Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(87 days)
Sterile single use tip cleaner (WK800-S10 , WK800-S20)
The sterile single use tip cleaner is a single use sterile device intended to be used as an electrosurgical accessory to remove eschar buildup from the tips of electrosurgical cauterization blades during surgical procedures.
The product has 2 sizes: 50mm(L)×50mm(W)×5mm(T) and 50mm(L)×25mm(W)× 5mm(T). The product is composed by a small foam pad with an abrasive surface, and adhesive back layer, which are used to aid in the removal of eschar on electrosurgical blades during surgical procedures. The abrasive surface is made from aluminum oxide 'gravel' with a polyurethane foam base and pressure sensitive adhesive layer containing a barium monofilament for x-ray detection. The adhesive back allows for universal placement and keeps the device in place while the tip of the electrosurgical cauterization device is scratched on the abrasive surface to remove eschar buildup. The product does not come in contact with the patient, is provided sterile and is single-use.
The provided FDA 510(k) summary (K241022) for the Sterile single use tip cleaner (WK800-S10, WK800-S20) does not contain information on how the acceptance criteria were established or details of a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria related to clinical efficacy.
The document focuses on non-clinical performance testing for physical characteristics and manufacturing-related residuals, primarily to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device. There is no mention of clinical studies, human reader performance, AI assistance, or related metrics.
Here's an analysis based on the information provided, highlighting what is present and what is absent:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Item | Acceptance Criteria (Requirement) | Reported Device Performance (Result) |
|---|---|---|
| Appearance | 1.1 The surface of the product should be clean, free from damage, cracking, or other undesirable phenomena. | PASS |
| 1.2 The product sandpaper surface, sponge base layer, pressure-sensitive adhesive, X-ray ray, and release paper should be tightly bonded, no curling/falling off. | PASS | |
| Product Performance | 2.1 The double-sided adhesive has good adhesion, smoothness, and no warping. | PASS |
| 2.2 There is no sand falling off on the polishing abrasive (sandpaper) surface. | PASS | |
| 2.3 The peel strength of the double-sided adhesive should be ≥ 2N/CM. | PASS | |
| Residual Testing | 3. FTO Residual ≤ 4mg/pcs; ECH ≤ 9mg/pcs. | PASS |
Note: These acceptance criteria are for non-clinical, physical, and manufacturing characteristics, not for clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.
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 specifies "Non-clinical Performance Testing" but does not provide details on the sample size for these tests (e.g., how many units were tested for peel strength or appearance). It also does not mention the data provenance beyond it being conducted by the manufacturer, WickiMed (Huizhou) Medical Equipment Manufacturing Co.,Ltd. in China. Given the nature of these tests, they would be prospective manufacturing quality and material property tests.
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. The tests performed are non-clinical, evaluating physical properties and chemical residuals, not requiring expert clinical interpretation or ground truth establishment in the way a diagnostic imaging device would.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. This is not a study involving human interpretation or adjudication. The results are from physical measurements and observations against defined specifications.
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
No. This device is a sterile single-use tip cleaner, an accessory for electrosurgical cauterization. It is a physical medical device, not an AI or software-driven diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is not relevant to its regulatory submission.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
No. As explained above, this device is not an AI algorithm. The performance tests are for its physical properties and sterility.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference is the predefined technical specifications and standards (e.g., "free from damage, cracking," "peel strength ≥ 2N/CM," "FTO Residual ≤ 4mg/pcs"). These are established engineering and quality control criteria.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned, as this is not a machine learning or AI device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable, for the same reasons above.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1