Search Results

Genadyne XLR8 White Foam Dressing Kit is intended to be used in conjunction with the Genadyne A4-XLR8 Wound Vacuum System (K090638) to deliver negative pressure wound therapy to the wound. Genadyne A4-XLR8 Wound Vacuum System is indicated for patients who would benefit from a suction device particularly as the device may promote wound healing by the removal of excess exudates, infectious material and tissue debris.

XLR8 White Foam Dressing is appropriate for use on the following wounds:

• Pressure ulcers
• Diabetic/Neuropathic Ulcers
• Venous insufficiency Ulcers
• Traumatic wounds
• Post-operative and dehisced surgical wounds
• Skin flap and grafts

The Genadyne XLR8 White Foam Dressing Kit is a Rx only device.

The Genadyne XLR8 White Foam Kit consists of a XLR8 Port, XLR8 Transparent Film and a XLR8 White Foam. Each component are packaged, sealed and sterilized individually and then bagged.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device and includes summaries of non-clinical tests. However, it does not contain the kind of detailed information typically found in a study proving a device meets specific clinical acceptance criteria for performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on technological characteristics and biocompatibility/bench testing. It does not describe a study involving human patients or AI algorithms in the ways requested.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled from the provided text.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, indicating when information is not available:

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details

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

   The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance in terms of clinical outcomes (e.g., wound healing rates, infection reduction) against specific numerical targets. The "Acceptance Criteria" mentioned for non-clinical tests are qualitative (e.g., "not considered to have a cytotoxic effect," "meets the requirements of the ISO 10993-10 guidelines," "performs up to the acceptability criteria").

   Acceptance Criterion (Non-Clinical)	Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical)
   ISO 10993-5 Cytotoxicity Test	"not considered to have a cytotoxic effect."
   ISO 10993-10 Kligman Maximization	"Grade 1 reaction" and "classified as having weak allergenic potential." "Grade 1 sensitization rate is not considered significant and the test article meets the requirements of the ISO 10993-10 guidelines."
   ISO 10993-10 Intracutaneous	"test article sites did not show a significantly greater biological reaction than the sites injected with the control article." "the test article meets the requirements of the ISO 10993-10 guidelines."
   Bench Tests for Performance	"dressing kit components are all compatible and performs up to the acceptability criteria." (Specific numerical criteria not provided)
   Stability Test	"Devices has passed and met all expectations of the stability tests in terms of bioburden, packaging, seal integrity and performance." (Specific numerical criteria/results for "expectations" not provided)

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. The tests described are non-clinical (biocompatibility and bench tests), not a clinical 'test set' in the context of AI or diagnostic performance studies. The specific number of test items (e.g., foam samples) used for each non-clinical test is not provided.
   • Data Provenance: Not applicable for clinical data. For the non-clinical tests, the provenance is a laboratory setting. No country of origin for clinical data is relevant here.
   • Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable as no clinical study is described.

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. No clinical test set or ground truth established by experts is described. The non-clinical tests are evaluated against established laboratory protocols and standards (e.g., ISO 10993 guidelines).

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

   Not applicable. No test set requiring expert adjudication is described.

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

   No MRMC or comparative effectiveness study involving human readers or AI assistance is mentioned. This document pertains to a wound dressing kit, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool.

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

   Not applicable. The device is a physical wound dressing kit, not an algorithm, so a standalone algorithm performance study is irrelevant.

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

   Not applicable for clinical ground truth. For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference for passing is established by adherence to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO 10993) and pre-defined acceptance criteria within those standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

   Not applicable. There is no AI model or algorithm described that would require a training set.

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

   Not applicable. As there is no AI model or training set, this question is not relevant to the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device