Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(160 days)
The XABO Catheters are used for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting.
The XABO Catheters are manufactured using barium sulfate fillcone elastomer and are impregnated with clindamycin hydrochloride and rifampicin designed to be released over time from the exterior and inner lumen surface once implanted.
The XABO Ventricular Catheters will be offered in 18 cm in length with an inner diameter of 1.2 mm and an outer diameter of 2.5 mm. Lengths are marked in 1 cm intervals starting from the catheter tip, thus enabling the surgeon to qauge the depth of penetration of the catheter into the lateral ventricle. The proximal end of the catheter has 16 flow holes around the catheter circumference.
Components supplied with the XABO Ventricular Catheter include a pre-loaded stainless steel stylet and depending on the confiquration may contain a deflector.
The XABO Peritoneal Catheters measure 60 cm or 120 cm in length, 1.2 mm in inner diameter, and 2.5 mm in outer diameter. There are no length markers or wall slits on the tip is open ended. The catheter may be trimmed to the proper length.
The XABO Catheters are designed to articulate with existing Miethke Shunt Systems, such as the M.blue Adjustable Shunt System. Miethke Shunt System GAV 2.0 and SA 2.0 Valves, proGAV 2.0 Adjustable Shunt System miniNAV valve, and the Miethke Shunt System (DSV, connectors, and reservoirs) cleared by FDA (K192266/K190174/K161853/K141687/K110206/K030698/K011030).
The provided text focuses on the 510(k) premarket notification for the XABO Ventricular Catheter, XABO Peritoneal Catheter, and XABO Catheter Set. It primarily addresses the substantial equivalence of these devices to existing predicate devices. While it mentions performance bench testing and specific tests performed, it does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria values or detailed study results that would allow for a complete fill of the requested table.
The document indicates that the devices were tested against "performance specifications" and that the results "confirm that the XABO Catheters meet performance specifications." However, the exact numerical or qualitative specifications themselves are not provided.
Therefore, the following information is extracted directly from the provided text, and where information is not explicitly stated, it is noted as "Not explicitly stated in the provided text."
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Performance Bench Testing (ISO 7197) | "Testing results confirm that the XABO Catheters meet performance specifications." (Specific specifications and results not provided). |
Zone of Inhibition | "Comparison testing of the XABO Catheters and the predicate device show that they have the same characteristics." (Specific characteristics and results not provided). |
Drug Content | "Comparison testing of the XABO Catheters and the predicate device show that they have the same characteristics." (Specific characteristics and results not provided). |
Drug Release Kinetic | "Comparison testing of the XABO Catheters and the predicate device show that they have the same characteristics." (Specific characteristics and results not provided). |
Crush Resistance | "Comparison testing of the XABO Catheters and the predicate device show that they have the same characteristics." (Specific characteristics and results not provided). |
MRI Safety (ASTM F2213, F2182, F2119) | "the deflector is MR Conditional in 3-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging systems per ASTM F2503." |
Biocompatibility (ISO 1099-1, FDA Guidance "Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1") | Met requirements for Cytotoxicity, Sensitization/Reactivity, Genotoxicity, Implantation, Acute Systemic Toxicity, Sub-Chronic, Hemolysis, Pyrogenicity. Chronic and developmental/reproductive toxicity addressed by chemical characterization. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the provided text. The phrase "All testing was performed on the worst-case final finished device" could imply a limited number of samples, but a specific number is not given.
- Data Provenance: The studies are described as "Performance bench testing" and "Biocompatibility testing," suggesting laboratory-based testing, not human-patient data. The country of origin of the data is not specified. It is laboratory research, not retrospective or prospective patient data.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Not applicable as the testing described is bench testing and biocompatibility, not studies requiring expert interpretation of clinical data for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Not applicable for the types of tests described (bench testing, biocompatibility).
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
- No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The submission focuses on device equivalence through bench and biocompatibility testing, not AI-assisted human reading.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device (catheter), not an algorithm or AI system.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- For performance bench testing, the "ground truth" would be the pre-defined engineering specifications and standards (e.g., ISO 7197) that the device must meet.
- For biocompatibility testing, the "ground truth" is compliance with international standards (ISO 1099-1) and FDA guidance, ensuring that the device's biological interactions are within acceptable limits.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set and ground truth establishment.
Ask a specific question about this device
(29 days)
The catheter is used for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting.
The ventricular catheter is part of the Miethke Shunt System. It is used to gain access to the cavities of the brain for shunting of excessive CSF.
The ventricular catheter will be offered in lengths of 18 cm or 25 cm with an inner diameter of 1.2 mm and an outer diameter of 2.5 mm. The ventricular catheter contains five stripe depth markers at 3, 5, 7, 10 and 13 cm from the catheter tip. The ventricular catheter is manufactured using barium sulfate filled silicone elastomer.
The purpose of this submission is to seek clearance for modifications to the ventricular catheter which is part of the Miethke Shunt System (K020728). This submission proposes the following modification:
- adding stripe depth markers at 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 cm and point markers at 1 cm intervals on both sides of the tubing starting at 3.5 cm to 12.5 cm from the catheter tip.
The ventricular catheter is designed to articulate with existing Miethke Shunt Systems, such as the M.blue Adjustable Shunt System, Miethke Shunt System GAV 2.0 and SA 2.0 Valves, proGAV 2.0 Adjustable Shunt System, proSA Progammable Shunt System, Miethke Shunt System miniNAV valve, Miethke Shunt System Gravity Assisted Valve (GAV), and the Miethke Shunt System (DSV, ShuntAssistant, paedi-GAV, connectors, and reservoirs) cleared by FDA (K192266/K190174/K161853/K141687/K120559/K110206/K103003/K062009/K031303/ K030698/K011030).
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Miethke Ventricular Catheter, which addresses a modification to an existing device rather than a new AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI study design, such as MRMC comparative effectiveness, standalone performance, training set details, and expert ground truth establishment, is not applicable to this document.
However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and the study performed for this specific device, as it pertains to the physical catheter modification.
Here's the relevant information:
1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Device meets predefined acceptance criteria for radiopacity | All samples met predefined acceptance criteria. |
Device performance as intended | The ventricular catheter performs as intended. |
Substantial equivalence to predicate device | Demonstrated to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device. |
No new issues of safety or effectiveness | The modification raises no new issues of safety or effectiveness. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "All samples" in relation to meeting acceptance criteria, implying a test set was used, but the exact number is not provided.
- Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but it is implied to be from non-clinical laboratory performance testing.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- Not Applicable. This device is a physical medical device (catheter) and the testing performed relates to its physical properties (radiopacity) rather than diagnostic accuracy requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not Applicable. As mentioned above, this testing does not involve human interpretation or adjudication in the context of diagnostic accuracy.
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 a physical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
- Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- For the radiopacity testing, the "ground truth" would be established by the physical measurements and standards defined in the ASTM F 640-12 standard test methods. This is an objective measurement rather than a subjective interpretation requiring expert consensus or pathology.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device; there is no "training set" in the context of an AI algorithm.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not Applicable. There is no training set for this type of device.
Study Details:
- Study performed: Non-clinical laboratory performance testing.
- Standard used: ASTM F 640-12 standard test methods for determining radiopacity for Medical Use.
- Purpose: To demonstrate that the modification (additional depth markers) to the ventricular catheter maintains its intended performance, particularly regarding radiopacity, and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1