Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K202253
    Date Cleared
    2020-10-06

    (57 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.3800
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    TruForm Sievers Annuloplasty Ring

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

    The TruForm™ Sievers Annuloplasty Ring is indicated for the correction of mittal valvular insufficiency where the lessions are not so severe as to require total valve replacement.

    Device Description

    The TruForm™ Sievers Annuloplasty Ring, Model TRH is a semi-flexible implantable annuloplasty ring designed to reduce and stabilize the valve annulus in patients undergoing mitral repair. The inner core of the ring is made of a titanium alloy. Silicone covers the inner core and a sewing cuff made of braided polyester encompasses the ring. Three points of the ring are marked with polyester suture to aid in suture placement for implantation. The ring is available in ten (10) sizes: 24 mm; 26 mm; 28 mm; 30 mm; 32 mm; 34 mm; 36 mm; 38 mm; 40 mm; and 42 mm.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for a medical device called the TruForm™ Sievers Annuloplasty Ring, Model TRH. It is a 510(k) premarket notification, which means the device is being declared substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed predicate devices.

    However, the document does not describe a study involving an algorithm or AI, nor does it present acceptance criteria for an AI device. The TruForm™ Sievers Annuloplasty Ring is a physical medical implant used for cardiac surgery.

    Therefore, I cannot extract the information requested about acceptance criteria and studies proving the device meets them in the context of an AI device. The document focuses on the equivalence of a physical annuloplasty ring to its predicates through non-clinical testing and shared characteristics.

    If there was a misunderstanding and the request was for a physical device, the acceptance criteria are generally met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through:

    • Same intended use and indications for use.
    • Similar technological characteristics.
    • Addressing any differences that could raise new questions of safety and effectiveness through testing.

    The non-clinical tests performed for this physical device to support substantial equivalence include:

    • Biocompatibility
    • Sterilization
    • Computational Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
    • Tensile strength of ring materials
    • Suture pull-out testing
    • MRI Compatibility
    • Packaging
    • Shelf-life

    These tests demonstrate that the device is equivalent to the predicate and/or reference devices, implying it meets the safety and performance requirements for its intended use.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1