Search Results

The UNIRING® is indicated as reinforcement for repair of the human cardiac mitral and tricuspid valves damaged by acquired or congenital disease, or as a replacement for a previously implanted annuloplasty ring. The annuloplasty ring should be used only in cases where visual inspection confirms that the valve is repairable and does not require replacement.

The UNIRING® consists of an annuloplasty ring mounted on a holder assembly for implantation in the mitral or tricuspid position. A complete set of instrumentation is available scparately to properly size the annulus.

I am sorry, but based on the provided document, there is no acceptance criteria table or specific study described that proves the device meets particular acceptance criteria.

The document is a 510(k) Summary for the UNIRING® Annuloplasty Ring. Its purpose is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, not to present detailed performance data against specific, quantitative acceptance criteria.

Here's what the document does state regarding performance:

• Non-clinical laboratory testing:
  • Demonstrated compliance with USP Monographs and EP Monographs for Absorbable surgical sutures.
  • Biocompatibility testing: Supported that materials are "non-toxic, non-hemolytic, and non-pyrogenic." Conducted under Good Laboratory Practices per 21 CFR Part 58.
  • Mechanical Integrity testing: Specifically, suture retention testing "demonstrated that the design provided for a more than adequate sure reterior force as compared to the predicate device."
  • Overall, testing "demonstrated that the UNIRING® is substantially equivalent to the predicate device for repair of the mitrial or tricuspid valve."

However, the document does not provide:

• A table of explicit acceptance criteria (e.g., "suture retention force must exceed X Newtons").
• The raw results or statistical analysis from any of these tests.
• Details on sample sizes for these tests.
• Information that would allow answering questions 2-9 from your prompt (e.g., data provenance, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, training data, etc.) because these types of studies are not mentioned or typically required for a 510(k) substantial equivalence determination based on non-clinical comparative performance.

In summary, the provided text does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving their fulfillment. The document focuses on showing substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing and comparison to predicate devices, rather than establishing and meeting specific performance endpoints with detailed clinical or large-scale testing data.

Ask a specific question about this device