Search Results

The ZTX Ultrasonic Diathermy Device is intended to apply ultrasonic energy to generate deep heat within body tissues for the treatment of selected medical conditions such as the relief of pain, the relief of muscle spasms, the treatment of joint contractures, and the local increase in circulation.

The ZTX Ultrasonic Diathermy Device is a prescription use device. The ZTX Device should only be administered and monitored by a licensed healthcare practitioner.

The ZTX Ultrasonic Diathermy Device consists of a ZTX Ultrasound Power Controller and cable which can be used to power one or two ZTX Ultrasound Applicators simultaneously that each generate ultrasonic energy at one frequency (3 MHz) and one power setting (0.65 W) per ZTX Ultrasound Applicator. The ZTX Ultrasound Applicators are applied with one time use ZTX Ultrasound Coupling Bandages which hold the ZTX Ultrasound Applicators in place during treatment and allow for the transmission of ultrasound into the body. This provides the operator with the ability to use the device hands-free in a single applicator mode of operation that delivers 0.65W at 3MHz or in a dual applicator mode of operation that provides 1.3W at 3MHz. The ZTX Ultrasound Power Controller displays battery and treatment setting information to the operator and provides control of device treatment time. The ZTX Ultrasound Applicator frequency and power settings are not modifiable by the operator. The ZTX ultrasound applicators and coupling bandage allows for the delivery of ultrasonic energy to tissue at one or two locations simultancously, as determined by a physician. The ZTX Ultrasound Power Controller , ZTX Ultrasound Applicators, interconnecting power cable and ZTX Ultrasound Coupling Bandages comprise the entire ZTX treatment system.

The provided text describes the regulatory submission for the ZTX Ultrasonic Diathermy Device, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It details various technical characteristics and performance testing but does not explicitly define acceptance criteria in terms of specific quantitative thresholds or clinical endpoints for a study.

Instead, the submission states that the ZTX device met performance standards and demonstrated substantially equivalent diathermic heating effects and safety profiles to the predicate device. This implies that the 'acceptance criteria' were essentially demonstrating compliance with regulatory standards (21 CFR 1050.10, IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2) and showing comparable performance to the predicate.

Given this, I will interpret "acceptance criteria" as the performance standards and substantial equivalence claims mentioned, and "reported device performance" as the documented outcomes against those standards and claims.

Here's the information requested, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Ex vivo bovine muscle model: Sample size not specified. Data provenance: ex vivo, specific country not mentioned.
   • In vivo swine model: Sample size not specified. Data provenance: in vivo, GLP structured, specific country not mentioned.
   • Biocompatibility: Sample size not specified (e.g., number of test articles or subjects). Data provenance: contract laboratory.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • The document describes engineering (bench testing) and animal model studies, not studies involving human experts establishing ground truth for perception or diagnostic tasks. Therefore, this information is not applicable in the context of this device's submission. The "ground truth" for the performance tests would be the measured physical parameters (e.g., temperature changes, power output, safety parameters) and biological responses in the animal model.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • This concept is typically relevant for human-in-the-loop studies involving subjective interpretations (e.g., medical imaging reviews). For the bench and animal model testing described, adjudication in this sense is not applicable. The 'adjudication' would be the scientific interpretation and analysis of the quantitative results by qualified individuals, though no specific multi-expert adjudication process is described.

4. 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 human-in-the-loop study with human readers/AI assistance was conducted or mentioned. This information is not applicable as the device is an ultrasonic diathermy device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

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

   • The ZTX device does not contain software or firmware that controls its functionality, nor does it have a microprocessor or CPU. It's a hardware-based therapeutic device. Therefore, a standalone algorithm-only performance study is not applicable. The performance testing described is of the physical device's output and effects.

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

   • Bench testing: Ground truth was based on measurements of physical parameters (e.g., power, frequency, beam characteristics) and diathermic heating effects (temperature changes) in an ex vivo model, compared to established standards and the predicate device's performance.
   • In vivo swine model: Ground truth was based on physiological responses and safety profiles observed in the animal model, compared to the predicate device.
   • Biocompatibility: Ground truth was based on established assays for sensitization and cytotoxicity.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The ZTX device is a hardware-based therapeutic device without software, firmware, or AI components that would require a "training set" in the computational sense. Therefore, this question is not applicable. The device was designed and then tested against performance standards and a predicate.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • As there is no "training set" in the context of this device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device