Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K140760
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2014-06-16

    (82 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5010
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The BONASTENT® Biliary Stent is indicated for the palliation of malignant strictures in the biliary tree.

    Device Description

    The Bonastent® Biliary stent is a self-expanding polygon mesh surface, tubular prosthesis designed to maintain patency of bile duct strictures caused by malignant tumors. The stent is made of Nitinol wire and is designed in such a way as to prevent migration and turnor ingrowth. The stent is provided preloaded on a delivery device and is available in 2 different diameters (8mm and 10mm) in various lengths.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document describes the 510(k) submission for the Bonastent® Biliary stent, K140760. This submission is for material changes to the delivery device of an already cleared product (K093003) and not for initial market clearance of a novel device or software. Therefore, the information regarding acceptance criteria, study design for performance, and ground truth establishment is significantly different from what would be expected for a software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) or a new device effectiveness study.

    Based on the provided text, here’s a breakdown of the requested information:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    For this 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" are framed around ensuring the safety and effectiveness of the device were maintained despite the material changes to the delivery system. The primary acceptance criterion was that the changes did not negatively impact biocompatibility or mechanical performance.

    Acceptance CriterionReported Device Performance
    Biocompatibility: No new safety issues due to material changes.Passed Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, and Irritation tests.
    Deployment: No negative impact on device deployment.Passed deployment testing.
    Tensile Strength: No negative impact on device tensile strength.Passed tensile strength testing.
    Overall Safety & Effectiveness: Device remains substantially equivalent to the predicate device.All tests support that no new safety and effectiveness issues are raised due to the changes.

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

    The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of clinical data for efficacy. Instead, the testing relates to bench testing for the physical device components.

    • Sample Size for Bench Tests: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of devices or components. The text mentions "bench tests were performed."
    • Data Provenance: N/A for clinical data. This refers to laboratory and bench testing of the device components.

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

    N/A. As this submission pertains to material changes and not a clinical efficacy study, there was no "ground truth" derived from expert review of patient data. The "truth" here is established through validated laboratory and engineering tests against predefined specifications for biocompatibility and mechanical performance.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    N/A. There was no clinical test set requiring adjudication from experts.

    5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

    No. An MRMC study is typically conducted for diagnostic devices, especially those involving image interpretation by human readers, to assess the impact of AI on their performance. This 510(k) is for a physical medical device (biliary stent) and material changes to its delivery system, not an AI or diagnostic tool.

    6. If a Standalone Performance Study Was Done

    Yes, in a way. The "verification & validation activities" including biocompatibility and bench tests (deployment and tensile strength) can be considered standalone performance studies for the modified delivery device, aiming to demonstrate that it performs as intended and meets safety requirements. These studies are focused on the device's intrinsic mechanical and material properties.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    For the bench testing, the "ground truth" would be the engineering specifications and scientific standards for biocompatibility (e.g., ISO standards for cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation) and mechanical performance (e.g., predefined force limits for deployment, tensile strength requirements). The results of these tests are compared against these established technical specifications.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    N/A. There is no training set mentioned, as this is not a machine learning or AI-based device.

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

    N/A. As there is no training set, this is not applicable.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1