Search Results

Prescription:
Under the supervision of a healthcare professional:
LUOFUCON® Extra Silver Gelling Fiber Dressing Plus may be used for the management of moderate to heavily exuding chronic and acute wounds as an effective barrier to bacterial penetration of the dressing, including:
Partial thickness burns (second degree);
Diabetic foot ulcers;
Leg ulcers (venous stasis ulcers, arterial ulcers and leg ulcers of mixed etiology);
Pressure ulcers (partial and full thickness);
Donor sites;
Surgical wounds;
Traumatic wounds.

OTC:
LUOFUCON® Silver Antimicrobial Gelling Fiber Dressing Plus may be used for:
Minor abrasions;
Minor lacerations;
Minor cuts;
Minor scalds and burns.

LUOFUCON® Extra Silver Gelling Fiber Dressing Plus is a soft, conformable, sterile dressing composed of carboxymethyl cellulose fibers, high-density polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate fibers, 1.1% (w/w) ionic silver, and stitched with lyocell fibers. This conformable dressing absorbs wound fluid and creates a soft gel, provides an ideal moist wound healing environment.
The silver ions help to inhibit microbial growth in the dressing for up to seven days. Additionally, based on in vitro testing, LUOFUCON® Extra Silver Gelling Fiber Dressing Plus also provides a barrier against bacterial penetration.

The provided text describes a medical device called "LUOFUCON® Extra Silver Gelling Fiber Dressing Plus" and "LUOFUCON® Silver Antimicrobial Gelling Fiber Dressing Plus" and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include information about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as typically understood for AI/ML-based devices, which involves metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, and clinical study details.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence for a wound dressing through comparative performance testing against a predicate device and safety assessments (biocompatibility, antimicrobial effectiveness, and animal testing).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the context of typical AI/ML device performance metrics. The information available details performance and safety comparisons to a predicate device and relevant standards.

However, I can extract the closest information available, reinterpreting "acceptance criteria" as performance specifications and "study" as the testing performed.

Closest interpretation of acceptance criteria and reported device performance from the provided text:

Information not available or not applicable in this context:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of device performance metrics for diagnostic or AI/ML devices. The "test set" here refers to the physical units of the wound dressing that underwent various laboratory and animal tests. No specific sample sizes are given for each individual performance test (e.g., how many dressings were tested for absorption capacity). The provenance of the testing is "Huizhou Foryou Medical Devices Co., Ltd." in China.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a wound dressing would typically involve laboratory measurements, histological analysis, or clinical observation in animal models, not expert consensus on diagnostic interpretations.
3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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, as this is a wound dressing, not an AI diagnostic/assistance device.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For performance tests, the "ground truth" would be the standard measurement methods and criteria (e.g., EN 13726-1 for absorption, AATCC TM100 for antimicrobial effectiveness). For the animal study, it would be direct observation of "wound healing performance characteristic and histopathology."
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, this is not an AI/ML device.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device