Search Results

The WallFlex Biliary RX Fully Covered Stent System is indicated for use in the palliative treatment of biliary strictures produced by malignant neoplasms.

The WallFlex Biliary RX Fully Covered Stent System consists of a self-expanding metal stent and a delivery system. The stent is fully covered with Permalume coating and includes a retrieval loop at the proximal end of the stent to aid in removal during the initial stent placement procedure. The stent is mounted onto a sheath delivery system. The delivery system is a coaxial tubing assembly that constrains the stent onto the delivery system shaft until the stent is released by retracting the exterior tube.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the WallFlex® Biliary RX Fully Covered Stent System:

Summary of Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for WallFlex® Biliary RX Fully Covered Stent System

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (a stent). For such devices, acceptance criteria and performance are typically established through comparisons to predicate devices, demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than explicit, numerical performance metrics in the same way one might for diagnostic software.

No explicit quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed device performance metrics are provided in the text. The submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing, legally marketed predicate devices.

Here's what can be inferred from the document:

Detailed Analysis of the Study and Ground Truth:

The document describes the regulatory submission for a medical device, not a typical diagnostic AI study. Therefore, many of the requested categories (like sample size for test/training sets, experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, etc.) are not applicable or not explicitly detailed in this type of submission.

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. The document states "In-vitro, in-vivo, and clinical testing have been performed." It does not provide specific numbers for patients or samples used in these tests for equivalence demonstration.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified. The document does not mention the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. "In-vivo" and "clinical testing" generally imply prospective human studies, but details are absent.

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

   • Not Applicable/Not Specified. In a 510(k) submission for a physical device like a stent, "ground truth" isn't established by expert consensus on images or diagnoses in the way it would be for an AI algorithm. Instead, the "truth" is related to the device's physical performance, safety, and effectiveness measured through engineering tests, animal studies, and clinical trials. The document does not detail how "ground truth" was established for these tests, nor does it mention specific experts.

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

   • Not Applicable/Not Specified. This concept of adjudication is relevant for diagnostic accuracy studies involving human readers or AI outputs. For a physical device's performance testing (in-vitro, in-vivo), this type of adjudication method is not typically used or reported in this format.

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:

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device (stent), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant to this submission.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device (stent), not an algorithm.

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

   • Implied through performance metrics and clinical outcomes. For a stent, "ground truth" for its performance would be derived from:
     • In-vitro testing: Engineering specifications, material properties, mechanical integrity, expansion force, durability, etc.
     • In-vivo (animal) testing: Biocompatibility, stent patency, tissue response, animal survival.
     • Clinical testing: Patient outcomes such as stent patency, complication rates (e.g., migration, occlusion, perforation), effectiveness in palliating strictures, patient survival, and adverse event reporting.
   • The document states "all components, subassemblies, and/or full devices met the required specifications for the completed tests," implying that the ground truth for these tests was adherence to pre-defined engineering and clinical performance standards.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable/Not Specified. This is a physical device, not a machine learning algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the computational sense.
   • If interpreted broadly as data used to develop the device, that information is not provided.

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

   • Not Applicable/Not Specified. As there's no training set for an AI algorithm, this question is not relevant.

In conclusion, this 510(k) summary demonstrates substantial equivalence for a physical medical device (stent) based on in-vitro, in-vivo, and clinical testing, rather than presenting detailed performance metrics or "ground truth" assessments characteristic of AI or diagnostic imaging studies. The FDA's acceptance is based on this claim of substantial equivalence to predicate devices, with added labeling limitations regarding its use in the vascular system.

Ask a specific question about this device