Search Results

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is intended for:

• The non-surgical removal of fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from blood vessels.
• Injection, infusion, and/or aspiration of contrast media and other fluids into or from a blood vessel.

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is intended for use in the peripheral vasculature and for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.

The Symphony 16F 82cm Thrombectomy System is intended for:

• The non-surgical removal of fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from blood vessels.
• Injection, infusion, and/or aspiration of contrast media and other fluids into or from a blood vessel.

The Symphony 16F 82cm Thrombectomy System is intended for use in the peripheral vasculature. It is not for use in the pulmonary vasculature.

The Symphony™ Thrombectomy System is comprised of the following devices:

• 24F Symphony Catheter
• 24F Symphony Standard Dilator
• 24F Symphony Advance™ Long Dilator
• 24F Symphony ProHelix™
• 16F Symphony Catheter
• 16F Symphony Dilator
• 16F Symphony ProHelix™
• Symphony Clot Container
• TRUVIC Generator
• TRUVIC Canister
• TRUVIC Tubeset

The Symphony™ 16F 82cm Thrombectomy System is comprised of the following devices:

• 16F 82cm Symphony Catheter
• 16F 82cm Symphony Length Matched Dilator
• Symphony Clot Container
• TRUVIC Generator
• TRUVIC Canister
• TRUVIC Tubeset

Both Systems are designed to remove thrombus/embolus (also referred to as 'clot') from the peripheral vasculature using controlled aspiration. The Symphony Catheters and the Symphony 16F 82cm Catheter target aspiration from the TRUVIC Generator directly to the thrombus. The Symphony ProHelix may be used to facilitate aspiration and removal of the thrombus through the 16F Symphony Catheter or through the 24F Symphony Catheter. The Symphony ProHelix is not used with the 16F 82cm Symphony Catheter.

The Symphony Catheters and Symphony Dilators are introduced through a vascular access sheath into the peripheral vasculature and guided over a guidewire to the site of the thrombus in the peripheral vasculature or pulmonary anatomy. The 16F 82cm Catheter and compatible Dilator are introduced through a vascular access sheath into the peripheral vasculature and guided over a guidewire to the site of thrombus in the peripheral vasculature. The Symphony 16F 82cm Catheter and compatible Dilator are not intended for use in the pulmonary anatomy. Both the Symphony Catheters and the Symphony 16F 82cm Catheter are used with the TRUVIC Generator, connected using the TRUVIC Tubeset and the TRUVIC Canister, to aspirate thrombus.

As needed, the Symphony ProHelix may be introduced through a Symphony 16F Catheter or a Symphony 24F Catheter to assist with thrombus removal. The Symphony ProHelix is not used with the 16F 82cm Symphony Catheter. The Symphony ProHelix is manually advanced through the Symphony Catheter over a guidewire, remaining inside the Symphony Catheter during the procedure. During aspiration, the handle on the proximal end of the Symphony ProHelix is manually rotated, which rotates the tip of the Symphony ProHelix to facilitate thrombus removal through the Symphony Catheter. The tips of the devices are visible under fluoroscopy.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Imperative Care, Inc. Symphony™ Thrombectomy System, specifically for the expanded pulmonary embolism indication, based on the provided 510(k) clearance letter:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is intended for:

• The non-surgical removal of fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from blood vessels.
• Injection, infusion, and/or aspiration of contrast media and other fluids into or from a blood vessel.

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is intended for use in the peripheral vasculature. It is not for use in the pulmonary vasculature.

The Symphony 16F 82cm Thrombectomy System is intended for:

• The non-surgical removal of fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from blood vessels.
• Injection, infusion, and/or aspiration of contrast media and other fluids into or from a blood vessel.

The Symphony 16F 82cm Thrombectomy System is intended for use in the peripheral vasculature. It is not for use in the pulmonary vasculature.

The Symphony™ Thrombectomy System is comprised of several devices:

• 24F Symphony Catheter
• 24F Symphony Standard Dilator
• 24F Symphony Advance™ Long Dilator
• 24F Symphony ProHelix™
• 16F Symphony Catheter
• 16F Symphony Dilator
• 16F Symphony ProHelix™
• Symphony Clot Container
• TRUVIC Generator
• TRUVIC Canister
• TRUVIC Tubeset

The Symphony™ 16F 82cm Thrombectomy System is comprised of several devices:

• 16F 82cm Symphony Catheter
• 16F 82cm Symphony Length Matched Dilator
• Symphony Clot Container
• TRUVIC Generator
• TRUVIC Canister
• TRUVIC Tubeset

Both Systems are designed to remove thrombus/embolus (also referred to as 'clot') from the peripheral vasculature using controlled aspiration. The Symphony Catheter targets aspiration from the TRUVIC Generator directly to the thrombus. The Symphony ProHelix may be used to facilitate aspiration and removal of the thrombus through the 16F Symphony Catheter or through the 24F Symphony Catheter. The Symphony ProHelix is not used with the 16F 82cm Symphony Catheter.

