Search Results

The X3C 1100 motorized patient table with digital radiographic detector (510k submission device) is integrated into the user's stationary radiography system. This typical configuration permits a qualified/trained doctor or technologist to take a range of head-to-toe diagnostic radiographic exposures of the skull, spinal column, chest, abdomen, extremities, and other body parts on both adult and pediatric patients. Applications can be performed with patient sitting, lying in the prone or supine positions.

The X3C 1100 (510k submission device) is not intended for mammography.

Device Description

The X3C 1100 is a modification to Xplorer 1100 where the Xplorer 1000 digital radiographic detector (a previously marketed device covered by 510k K992955) in Xplorer 1100 system is replaced with X3C digital radiographic detector, previously marketed device under K070079. The X3C 1100 system is manufactured by Imaging Dynamics.

AI/ML Overview

This submission (K071408) is for a X3C 1100 motorized patient table with digital radiographic detector. This device is a modification of an existing device, where the digital radiographic detector component has been updated.

The key takeaway is that no clinical studies were conducted for this 510(k) submission. The manufacturer relied on non-clinical tests and demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Xplorer 1100, K062417) to meet acceptance criteria.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria Category	Description	Reported Device Performance
Performance	The device's operational capabilities (e.g., image quality, functionality)	Evaluated through non-clinical tests; found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Biocompatibility	Assessment of potential biological risks associated with material contact.	Evaluated through non-clinical tests; found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Effectiveness	The device's ability to achieve its intended diagnostic purpose.	Evaluated through non-clinical tests; found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Thermal Safety	Evaluation of potential thermal hazards.	Evaluated through non-clinical tests; found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Electrical Safety	Evaluation of potential electrical hazards.	Evaluated through non-clinical tests; found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Mechanical Safety	Evaluation of potential mechanical hazards.	Evaluated through non-clinical tests; found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Quality Systems	Compliance with regulatory standards for design and manufacturing.	Conforms to 21 CFR part 820, ISO 9001 and ISO 13485 quality systems.

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

Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable. No clinical test set was used for this submission. The evaluation was based on non-clinical tests and comparison to a predicate device.
Data Provenance: Not applicable for clinical data. Non-clinical test data provenance is not specified beyond being generated by Imaging Dynamics Company Ltd.

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

Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring expert ground truth establishment was conducted for this submission.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication was conducted for this submission.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The submission explicitly states: "Clinical tests: No clinical tests conducted."

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Not applicable. This device is a digital radiographic detector integrated into an X-ray system, not a standalone algorithm. Also, no clinical studies were performed.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Not applicable for clinical studies. For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" would be established by engineering specifications, regulatory standards, and performance against the predicate device through direct comparison testing.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device does not appear to involve AI/ML requiring a training set in the context of this submission. The evaluation was primarily engineering-based and comparison to a predicate device.

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

Not applicable, as no training set was used.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1