Search Results

The Tzoar Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) System is indicated for wound management via the application of negative pressure to the wound by the removal of wound exudate, infectious materials, and tissue debris from the wound bed. The Tzoar 207 Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) System is indicated for the following wound types: chronic, acute, traumatic, subacute and dehisced wounds, partial-thickness burns, ulcers (such as diabetic or pressure), flaps and grafts.

The Tzoar 207 Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) System includes a pump and two types of dressings: Tzoar NPWT Foam Kits and Tzoar NPWT One Piece Dressing. The Tzoar 207 NPWT pump is a portable, battery powered pump which may promote wound healing through the drainage and removal of wound exudates, infectious material, and tissue debris from the wound bed using continuous and/or intermittent negative pressure. The Tzoar NPWT One Piece Dressing and the Tzoar NPWT Foam Kits are both Tzoar Wound Dressings intended to be used with an NPWT device to manage acute and chronic wounds.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Tzoar 207 Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) System. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies directly, especially for AI/ML devices. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria for AI models, study design, expert ground truth, and specific performance metrics for AI will not be present in this document.

The document mainly covers the technological characteristics, performance tests of the device's physical functions, biocompatibility, and electrical safety.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the context of an overall device performance metric that would be suitable for an AI/ML device. Instead, it lists several performance tests conducted on the physical device components. The conclusion drawn from these tests is that the device is "performing as intended" and is "substantially equivalent to the predicate."

Here's a table summarizing the tests mentioned and the general conclusion:

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 describe a "test set" in the context of data for an AI/ML device. The "tests" mentioned are for the physical components and functionality of the NPWT system. The sample sizes for these physical performance tests are not specified in this summary document. Data provenance is not applicable as this is a device clearance, not an AI model clearance.

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 device is a Negative Pressure Wound Therapy system, which is a physical medical device. It does not appear to incorporate AI/ML technology that would require expert-established ground truth on a test set of data.

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

Not applicable, as there is no mention of a test set requiring adjudication for AI/ML performance.

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 physical wound therapy system and does not involve human "readers" or AI assistance in interpretation.

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

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI.

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

Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device would be its ability to perform its stated functions (e.g., maintain pressure, seal, battery life) according to engineering specifications and relevant standards. This is assessed through physical performance tests, not through expert review of data or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML model.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML model.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TZ Medical skull pin is placed in a clamp and is applied to the patient's skull to hold their head and neck securely in a particular position when rigid fixation is desired. The clamp is indicated for use in open and percutaneous craniotomies as well as spinal surgery when rigid fixation is necessary.

The TZ Skull Pin is a sterile cervical traction skull pin manufactured from implant grade 316L stainless steel alloy. The TZ Skull Pin is used during neurosurgical procedures to immobilize the head in reference to the torso and to provide cervical immobilization.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the TZ Skull Pin Adult device, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the exact sample sizes (number of pins or animals) for each specific test in the "Summary of Performance Testing" section. It refers to testing being conducted but provides general results rather than specific numerical data for each test condition. The studies are laboratory-based and use animal models for biocompatibility tests (guinea pigs, rabbits, mice) and mechanical testing of the pins. Data provenance is implied to be from the manufacturer's internal testing as part of their 510(k) submission.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The tests performed are primarily mechanical and biological (biocompatibility) evaluations based on established international standards (ASTM and ISO), not human reader evaluations or clinical trials. The "ground truth" for these tests is defined by the specific parameters and outcomes outlined in the referenced standards (e.g., absence of cell lysis, holding a load without failure).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for human reader studies to establish a consensus ground truth. The tests described are objective, laboratory-based evaluations against predetermined criteria.

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 information is not applicable. The TZ Skull Pin is a physical medical device (neurosurgical skull pin), not an AI algorithm or an imaging device to be read by human experts. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI-related comparative effectiveness study was performed or is relevant to this device's submission.

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

This information is not applicable. As explained above, this device is a physical skull pin, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance tests (Skull Pin System Testing, Max Load Test, Creep Test) is defined by the pass/fail criteria of established engineering standards, specifically ASTM F1831-97 (implicitly referenced for performance) and the general requirement that the device performs safely and effectively without material failure or slipping.

For the biocompatibility studies (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Systemic Toxicity), the ground truth is defined by the objective criteria and endpoints specified in the relevant international ISO standards (ISO 10993-5, ISO 10993-10, ISO 10993-11), such as the absence of cell lysis, dermal contact sensitization, irritation, or systemic toxicity.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this physical medical device. Training sets are relevant for machine learning algorithms.

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 specific question about this device

This device is intended to be used to take high quality histological core samples from soft tissue, including (but not limited to) liver, kidney, prostate.

The device is a spring loaded, disposable biopsy needle.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the "TZ®" Biopsy Needle, dated January 3, 1997. It describes a spring-loaded, disposable biopsy needle intended for taking histological core samples from soft tissues. The summary states that the device is identical in technological characteristics to its predicate device, the ProMedical Ltd. - PRO-B Biopsy Needle (K824598).

The document does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria related to device performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes. The "tests" mentioned (Firing Test, Pyrogen Test, Biocompatibility) appear to be related to manufacturing quality, sterility, and material safety, not diagnostic performance. Therefore, I cannot construct a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance as requested in point 1, nor can I answer points 2 through 9, as they pertain to a study proving diagnostic performance, which is not present in this document.

Here's a breakdown of what is and is not in the provided text:

• 1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not provided in the context of diagnostic accuracy. The tests listed are "Firing Test," "Pyrogen Test (LAL)," and "Biocompatibility," all of which "Passed." These relate to manufacturing and material safety, not how well the device performs its intended diagnostic function in terms of tissue quality or diagnostic yield.
• 2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable, as there's no diagnostic performance study described.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
• 4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
• 5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No, not mentioned.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is a physical biopsy needle, not an algorithm.
• 7. The type of ground truth used: 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.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on technological characteristics and basic safety/manufacturing tests. It does not provide any clinical study data for diagnostic performance.

Ask a specific question about this device