The Symphony Catheters and Symphony Dilators are introduced through a vascular access sheath into the peripheral vasculature and guided over a guidewire to the site of the thrombus. The Symphony Catheter is used with the TRUVIC Generator, connected using the TRUVIC Tubeset and the TRUVIC Canister, to aspirate thrombus.
As needed, the Symphony ProHelix may be introduced through a Symphony 16F Catheter or a Symphony 24F Catheter to assist with thrombus removal. The Symphony ProHelix is not used with the 16F 82cm Symphony Catheter. The Symphony ProHelix is manually advanced through the Symphony Catheter over a guidewire, remaining inside the Symphony Catheter during the procedure. During aspiration, the handle on the proximal end of the Symphony ProHelix is manually rotated, which rotates the tip of the Symphony ProHelix to facilitate thrombus removal through the Symphony Catheter. The tips of the devices are visible under fluoroscopy.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter details the substantial equivalence of the Symphony™ Thrombectomy System and Symphony™ 16F 82cm Thrombectomy System to a predicate device. However, the document does not describe a study involving "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" in the context of an AI/human reader study or a standalone algorithm study looking at diagnostic performance metrics.

Instead, the document focuses on the technical and physical performance characteristics of a medical device (a thrombectomy system) designed for the non-surgical removal of emboli and thrombi. The "acceptance criteria" mentioned in the document refer to engineering and material performance specifications rather than diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request as the provided text does not contain information about:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes assessed through a study with a test set of data (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy for an AI system). The "acceptance criteria" listed are for bench and laboratory tests (e.g., Kink/Bend Verification, Tensile and Torque Strength Verification).
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: There is no mention of a "test set" in the context of diagnostic data. The "testing" refers to physical device performance.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications: Ground truth in this context would typically refer to a diagnosis or an outcome for a dataset. The document refers to engineering verification of device function.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable based on the content.
5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not mentioned. The approval is for a physical medical device, not a diagnostic AI tool.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable in the diagnostic sense. The "ground truth" for these tests are engineering specifications.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/machine learning device requiring a training set in the conventional sense.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary of "Acceptance Criteria" and "Study" as described in the provided 510(k) (focused on device function, not diagnostic performance):

The "studies" conducted were a series of bench and laboratory (in-vitro) tests to demonstrate the physical and functional performance of the device and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Table: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (from the document's perspective)

Additional Information Extracted from the Document:

• Sample size for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of diagnostic data. The "tests" mentioned are engineering and material tests, likely involving a number of units of the device. There is no mention of patient data (retrospective/prospective, country of origin).
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. The "ground truth" for these tests are established engineering and material standards and specifications. Expertise would be in engineering and testing methodologies, not clinical diagnosis.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: No.
• The type of ground truth used: Engineering specifications and ISO/ASTM standards for material and device performance.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable; this is not an AI/ML device.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In essence, the provided document is a 510(k) clearance for a physical medical device (a thrombectomy system), not a diagnostic algorithm or AI product. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "studies" refer to the physical and functional performance of the device itself, rather than its performance in interpreting medical data or assisting human readers.

Ask a specific question about this device

MIM software is used by trained medical professionals as a tool to aid in evaluation and information management of digital medical image modalities include but are not limited to, CT, MR, CR, DX, MG, US, SPECT, PET and XA as supported by ACR/NEMA DICOM 3.0. MIM assists in the following indications:

• · Receive, transmit, store, retrieve, display, print, and process medical images and DICOM objects.
• · Create, display and print reports from medical images.

· Registration, fusion display, and review of medical images for diagnosis, treatment evaluation, and treatment planning.

· Evaluation of cardiac left ventricular function and perfusion, including left ventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction.

· Localization and definition of objects such as tumors and normal tissues in medical images.

· Creation, transformation, and modification of contours for applications including, but not limited to, quantitative analysis, aiding adaptive therapy, transferring contours to radiation therapy treatment planning systems, and archiving contours for patient follow-up and management.

· Quantitative and statistical analysis of PET/SPECT brain scans by comparing to other registered PET/SPECT brain scans.

· Planning and evaluation of permanent implant brachytherapy procedures (not including radioactive microspheres).

· Calculating absorbed radiation dose as a result of administering a radionuclide.

