Search Results

The LifeStent FlexStar XL Biliary Stent System is indicated for use in the palliation of malignant strictures (neoplasms) in the biliary tree.

The LifeStent FlexStar XL Biliary Stent System consists of a self-expanding stent that is provided loaded into an over the wire catheter that acts as a delivery system. The stent is a permanently implanted device used to maintain patency of a major bile duct obstructed by tissue of an impinging turnor. The flexible, self-expanding stent is made by laser cutting an open lattice design into a nitinol tube. The subject device is supplied in lengths of 100mm, 120mm and 150mm and diameters of 6mm and 7mm.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (LifeStent FlexStar XL Biliary Stent System) and the FDA's clearance letter. It does not describe an acceptance criteria table or a study proving the device meets an acceptance criteria in the way a clinical trial or algorithm performance study would.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for regulatory clearance. This is a different type of "proof" than a performance study with defined quantitative acceptance criteria.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing your questions where possible:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

This document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria or quantitative performance metrics for the device in the context of clinical efficacy or diagnostic accuracy. The performance data presented are related to bench testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not clinical outcomes or specific performance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, etc.

The document states:

• "Edwards Lifesciences completed bench testing such as deployment testing, dimensional testing, as well as tensile strength testing on applicable joints of the delivery system. The results indicate that the system performed in a manner substantially equivalent to the predicate devices cited in item 7 above."

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

• Not applicable (N/A): This document describes bench testing for mechanical and physical properties of the device and delivery system, not a clinical study on a "test set" of patients or data points in the way an AI/software study would. The "sample" here would refer to the number of devices tested on the bench, but this specific number is not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, as it's bench testing, not patient data.

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

• Not applicable (N/A): Ground truth, in the context of expert consensus, is not relevant for the bench testing described in this document. The "ground truth" for bench tests would be engineering specifications and measurements.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable (N/A): Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for human reader studies or to resolve discrepancies in ground truth establishment. This is not reported as such a study was not performed.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size:

• No: An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed or reported in this document. The submission is based on substantial equivalence to existing devices, supported by bench testing and similar materials/intended use.

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

• Not applicable (N/A): This is a physical medical device (a stent and its delivery system), not an algorithm or AI software. Therefore, an algorithm-only standalone performance study is not relevant.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Bench Testing Specifications/Measurements: For the performance data reported ("deployment testing, dimensional testing, as well as tensile strength testing"), the "ground truth" would be established engineering specifications, mechanical properties, and verified measurements.
• No clinical ground truth: The document explicitly states: "The safety and effectiveness of this device for use in the vascular system have not been established." This indicates that clinical efficacy or safety ground truth beyond what is implied by substantial equivalence to predicate devices for palliative use (which the FDA cleared based on the known performance of similar devices) was not established by this submission.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable (N/A): This is not an AI/machine learning device. There is no concept of a "training set" in this context.

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

• Not applicable (N/A): As there is no training set for an AI/machine learning device, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device