Search Results

The Valved Safety Centesis Catheter is indicated for the therapeutic aspiration of fluids from body cavities.

The Valved Safety Centesis Catheter is a drainage, centesis catheter with a self sealing valve and a passive safety needle-shielding feature. The catheter is designed with drainage holes located around the distal tip of the catheter to facilitate the drainage of fluid. The catheter surface and tapered end is designed for smooth transition through the tissue, while the inner surface is designed for easy retraction of the insertion needle. The insertion needle comes with a vent plug that allows air to exit and does not allow fluid to exit. The echogenic needle tip provides a guidance for proper catheter placement using ultrasound. The needle hub is clear and locks within the catheter hub. The catheter is radiopaque and can be visualized using fluoroscopy. The hub of the catheter contains a luer adapter to facilitate attachment of drainage collection devices and a bevel indicator for needle bevel orientation reference. The device is provided individually packaged sterile.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the "Valved Safety Centesis Catheter." It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the information required to answer your specific questions related to acceptance criteria, a study proving performance against acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies.

This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through performance testing (functional and biocompatibility) and comparing technical characteristics to a predicate device, rather than a clinical study establishing performance against predefined acceptance criteria for AI or diagnostic purposes.

Here's why the requested information isn't present in this document:

• Device Type: This is a physical medical device (a catheter), not a software or AI-driven diagnostic tool. The questions you've asked (e.g., sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are typically relevant for AI/ML-driven diagnostic devices or software that provides interpretations.
• Regulatory Focus: The 510(k) process for this type of device primarily aims to show that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, meaning it's as safe and effective. This is often achieved through bench testing (functional and biocompatibility) and comparing design features, not clinical trials requiring human reader analysis or complex ground truth establishment for diagnostic accuracy.
• Lack of AI/Diagnostic Component: There is no mention of any AI component, image analysis, or diagnostic output from this catheter that would necessitate the kind of rigorous validation against human expert performance or established ground truth that your questions imply.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria and a study proving device meets acceptance criteria, as the provided document does not contain this type of information for a device like the Valved Safety Centesis Catheter.

The document does mention "Performance Testing" which includes flow rate, tensile strength, pressure testing, and safety feature verification. These are functional performance criteria for a physical device, not diagnostic performance criteria.

To be absolutely clear, here's what the document does say about testing:

• Performance Testing Areas: Visual Inspection, Radio-detectability, Echogenicity, Flow rate, Occlusion, Tensile strength, Pressure testing, Penetration force, Safety feature verification.
• Biocompatibility Testing: Completed considering ISO 10993-1 recommendations.
• Clinical Testing: "No clinical testing was performed as this device does not require clinical studies to demonstrate substantial equivalence with the predicate device."

This explicitly states that no clinical studies were performed, which further confirms why information on human readers, ground truth establishment by experts, or MRMC studies would not be present.

Ask a specific question about this device