• Assist with the planning and evaluation of ablation procedures by providing visualization and analysis, including energy zone visualization through the placement of virtual ablation devices validated for inclusion in MM-Ablation. The software is not intended to predict specific ablation zone volumes or predict ablation success.

When using the device clinically, within the United States, the user should only use FDA approved radiopharmaceuticals. If using with unapproved ones, this device should only be used for research purposes.

Lossy compressed mammographic images and digitized film screen images must not be reviewed for primary image interpretations. Images that are printed to film must be printed using a FDAapproved printer for the diagnosis of digital mammography images. Mammographic images must be viewed on a display system that has been cleared by the FDA for the diagnosis of digital mammography images. The software is not to be used for mammography CAD.

MIM - Symphony HDR Fusion extends the existing features and capabilities of MIM -Monte Carlo Dosimetry (K232862) by offering enhanced capabilities to better support the High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy workflow. It is designed for use in medical imaging and operates on Windows, Mac, and Linux computer systems. The intended use and indications for use in MIM - Symphony HDR Fusion are unchanged from the predicate device MIM – Monte Carlo Dosimetry.

MIM – Symphony HDR Fusion is a standalone software application within the MIM software suite that uses the existing functionality of the predicate device, applied now in the context of a High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy clinical workflow.

MIM – Symphony HDR Fusion leverages the foundational functionalities that were introduced in the predicate device to support Low Dose Rate (LDR) brachytherapy clinical workflows. These features are extended with necessary enhancements and optimizations to optimally support the HDR workflow. Specifically, the subject device MIM - Symphony HDR Fusion provides the following core processes:

• Reslicing and Predictive Fusion presents data to inform the user's placement of medical devices (in this case, brachytherapy applicators). MIM receives and displays 2D images from a Trans-rectal Ultrasound (TRUS) probe and overlays contours from the registered pre-op image volume. The user is able to modify the position of the TRUS probe in the patient in order to match the visible pre-op contours. The user may also manually adjust the registration using software tools.
• . Ultrasound Capture: MIM receives an image feed from an US machine and position information from a stepper that holds the TRUS probe. The 2D TRUS images are processed into 3D image volumes-enabling their registration, fusion display, and storage as DICOM objects.
• Catheter Digitization provides tools for the user to localize and define HDR . brachytherapy applicators (catheters) in medical images.
• Registration Chaining allows the user to transfer information (contours) from the pre-op image (typically MR) through to the final planning image (US or CT). This is achieved using existing rigid registration tools from the predicate device to sequentially register each new image to its immediate predecessor in the clinical workflow.
• Export Data: The end of the MIM Symphony HDR Fusion workflow is to export the final planning image and user-defined structures-including organs and brachytherapy applicator models—into DICOM files for use in third-party radiation therapy treatment planning systems. Structured reports may also be created.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for MIM - Symphony HDR Fusion, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify an exact numerical sample size for the test set. It mentions "each of the five core features" underwent testing.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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

• Number of Experts: Unspecified, but referred to as "trained medical professionals with extensive experience in HDR brachytherapy."
• Qualifications of Experts: "trained medical professionals with extensive experience in HDR brachytherapy."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe a specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). It states that "external validation by trained medical professionals" was conducted.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study explicitly measuring the effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance was not reported. The validation involved external medical professionals, but it was to validate the software's functionality, not a comparative study on reader performance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Yes, the performance of the device's features was evaluated. The validation included "internal verification by MIM's own qualified testers" and "external validation by trained medical professionals." While the "external validation" implies human interaction for the final assessment of the software's utility in a workflow, the "internal verification" likely involved standalone testing of the algorithms comprising each feature. The description focuses on the software as a "tool to aid in evaluation," implying a human-in-the-loop context for clinical use, but the individual feature testing suggests standalone performance evaluation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The document implies an expert consensus/determination based on the involvement of "trained medical professionals with extensive experience in HDR brachytherapy" for external validation. For internal verification, "MIM's own qualified testers" would have established the ground truth based on predefined specifications and expected outputs for each feature.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a sample size for a training set. This suggests that MIM - Symphony HDR Fusion is an extension of existing features from a predicate device (MIM - Monte Carlo Dosimetry) and leverages "foundational functionalities." The description focuses on verification and validation of the new and extended functionalities rather than the development of entirely new machine learning algorithms requiring a distinct training set.

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

• As a training set is not explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SYMPHONY OCT System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the craniocervical unction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3):

• · Traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations;
• Instability or deformity;
• · Failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudarthrosis);
• · Tumors involving the cervical/thoracic spine;

· Degenerative disease, including intractable radiculopathy, neck and/or arm pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by radiographic studies, and

· Degenerative disease of the facets with instability.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is also intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage tumors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is compatible with occipital fusion components (plates, rods and clamps) from the SYNAPSE Occipital-Cervical-Thoracic (OCT) System and the MOUNTAINEER OCT Spinal System. Additionally, the SYMPHONY OCT System is compatible with SYNAPSE OCT System hooks and rods.

