Search Results

The Orbus LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis is indicated for the palliation of malignant neoplasms in the biliary tree.

The LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis consists of a balloon expandable stent which is provided mounted onto a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloon catheter which acts as the delivery system. The stent is a permanently implanted device used to maintain patency of a major bile duct obstructed by tissue of an impinging tumor. The flexible, balloon expandable stent is made by laser cutting an open lattice design into a 316L stainless steel tube. The stent is supplied mounted onto a PTA balloon catheter, inserted percutaneously to the diseased site, and expanded by balloon inflation. The systems are available with an expanded diameter of 8.0 mm at stent lengths of 18 mm.

This document describes a 510(k) submission for the Orbus Medical Technologies LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis, specifically an 8 x 18/20 mm size, as a line extension to a previously cleared device. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving specific acceptance criteria in a clinical study.

Here's a breakdown based on your requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This 510(k) summary does not present specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance in the format of a table as it pertains to clinical outcomes. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The performance data mentioned are primarily from in-vitro tests designed to show that the new device performs "in a manner substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

In-vitro tests performed (as listed in "11. Performance Data"):

• Deployment
• Expansion force
• Compression force
• Dimensions
• Corrosion susceptibility
• Visual appearance
• Balloon performance
• Expansion damage
• Balloon tensile strength

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

The provided document does not describe a clinical study with a "test set" of patient data. The performance data mentioned are from in-vitro tests (laboratory tests) of the device itself, not from human subjects. Therefore, information on sample size for a test set, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective nature of data is not applicable to this 510(k) summary.

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

This is not applicable. The submission focuses on substantial equivalence based on technical comparisons and in-vitro performance, not on establishing ground truth for a test set of clinical cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable as no clinical test set is described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical data.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

This question is typically relevant for AI/software devices. The LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis is a physical medical device (a stent and delivery system). Therefore, the concept of "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm is not applicable here. The performance evaluated relates to the physical and mechanical properties of the device itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The concept of "ground truth" (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) typically applies to diagnostic or treatment effect studies involving patient data. For this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence is based on:

• Engineering specifications and design documents of the predicate devices.
• Measurement results from in-vitro tests of the new device and, presumably, comparative data or established ranges from the predicate devices.
• Established material properties of 316L stainless steel.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The provided document does not describe a "training set" as would be used for machine learning or AI. The development and testing of this device are based on engineering principles and in-vitro testing, not statistical training on a data set.

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

This is not applicable as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Orbus LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis is indicated for use in the palliation of malignant neoplasms in the biliary tree.

The LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis consists of a balloon expandable stent which is provided mounted onto a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloon catheter which acts as the delivery system. The stent is a permanently implanted device used to maintain patency of a major bile duct obstructed by tissue of an impinging tumor. The flexible, balloon expandable stent is made by laser cutting an open lattice design into a 316L stainless steel tube. The stent is supplied mounted onto a PTA balloon catheter, inserted percutaneously to the diseased site, and expanded by balloon inflation. The systems are available with expanded diameters of 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 mm at stent lengths of 18, 26, 36, and 56 mm.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the "LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis." This is a medical device submission seeking clearance to market, demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices. It is not a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria in the way described by the request, particularly for AI/machine learning models.

The information provided focuses on comparative technological characteristics (materials, performance properties, biocompatibility, sterilization, packaging) and in vitro tests to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a clinical study with acceptance criteria for device performance based on patient outcomes or expert evaluations.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be directly answered from the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred or directly stated, and what cannot:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results. Instead, it states: "Orbus protocols ensure that the LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis performs in a manner substantially equivalent to the predicate devices during in vitro tests such as deployment, expansion force, compression force, dimensions, corrosion susceptibility, visual appearance, balloon performance, expansion damage, and balloon tensile strength." This implies that the device met internal performance specifications designed to demonstrate equivalence, but the specific metrics and targets are not disclosed.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

Not applicable. This was an in vitro (laboratory) testing comparison against predicate devices, not a clinical study involving a test set of patient data.

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)

Not applicable. Ground truth for clinical data is not relevant to this in vitro device comparison.

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

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, nor was an MRMC study described.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

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

For the in vitro tests, the "ground truth" would be the engineering specifications and performance characteristics of the predicate devices and the physical measurements/observations during testing of the LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis. This is not clinical ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. No training set is mentioned as this device clearance is not based on a machine learning model.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable.

Summary of what can be extracted based on the nature of the submission:

• Device Type: Biliary stent (LifeStent SDS Biliary Endoprosthesis) mounted on a balloon catheter.
• Intended Use: Palliation of malignant neoplasms in the biliary tree.
• Regulatory Pathway: 510(k) premarket notification, demonstrating substantial equivalence.
• Performance Evaluation: Primarily in vitro testing.
• Comparison Basis: Substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on:
  • Identical intended use.
  • Identical material properties.
  • Similar performance properties (deployment, expansion force, compression force, dimensions, corrosion susceptibility, visual appearance, balloon performance, expansion damage, balloon tensile strength).
  • Similar packaging and sterilization methods.
• Key Finding: The device was deemed substantially equivalent to predicate devices, allowing it to be marketed.

Conclusion: The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter and associated summary information. It describes regulatory clearance based on substantial equivalence demonstrated through in vitro testing, not a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance data as would be typically expected for AI/ML device validation or a human clinical trial. As such, the specific metrics for patient-centric acceptance criteria, sample sizes for medical data, and expert ground truth establishment are not present in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device