only a slight tissue reaction during absorption.

The STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device, Variable Loop Design consists of barbed suture material, armed with a surgical needle on one end and a fixation loop at the opposite end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDSTN Plus Device is designed to anchor with a closed loop at one end and a unidirectional barbed section on the other end. The STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Device barbs are oriented in one direction to allow tissue approximation without the need to tie surgical knots.

While the formation of barbs in the STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDSTM Plus Device reduces the tensile strength relative to non-barbed suture material of the same size, tying of knots in nonbarbed suture materials also reduces their effective strength. For this reason, the strength of the STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Device can be compared to USP knot strength of nor-broad sutures. Additionally, USP designations for diameter are used to describe the STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDSTM Plus Device suture material after barbing, except for minor variation in suture diameter with a maximum overage of 0.1 mm.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device). While it details the device description, indications for use, and a general statement about performance data, it does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or the specific results of a study in a manner that allows for a direct population of the requested table.

Here's an analysis based on the available information, highlighting what the document provides and what it omits:

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

The document states: "Non-clinical laboratory performance testing was performed demonstrating that STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device conforms to the current USP Monograph for absorbable surgical sutures, except for diameter." And "STRATAFIX™ Spiral PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device met all testing criteria to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicates devices."

This indicates that the acceptance criteria are based on the USP Monograph for absorbable surgical sutures (with a noted exception for diameter) and likely additional criteria to show equivalence to predicate devices. However, the exact numerical or qualitative acceptance criteria and the corresponding reported performance values are not detailed in this summary. It's a high-level statement of compliance.

Therefore, a table cannot be fully populated with specific criteria and performance values from this document.

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 the test set: Not specified in the document.
• Data provenance: "Non-clinical laboratory performance testing" and "bench and animal testing" are mentioned. The document is a submission to the US FDA, so the testing was likely conducted in compliance with US regulatory standards, but the physical location/country of origin of the labs is not stated. Whether it was retrospective or prospective is also not mentioned, but given it's "performance testing," it would inherently be prospective for the purpose of demonstrating device performance.

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 type of information is not applicable to this document. The device is a surgical suture, and the performance testing mentioned (USP monograph, bench, and animal testing) does not involve human expert interpretation of data points that would require "ground truth" establishment by medical experts in the way an AI diagnostic tool would.

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

Not applicable for the reasons in point 3.

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 is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, so MRMC studies involving human readers and AI assistance are irrelevant.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device.

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

For a surgical suture, "ground truth" would relate to its physical and biological performance. The document implies the "ground truth" or standard for performance is based on:

• USP Monograph for absorbable surgical sutures: This outlines standardized physical and chemical properties.
• Bench testing: In vitro evaluation of mechanical properties.
• Animal testing: In vivo assessment of tissue reaction, absorption, and performance in a biological system.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set."

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

Not applicable for the reasons in point 8.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical device (suture) and therefore lacks the detailed information on statistical studies, expert ground truth, and AI-specific performance metrics that would be relevant for an AI/diagnostic device. The "study" mentioned is general performance testing against established standards (USP Monograph) and comparison to predicate devices for substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device