The SONGER Wire/Cable System may be used with the SYMPHONY OCT System to allow for wire/cable attachment to the posterior cervical spine.

The SYMPHONY OCT System may be connected to the EXPEDIUM® Spine System and VIPER® System using connectors and tapered rods. The SYMPHONY OCT System can also be linked to the USS Spinal System and MATRIX Spine System using connectors and tapered rods.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is a posterior system intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3). The system is composed of multiple components to allow the surgeon to build an implant s anatomical and physiological requirements. The system consists of bone anchors (such as screws) for connection by longitudinal components (such as rods) via an interconnection mechanism (e.g., set screws) with optional transverse connectors) to link the longitudinal components for additional stability.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the SYMPHONY OCT System, a posterior cervical screw system. The notification primarily focuses on a labeling change permitting reprocessing of previously sterile implants. There is no information provided in this document regarding AI/ML model performance, acceptance criteria, or studies proving device performance against such criteria.

The document states: "No additional testing was conducted to support this submission." This means there is no study included in this submission that evaluates new device performance, including anything related to AI/ML.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance, as the provided text pertains to a different type of medical device submission (a spinal implant system) and explicitly states that no additional testing was conducted.

Ask a specific question about this device

The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is for single and two stage surgical procedures. It is intended for delayed loading.

The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is a dental implant system made of Titanium 6AL 4V ELI alloy and CP Ti Grade 4 intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches for loading after a conventional healing period. The implants may be used to replace one or more missing teeth. The systems are similar to other commercially available products based on the intended use, the technology used, the claims, the material composition employed and performance characteristics. Symphony 1 Fixture is Bone level, and Symphony 2 Fixture is Tissue level.

Symphony 1 Fixture is a taper shape that gradually decreases the outer diameter of the lower part from the upper part.

And It is a taper shape that gradually decreases the outer diameter of the lower part from the upper part. It is a structure that can perform a tapping function at the same time without a separate tap. It couples up with the abutment and its hexagon shape.

Symphony 2 Fixture is a structure with a round shape at the end. It couples up with the abutment and its octagon shape. The area that touches the patient's gums is pure titanium surface.

The upper structure of the abutments support prosthetics such as artificial teeth to restore patient's total mouth function.

The provided text details the 510(k) summary for the UNIdental Symphony Implant System, focusing on its substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than directly presenting acceptance criteria and performance data in the traditional sense of a clinical study for an AI/CADe device.

This document describes a dental implant system, which is a physical medical device, not a software or AI-driven diagnostic device. Therefore, the questions related to "AI vs without AI assistance," "standalone algorithm performance," "number of experts for ground truth," "adjudication methods," and "training/test set size and provenance" are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

The "acceptance criteria" for a dental implant system of this nature typically revolve around meeting established engineering standards and demonstrating comparable performance (e.g., mechanical strength, biocompatibility, sterilization efficacy) to already cleared predicate devices. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an interpretation of the provided information based on the typical requirements for a physical medical device:

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

The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a numerical table format for each performance metric, as one might see for an AI device's sensitivity/specificity. Instead, the acceptance is implicitly demonstrated by showing substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices through various non-clinical tests and material comparisons. The "performance" is implicitly deemed acceptable if it meets the established standards that the predicates have also met.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a "test set" in the context of an AI model. For the non-clinical physical testing (fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization, etc.), the sample sizes would be determined by the specific ISO/ASTM standards referenced. These standards usually specify the number of samples required for robust statistical analysis to demonstrate compliance. This is not a "data provenance" like for AI models, but rather the laboratory conditions under which the physical tests were conducted. The document doesn't specify the country of origin for the non-clinical testing data, but the submitter is UNIdental Co., Ltd. in Korea. This is inherently a prospective testing process for the device being submitted.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not a diagnostic AI device requiring expert consensus for ground truth.

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

• Not Applicable. See 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 a physical dental implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For physical devices, "ground truth" is established through adherence to recognized national and international consensus standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) for material properties testing, mechanical performance, biocompatibility, and sterilization. For example, the "ground truth" for fatigue resistance is meeting the load cycles and fracture limits defined by ISO 14801. Biocompatibility "ground truth" is meeting the criteria of ISO 10993 series.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device submission; there is no "training set" in the context of an AI model.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is intended for:

• · The non-surgical removal of fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from blood vessels.
• · Injection, infusion, and/or aspiration of contrast media and other fluids into or from a blood vessel.

