Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K102815
    Date Cleared
    2011-07-07

    (282 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    884.5980
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    SURELIFT PROLAPSE SYSTEM

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The SURELIFT PROLAPSE SYSTEM is a surgical mesh kit intended for transvaginal surgical treatment to correct anterior vaginal wall prolapse and posterior vaginal wall prolapse. The kit includes instrumentation for transvaginal placement.

    Device Description

    The Surelift Prolapse System is a surgical mesh kit intended for transvaginal surgical treatment to correct anterior vaginal wall prolapse and posterior vaginal wall prolapse. The kit includes instrumentation for transvaginal placement.

    The kit is composed by a monofilament polypropylene mesh, two anchors with sutures to fix the mesh at the sacrospinose ligament, two anchoring handles to place the anchors and four passers to place the mesh through the obturator foramens.

    The mesh has six fixation points (two posterior fixation points and four arms):

    • Two posterior fixation points that are fixed to the sacrospinose ligaments.
    • Two middle arms that are passed through the arcus tendineus.
    • Two anterior arms that are passed through the anterior part of the obturator foramen.

    When placing the mesh, these six fixation points can be adjusted by the surgeon to leave the mesh flat at the proper tension avoiding wrinkles.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Surelift Prolapse System, based on the provided 510(k) amendment:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    It's important to note that this 510(k) submission primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving specific clinical safety and effectiveness through a dedicated clinical performance study with detailed acceptance criteria measured against clinical outcomes. The "performance tests" listed are primarily related to material properties, sterilization, and biocompatibility, ensuring the device meets established standards for medical devices of its type.

    Acceptance Criteria CategorySpecific Test/PropertyReported Device Performance
    Material PropertiesMonofilament diameter (mesh)0.12 mm
    Tensile break strength (mesh)81.87 Newton
    Pore size (mesh)1.12 mm
    Thickness (mesh)0.41 mm
    Density (mesh)41.60 g/m²
    Porosity (mesh)54.63 %
    Suture sizeUSP 0
    Anchor diameter3 mm
    Anchor length7 mm
    Anchoring Handle tube diameter6 mm
    Anchoring Handle tube length204 mm
    Passers diameter4 mm
    Mechanical StrengthSuture pullout strengthMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Tensile break strength at breakMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Tear resistanceMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Burst strengthMeets established performance requirements and standards
    StiffnessMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Prolapse anchor-mesh strengthMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Prolapse arm tensile strengthMeets established performance requirements and standards
    SterilizationBioburdenMeets established performance requirements (sterilized by ETO)
    Ethylene oxide residualsMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Ethylene chlorohydrins residualsMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Sterility assurance level (SAL) determinationMeets established performance requirements and standards
    PackagingExpiration dating testMeets established performance requirements and standards
    BiocompatibilityCytotoxicityMeets established performance requirements and standards
    ImplantationMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Sensitization with polar and non-polar extractMeets established performance requirements and standards
    GenotoxicityMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Acute systemic toxicityMeets established performance requirements and standards
    IrritationMeets established performance requirements and standards
    HaemolysisMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Extractable metallic ionsMeets established performance requirements and standards
    Pyrogen testMeets established performance requirements and standards

    Study that Proves Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

    The document describes a series of "Performance tests" that were conducted to demonstrate the device meets established performance requirements and standards.

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

    The document does not specify sample sizes for any of the individual performance tests (e.g., number of meshes tested for tensile strength, number of anchors for pullout strength). It also doesn't mention data provenance regarding country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. These types of tests are typically conducted in a laboratory setting using manufactured samples.

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

    This information is not applicable in this context. The "performance tests" relate to physical, chemical, and biological properties, not clinical diagnostic accuracy or interpretation requiring expert consensus on a test set. The ground truth for these tests is based on objective measurements and adherence to recognized standards.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

    This information is not applicable. The performance tests are objective measurements, not subjective evaluations requiring adjudication.

    5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

    No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The submission is for a surgical implant (Surelift Prolapse System), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, there is no mention of human readers or AI assistance.

    6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance):

    No, a standalone performance study in the context of an algorithm's performance was not done. This device is a surgical mesh kit, not an algorithm.

    7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

    The "ground truth" for the performance tests described is based on:

    • Objective measurements: For physical properties like dimensions, tensile strength, pore size, etc.
    • Established standards and regulations: For sterilization (e.g., SAL), biocompatibility (e.g., ISO standards for cytotoxicity, irritation), and other performance requirements.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

    This information is not applicable. The device is a surgical mesh kit, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

    This information is not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1