Search Results

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:

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

The Miethke Shunt System GAV 2.0 and SA 2.0 are used for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting.

The Aesculap Miethke Shunt System is used in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Components of the Miethke Shunt System can include the GAV (Gravity Assisted Valve) 2.0 valve and SA (SHUNTASSISTANT) 2.0 valve.

The GAV 2.0 is a posture dependent, fixed gravitational valve that combines a differential pressure unit and gravitational unit. This combination allows an automatic adjustment of the opening pressure according to the patient's different body position and is used to control overdrainage. The housing of the GAV 2.0 valve is manufactured from titanium. The GAV 2.0 valve is available in three models, each model is offered in six pressure level settings in various accessory configurations. The GAV 2.0 valve is available as a single device as well as with various Miethke shunt system accessories such as catheters, connectors, deflectors and reservoirs.

The SA 2.0 valve is a posture dependent gravitational valve and is used to control overdrainage. The SA 2.0 is designed for use in combination with an adjustable or non-adjustable differential pressure valve to add increased resistance to the shunt system as a patient changes position. housing of the SA 2.0 valve is manufactured from titanium. The SA 2.0 valve is available in three models, each model is offered in six pressure level settings in various accessory configurations. The SA 2.0 valve is available as a single device as well as with the proGAV 2.0 valve and various Miethke shunt system accessories such as catheters, connectors, deflectors and reservoirs.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Miethke Shunt System GAV 2.0 and SA 2.0 Valves, which is a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting device. This type of device regulates the flow of CSF to treat hydrocephalus.

Based on the provided information, the device is a shunt system, not an AI/ML powered device. As such, concepts like "acceptance criteria for an AI/ML powered device," "sample sized used for the test set," "number of experts used to establish the ground truth," "adjudication method," "multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," "type of ground truth," "sample size for the training set," and "how the ground truth for the training set was established" are not applicable in this context.

The acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria are related to the physical performance and safety of the shunt system.

Here's the information extracted from the document regarding the acceptance criteria and performance of the device:

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

The document summarizes that "All samples met predefined acceptance criteria and the proposed devices passed design verification test activities." It does not provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria values for each test, but rather lists the types of tests performed and attests to a "Pass" result for all of them.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

The document states, "All samples met predefined acceptance criteria and the proposed devices passed design verification test activities." However, it does not specify the sample size used for these performance tests. The data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) is not stated, but given it's a device manufactured by Aesculap, Inc. in Center Valley, Pennsylvania, the testing was likely conducted in a controlled lab environment, not on patient data directly.

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

This concept is not applicable for a physical device performance test. The "ground truth" for a medical device like a shunt is its compliance with established engineering standards and its physical performance characteristics, measured in controlled laboratory settings, not established by human experts in the way an AI algorithm's output might be.

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

Not applicable. This is a term used in validating expert assessments for AI/ML models. For a physical device, the "adjudication" is typically adherence to predefined test protocols and measurement verification.

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 relevant to AI/ML software. This document is for a physical medical device.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm. Its performance is inherently "standalone" in mechanical terms, meaning it functions without human intervention once implanted, but its pre-market testing is bench testing.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth for the device's performance is established by physical measurements and adherence to international and national standards for medical device safety and performance, specifically ISO 7197:2006 and various ASTM F standards for MRI compatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device