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is intended for use in the peripheral vasculature. It is not for use in the pulmonary vasculature.

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is comprised of several devices:
• 24F Symphony Catheter
• 24F Symphony Dilator
• 24F Symphony Advance™ Long Dilator
• 24F Symphony ProHelix™
• 16F Symphony Catheter
• 16F Symphony Dilator
• 16F Symphony ProHelix™
• TRUVIC Generator
• TRUVIC Canister
• TRUVIC Tubeset

The Symphony Thrombectomy System is designed to remove thrombus/embolus (also referred to as 'thrombus' or 'clot') from the peripheral vasculature using controlled aspiration. The Symphony Catheter targets aspiration from the TRUVIC Generator directly to the thrombus. The Symphony ProHelix may be used to facilitate aspiration and removal of the thrombus through the Symphony Catheter.

The Symphony Catheter has a lubricious hydrophilic coating on the distal 40 cm of the 24F catheter shaft, and distal 55 cm of the 16F catheter shaft. The Symphony Catheters and Symphony Dilators are introduced through a vascular access sheath into the peripheral vasculature and guided over a guidewire to the site of the thrombus. The Symphony Catheter is used with the TRUVIC Generator, connected using the TRUVIC Tubeset and the TRUVIC Canister, to aspirate thrombus.

As needed, the Symphony ProHelix may be introduced through the Symphony Catheter to assist with thrombus removal. The Symphony ProHelix is manually advanced through the Symphony Catheter over a guidewire, remaining inside the Symphony Catheter during the procedure. During aspiration, the handle on the proximal end of the Symphony ProHelix is manually rotated, which rotates the tip of the Symphony ProHelix to facilitate thrombus removal through the Symphony Catheter. The tips of the devices are visible under fluoroscopy.

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the Truvic Medical Inc. Symphony Thrombectomy System. It outlines the device's intended use and compares it to a predicate device, the Penumbra INDIGO Aspiration System. The document also details the non-clinical and in-vivo testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding acceptance criteria and the supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

   The document generally states that "Non-clinical laboratory testing was performed on the Symphony Thrombectomy System to assure compliance with all pre-specified, clinically relevant acceptance criteria" and that "The in vitro bench tests demonstrated that the Symphony Thrombectomy System met all acceptance criteria." It also mentions for the in-vivo study that "All acceptance criteria passed." However, the specific, quantitative acceptance criteria themselves are not explicitly listed in the provided text. The document lists the types of tests performed, but not the pass/fail thresholds or the numerical results achieved by the device against those thresholds.

   Test Type	Acceptance Criteria (Not explicitly stated in document)	Reported Device Performance (General Statement in document)
   Visual and Dimensional Verification	(e.g., within specified tolerances)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Kink / Bend Verification	(e.g., maintained lumen patency)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Actuation Force Verification	(e.g., within specified range)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Tensile and Torque Strength Verification	(e.g., no breakage, within strength limits)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Positive Pressure / Fluid Leak Verification	(e.g., no leaks at specified pressure)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Negative Pressure / Air Leak Verification	(e.g., no leaks at specified vacuum)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Lumen Integrity Verification	(e.g., no obstructions or damage)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Burst Pressure Verification	(e.g., withstands specified pressure)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Fluoroscopy Validation (Visibility test)	(e.g., clearly visible under fluoroscopy)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Simulated Use Performance Validation	(e.g., effectively removes thrombus in simulator)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Corrosion Resistance Testing	(e.g., no evidence of corrosion)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Coating Integrity Testing	(e.g., maintained integrity after use)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Acute Particulate Testing	(e.g., below specified particulate limits)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Drop Testing Verification	(e.g., maintains functionality after drops)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Component Fatigue Testing Verification	(e.g., withstood specified cycles without failure)	Met all acceptance criteria.
   Biocompatibility (Cytotoxicity etc.)	(e.g., non-toxic, non-sensitizing, non-irritant)	Passed, no evidence of toxicity, sensitization, or irritation.
   In-Vivo GLP Pre-Clinical Testing	(e.g., no complications, no vascular injuries, no thrombus formation)	All acceptance criteria passed. No new questions of safety or effectiveness. Treated vessels free from thrombus formation.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance

   • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (number of devices or tests) for each non-clinical in vitro test. It generally refers to "non-clinical laboratory testing."
   • For the in-vivo GLP animal study, the sample size is also not explicitly stated in terms of the number of animals used.
   • Data Provenance: The in vitro testing is described as "non-clinical laboratory testing." The in-vivo study is a "GLP animal study." The location or country of origin for these studies is not specified, but they are subject to GLP regulations (21 CFR Part 58), indicating a regulated environment. These are prospective studies designed to evaluate the new device.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

   • This information is not provided in the document. The testing described (bench tests, animal study) does not involve human expert interpretation in the way that, for example, an AI imaging device would requiring ground truth from radiologists. The "ground truth" for these engineering and biologic tests would be objective measurements and observations (e.g., lumen patency, force measurements, histological analysis in the animal study).

