Search Results

The modified SIS Fistula Plug is indicated for implantation to reinforce soft tissue for repair of enterocutaneous fistulas.

The modified SIS Fistula Plug is manufactured from porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) supplied in a tapered configuration with a flange to provide increased retention of the plug and improved blockage of the fistula. The device is packaged in a lyophilized (freeze-dried) state, and supplied sterile in a sealed double pouch system.

This submission is for a Special 510(k) for a modified version of an existing device, the SURGISIS® Biodesign™ Enterocutaneous Fistula Plug. Special 510(k)s rely heavily on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than new clinical studies with defined acceptance criteria and performance targets.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text, with notable absences for items not typically found in a Special 510(k) for a material modification:

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

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of a clinical performance study. The tests mentioned are bench testing and biocompatibility testing. Sample sizes for these types of tests are not provided in this summary. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not specified, as this primarily relates to clinical data, which is not the focus of this Special 510(k).

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. This Special 510(k) is based on bench and biocompatibility testing, not expert-adjudicated clinical data to establish ground truth for a diagnostic or therapeutic performance claim.

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

Not applicable. There was no clinical test set requiring expert adjudication.

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 mesh, not an AI-powered diagnostic or decision support system.

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

Not applicable. This device is a surgical mesh, not an algorithm.

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

For the tests performed:

• Biocompatibility: Likely evaluated against established biological safety standards.
• Viral inactivation: Assessed against standards for viral clearance.
• Mechanical testing: Compared to predetermined specifications for the device's physical properties.
• Substantial Equivalence: Ground truth is the performance and characteristics of the legally marketed predicate device (SIS Fistula Plug, K050337).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device. The "training" for such devices typically refers to the manufacturing process and quality controls.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set in the AI/ML context.

Ask a specific question about this device