Search Results

The Subdural Drainage Catheter Kit is intended for drainage of extraventricular fluid collections, such as hygromas and chronic hematomas, into an external drainage system (such as the Suction Reservoir or the EDS or IDS Systems from Elekta) or an implanted catheter communicating with an appropriate drainage site. The patient's clinical pathology dictates whether the Subdural Drainage Catheter is connected to an internal or external drainage system.

The Subdural Drainage Catheter is intended for drainage of extraventricular fluid collections, such as hygromas and chronic hematomas, into an external drainage system, (such as the Suction Reservoir or the EDS or IDS Systems from Elekta) or an implanted catheter communicating with an appropriate drainage site (i.e., peritoneum).

The patient's clinical pathology dictates whether the Subdural Drainage Catheter is connected to an internal or external drainage system.

The catheter is manufactured from silicone elastomer (with barium sulfate) equivalent to those of other Cordis catheters and CNS fluid shunt systems and components. The distal catheter ends in a hollow, ovoid-shaped structure ("cage") with slit-like openings. For implantation, a stylet is passed through the proximal end of the catheter, and is pushed against the interior cage bottom. This elongates the cage and allows the catheter to be passed through a 5 mm diameter burr hole. When the distal tip is appropriately placed, the stylet is removed and the catheter tip returns to its cage-like appearance.

This document, K974726, describes the clearance of a medical device, the Elekta Subdural Drainage Catheter Kit, as substantially equivalent to existing predicate devices. It does not contain information about a study that establishes acceptance criteria for device performance in the way one would typically find for a new AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) product.

Therefore, many of the requested sections regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies, particularly those related to AI or a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, cannot be extracted from this document.

Here's an analysis of the provided text based on your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Not applicable in the typical sense for SaMD)

This document is a 510(k) clearance, which means the device was found substantially equivalent to predicate devices already on the market. The "acceptance criteria" here are primarily about demonstrating equivalence in design, materials, manufacturing, indications for use, and biocompatibility, rather than meeting specific quantitative performance metrics against a clinical ground truth like an AI/SaMD product.

The document states:

• "The materials used to manufacture the Subdural Drainage Catheter have been subjected to biocompatibility testing. The tests reveal that the materials used are safe for their intended use." This is a key acceptance criterion for the materials, not the overall clinical performance for which you're likely asking.
• "The indications and contraindications of the Subdural Drainage Catheter Kit are equivalent to those of the predicate devices and their accessories."
• "The design, materials, manufacturing methods and specifications of the Subdural Drainage Catheter are similar to those of the predicate Cordis Ventricular Catheters and do not raise any new issues relating to safety and effectiveness for its intended use."

Thus, there isn't a table of specific performance acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) and reported device performance metrics in the context of a clinical study, as these are typically not required for a 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence for this type of hardware device.

Unable to Extract Information For:

The following information cannot be extracted from the provided text because the document pertains to the 510(k) clearance of a physical medical device (a catheter kit), not an AI/SaMD product or a clinical study evaluating its efficacy or performance against clinical endpoints.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: As explained above, the "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) for a physical device are about equivalence and safety of materials, not quantitative clinical performance metrics. There are no reported device performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: No clinical testing or test set is described.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable; no such ground truth establishment is described.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
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 device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable; this is not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device