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

   • This is not applicable as the described tests are objective laboratory and animal studies, not subjective assessments requiring human adjudication of findings.

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

   • This is not applicable. The Symphony Thrombectomy System is a medical device for thrombus removal, not an AI imaging or diagnostic algorithm that assists human readers.

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

   • This is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a standalone algorithm.

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

   • For the non-clinical in vitro tests, the ground truth is established by objective engineering measurements and functional assessments against pre-defined specifications (e.g., force values, dimensions, leak rates, visual integrity).
   • For the in-vivo GLP animal study, the ground truth includes direct observation of vascular injuries, thrombus formation, and other biological responses. This would likely involve macroscopic and potentially histopathological evaluations. The document explicitly states "no vascular injuries were observed" and "All treated vessels were free from thrombus formation."

8. The sample size for the training set

   • This is not applicable. The Symphony Thrombectomy System is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

   • This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SYMPHONY OCT System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3):

• · Traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations;
• Instability or deformity;
• · Failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudarthrosis);
• · Tumors involving the cervical/thoracic spine;
• · Degenerative disease, including intractable radiculopathy, neck and/or arm pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by radiographic studies, and
• · Degenerative disease of the facets with instability.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is also intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage turnors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is compatible with occipital fusion components (plates, rods and clamps) from the SYNAPSE Occipital-Cervical-Thoracic (OCT) System and the MOUNTAINEER OCT Spinal System. Additionally, the SYMPHONY OCT System is compatible with SYNAPSE OCT System hooks and rods.

The SONGER Wire/Cable System may be used with the SYMPHONY OCT System to allow for wire/cable attachment to the posterior cervical spine.

The SYMPHONY OCT System may be connected to the EXPEDIUM Spine System using connectors and tapered rods. The SYMPHONY OCT System can also be linked to the USS Spinal System and MATRIX Spine System using connectors and tapered rods.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is a posterior spinal fixation system intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3). The system is composed of multiple components to allow the surgeon to build an implant system to fit the patient's anatomical and physiological requirements. The system consists of bone anchors (such as screws) for connection by longitudinal components (such as offset rods) via an interconnection mechanism (e.g., set screws) with optional transverse connectors (e.g., cross connectors) to link the longitudinal components for additional stability.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the SYMPHONY™ OCT System, which is a posterior spinal fixation system. It does not describe a study that uses AI or machine learning, nor does it discuss acceptance criteria in the context of diagnostic accuracy or performance metrics commonly associated with AI/ML devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it focuses on the substantial equivalence of the device to existing predicate devices based on its intended use, technological characteristics, materials, and non-clinical performance data (mechanical testing and MR compatibility).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and study details related to an AI/ML device's performance because this document does not pertain to such a device. The "performance data" section refers to mechanical testing for spinal implants and MR compatibility, not to the diagnostic or analytical performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Here's why each requested point cannot be addressed from the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document discusses non-clinical mechanical testing (Static Torsion, Static Compression, Dynamic Compression) and MR compatibility. It states these tests were conducted "in alignment with the following standards" and that "Results demonstrated compatibility conditions." However, it does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum torque resistance, maximum displacement force) or the specific numerical results obtained for the SYMPHONY™ OCT System components against these criteria.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: This refers to data for an AI/ML algorithm. The document describes mechanical and MR compatibility testing of physical components, not a test set of medical data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: This is relevant for AI/ML diagnostic or analytical studies. The document describes engineering tests, not expert-adjudicated ground truth for medical images or other data.

4. Adjudication method: Not applicable to the reported mechanical and MR compatibility testing.

5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable. This type of study is for evaluating observer performance with and without AI assistance, which is not relevant to a spinal implant system.

6. Standalone performance study: Not applicable. The document describes the mechanical and MR properties of the device itself, not the performance of an algorithm.

7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable. Ground truth typically refers to confirmed diagnoses or outcomes in clinical studies, not the results of engineering tests.

