Search Results

The Aardvark Medical Device is intended for use in nasal and sinus lavage. The device facilitates instillation of saline into the nasal passage and provides powered suction to either 1) directly evacuate the nasal passage, or 2) to remove the fluid and effluent by aspirating from the opposite nostril in a maneuver similar to the Proetz displacement or Aspiration Irrigation Maneuver. The device is used to treat conditions and disorders of the upper respiratory tract where homeostasis of the nasal mucosa is disturbed, resulting in symptoms such as catarrh and mucopurulent or crust secretions. Such conditions and disorders include: Rhinitis (as a symptom of colds, allergies, etc.) and both acute and chronic Sinusitis. It can also be used to collect mucus samples for subsequent testing. It is intended for use in adults and children in either the physician's office or in the home.

The Aardvark device is designed to make nasal and sinus lavage easy and convenient. The device facilitates instillation of salinc into the nasal passage. It then provides mild powered suction to remove the fluid from the nostril. Alternatively, it can bc used on the opposite nostril while intermittently occluding the sprayed nostril, i.e., the Proetz Displacement mancuver. The device consists of a hand held battery opcrated unit with a disposable tip portion. A charger is provided with the device.

This document states the device went through "verification testing under the company's Design Control Process" which "confirmed the device's conformance with specifications." However, it does not include details about specific acceptance criteria for performance, nor does it describe a study that provides objective performance data or establishes a ground truth.

Therefore, for many of the requested categories, the information is not present in the provided text.

Here's a breakdown based on the input document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
   This information is not provided in the document. The document only states: "The Aardvark device verification testing under the company's Design Control Process has confirmed the device's conformance with specifications. The specifications do not include any significant differences from those of the predicates." This indicates performance was assessed against internal specifications, but the specific criteria and results are not reported.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
   This information is not provided in the document. The document mentions "verification testing" but gives no details about sample size or data provenance for any test set.

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)
   This information is not provided in the document. There is no mention of a "test set" in the context of expert review or ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
   This information is not provided in the document. There is no mention of a "test set" in the context of adjudication.

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
   This information is not applicable/not provided. The device described is a powered nasal irrigator and aspirator, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
   This information is not applicable/not provided. The device described is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
   This information is not provided in the document. There is no discussion of ground truth as it pertains to performance evaluation of the device against a gold standard for a specific diagnostic task. The "verification testing" mentioned would typically refer to engineering and functional performance, not clinical diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set
   This information is not applicable/not provided. The device is a physical medical device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
   This information is not applicable/not provided. The device is a physical medical device, not a machine learning algorithm.

Summary of what is stated regarding performance:

• Acceptance Criteria/Performance Goal: The device was tested for "conformance with specifications." These specifications were considered "substantially equivalent" to those of the predicate devices. No specific quantitative criteria or performance metrics are listed in the document.
• Study Description: The document refers to "verification testing under the company's Design Control Process." No details about the study design, methodology, or results are provided beyond the statement that it confirmed conformance.

Ask a specific question about this device