8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

To summarize, the provided text describes a medical device clearance for a spinal fixation system, not an artificial intelligence medical device. Therefore, the specific questions regarding acceptance criteria and study design for AI/ML performance cannot be answered from this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

SYMPHONY Navigation Ready Instruments:

The SYMPHONY Navigation Ready Instruments when used with the compatible Universal Navigation Adaptor Set are intended to assist the surgeon in locating anatomical structures in either open or percutaneous procedures. These are indicated for use in surgical spinal procedures, in which:

· the use of SYMPHONY OCT System is indicated,

· the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and

· reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as a vertebrae can be identified relative to the acquired image (CT, MR, 2D fluoroscopic image or 3D fluoroscopic image reconstruction) and/or an image data based model of the anatomy using a navigation system and associated tracking arrays.

These procedures include but are not limited to spinal fusion. The SYMPHONY Navigation Ready Instruments can be pre-calibrated and/or manually calibrated with the Brainlab Navigation System, where other navigation systems require manual calibration and tracking arrays supplied by the navigation system manufacturer.

The SYMPHONY Navigation Ready Instruments are intended to support indicated cervical and thoracic polyaxial sorew placement.

Universal Navigation Adaptor Set:

The Universal Navigation Adaptor Set (UNAS) is intended for use with the compatible DePuy Synthes Navigation Ready Instruments to assist the surgeon in locating anatomical structures in either open or percutaneous procedures. These are indicated for use in surgical spinal procedures, in which:

· the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and

· reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as the pelvis or a vertebrac can be identified relative to the aquired image (CT, MR, 2D fluoroscopic image or 3D fluoroscopic image reconstruction) and/or an image data based model of the anatomy using a navigation system and associated tracking arrays.

These procedures include but are not limited to spinal fusion. The DePuy Synthes Navieation Ready Instrument, when used with UNAS, can be pre-calibrated and/or manually calibrated with the Brainlab Navigation System, where other navigation systems require manual calibration and tracking arrays supplied by the navigation system manufacturer.

SYMPHONY Navigation Ready Instruments:

The SYMPHONY Navigation Ready Instruments are reusable instruments used for the preparation for and insertion of SYMPHONY OCT screws, in either open or percutaneous procedures. These instruments are designed for navigated and nonnavigated use. Navigation of these instruments is achieved using the DePuy Synthes Universal Navigation Adaptor Set (UNAS). For further details on UNAS, refer to the UNAS labeling.

Universal Navigation Adaptor Set:

The Universal Navigation Adaptor Set (UNAS) contains reusable spine surgical instruments used to aid in determining the correct location and trajectory of spinal instruments and implants. The UNAS has an interface between third-party navigation systems and the DePuy Synthes Navigation Ready Instruments. The UNAS can only be used with Brainlab and Medtronic StealthStation® navigation systems. The UNAS includes:

• Brainlab compatible UNAS Navigation Arrays, ●
• Brainlab compatible Navigation Ring and ●
• Medtronic compatible Navigation Ring ST. ●

The Navigation Ring and Navigation Ring ST mates with compatible DePuy Synthes Navigation Ready Instruments. These instruments include drill guides, probe, taps and screwdrivers. Drills and trocar are indirectly navigable through the drill guide.

When the Brainlab compatible Navigation Ring is attached to the Navigation Ready Instrument, a UNAS Navigation Array can be attached and the instrument can be used only with the Brainlab Navigation System as either a manually calibrated or pre-calibrated instrument.

When the Navigation Ring ST is attached to the Navigation Ready Instrument, a Medtronic SureTrak® II Universal Tracker Fighter array (SureTrak II array) can be attached, and the instrument can be manually calibrated only with the Medtronic StealthStation navigation system.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the SYMPHONY™ Navigation Ready Instruments and Universal Navigation Adaptor Set. This document is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. As such, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence rather than establishing new acceptance criteria and conducting a primary study to prove them.

Therefore, the document does not contain information about:

• Acceptance Criteria in the sense of predefined performance thresholds for a novel device. Instead, it describes performance evaluations to show that the new device's performance aligns with that of predicate devices.
• A "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of a clinical trial or a statistically powered study to demonstrate a new performance claim. The performance data presented are evaluations for substantial equivalence, not a standalone clinical validation study.
• Effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance, as this device is a surgical instrument and navigation accessory, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for image interpretation.
• Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance), as this is not an algorithm-based device.
• Ground truth types (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.), as this is not a diagnostic device requiring this type of ground truth establishment.
• Training set size and ground truth establishment for a training set, as this is not an AI/ML device.

However, it does provide information about the performance evaluations conducted to support substantial equivalence. Here's a breakdown of what is available:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

Since explicit acceptance criteria are not stated in a numerical or categorical format, and "reported device performance" refers to the results of assessments for substantial equivalence, I will list the evaluations performed and the implied objective (consistency with predicate devices).

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

The document does not detail specific sample sizes or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for each of the performance evaluations. The evaluations appear to be bench testing and simulated use, not human subject studies.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

This information is not provided. The evaluations are primarily technical assessments against design specifications and functional requirements, not expert-based ground truth establishment as would be seen in diagnostic imaging studies.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable, as no expert-based ground truth or adjudication process is mentioned for these technical performance evaluations.

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-powered diagnostic device.

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

Not applicable. This is a surgical instrument and navigation accessory, not an algorithm. The "Navigation Connection Repeatability for Pre-Calibrated Instruments" and "Confirmation of Array Recognition" could be considered "standalone" functional tests of the device's interaction with navigation systems, but these are not the same as algorithmic performance.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The "ground truth" for these evaluations would be the engineering specifications, design requirements, and known performance characteristics of the predicate devices and compatible navigation systems. For example:

• Accuracy Verification: Ground truth would be the defined accuracy requirements of the compatible navigation systems.
• Instrument Length Comparison: Ground truth would be the measurements of the predicate device's instruments.
• Array Characteristics Comparison: Ground truth would be the established specifications of the predicate device's arrays.
• Implant/instrument mating conditions: Ground truth would be the design specifications for proper fit and mechanical integrity.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Symphony™ is indicated for use in the management of the following wounds:

• · partial and full-thickness wounds
• · pressure ulcers
• venous ulcers
• · diabetic ulcers
• chronic vascular ulcers
• · tunnelled / undermined wounds
• · surgical wounds (donor sites/grafts, post-Moh's surgery, post-laser surgery, podiatric, wound dehiscence)
• · trauma wounds (abrasions, lacerations, second-degree burns, and skin tears)
• draining wounds

Symphony™ is a sterile, single use wound dressing manufactured by incorporating a layer of glycosaminoglycans between sheets of ovine forestomach-derived extracellular collagen matrix. The 4-ply rectangular devices are available in sizes up to 200 cm².

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the device "Symphony™," a wound dressing. This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on material, manufacturing, and performance characteristics, rather than evaluating an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, much of the requested information about acceptance criteria, ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and training/test set details for AI/ML models is not present in this document.

However, I can extract the information related to the device's performance and the non-clinical testing performed to establish its substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, addressing the points where information is available and noting where it is not:

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

The document presents a comparison table between the Symphony™ device (Subject Device) and the predicate device (Endoform® Topical Matrix). This table implicitly shows the acceptance criteria by listing the parameters and the expected range/value for both the subject and predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SYMPHONY OCT System is intended to provide immobilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for the following acute and chronic instabilities of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3):

• · Traumatic spinal fractures and/or traumatic dislocations;
• Instability or deformity;
• · Failed previous fusions (e.g. pseudarthrosis);
• · Tumors involving the cervical/thoracic spine;

· Degenerative disease, including intractable radiculopathy, neck and/or arm pain of discogenic origin as confirmed by radiographic studies, and

· Degenerative disease of the facets with instability.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is also intended to restore the integrity of the spinal column even in the absence of fusion for a limited time period in patients with advanced stage turnors involving the cervical spine in whom life expectancy is of insufficient duration to permit achievement of fusion.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is compatible with occipital fusion components (plates, rods and clamps) from the SYNAPSE Occipital-Cervical-Thoracic (OCT) System and the MOUNTAINEER OCT Spinal System. Additionally, the SYMPHONY OCT System is compatible with SYNAPSE OCT System hooks and rods.

The SONGER Wire/Cable System may be used with the SYMPHONY OCT System to allow for wire/cable attachment to the posterior cervical spine.

The SYMPHONY OCT System may be connected to the EXPEDIUM Spine System using connectors and tapered rods. The SYMPHONY OCT System can also be linked to the USS Spinal System and MATRIX Spine System using connectors and tapered rods.

The SYMPHONY OCT System is a posterior spinal fixation system intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the craniocervical junction, the cervical spine (C1 to C7) and the upper thoracic spine (T1-T3). The system is composed of multiple components to allow the surgeon to build an implant system to fit the patient's anatomical and physiological requirements. The system consists of bone anchors (such as screws) for connection by longitudinal components (such as rods) via an interconnection mechanism (e.g., set screws) with optional transverse connectors (e.g., cross connectors) to link the longitudinal components for additional stability.

The provided text does NOT contain information about an AI/ML medical device, and therefore, it does not include acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the SYMPHONY™ OCT System, which is a posterior spinal fixation system. This is a physical, implantable medical device, not a software or AI-based diagnostic/therapeutic tool.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information, such as:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (for AI/ML).
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth.
• Adjudication method.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone performance.
• Type of ground truth.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

The "Performance Data" section (J) describes non-clinical mechanical testing (e.g., Static Torsion, Dynamic Compression, Pullout Testing) typical for a physical implant, not for an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device