Search Results
Found 3 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(68 days)
The Teratech Corporation Terason™ uSmart3200T is a general purpose Ultrasound System intended for use by a qualified physician for evaluation by ultrasound imaging or fluid flow analysis of the human body. Specific clinical applications and exam types include: Ophthalmic, Fetal, Abdominal, Intra-operative (Spec. and Neuro.), Pediatrics, Small Organ (Thyroid, Breast, Testes); Neonatal and Adult Cephalic, Trans-rectal, Trans-vaginal, Trans-esophageal (non-Card.) Musculo-skel. (Convent.), Musculo-skel. (Superfic); Cardiac (Adult & Pediatric); Trans-esophageal (Cardiac) Peripheral Vascular.
The Terason uSmart3200T ultrasound system is a portable tablet-style, fullfeature, general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system used to acquire and display high-resolution, real-time ultrasound data through multiple imaging modes. The Terason uSmart3200T Ultrasound System is equivalent to the previously cleared versions of the uSmart3200T Ultrasound Systems. The modification includes the addition of 5 transducers (9MC3, 8TE3, PDOF, 8L2, 8V3A), the Trans-esophageal (non-Cardiac and Cardiac) IFUs and the Ophthalmic IFU associated with the 12L5A and 15L4 transducers with no change to the tablet-style computer form factor.
The document provided is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Terason uSmart3200T Ultrasound System, detailing its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It focuses on the safety and performance aspects of the device and its transducers.
Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results in a consolidated manner for the entire device. Instead, it describes various tests and standards met. However, it does provide specific acoustic output limits and the measured values for different transducers.
Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criteria / Standard Met | Reported Device Performance (Worst Case for each Transducer) |
---|---|---|
Acoustic Output | NEMA UD 2-2004, NEMA UD 3-2004, IEC 60601-2-37 | |
Global Maximum ISPTA.3 | - 12L5A: 597 mW/cm² | |
- 4V2A: 603 mW/cm² | ||
- 5C2A: 660 mW/cm² | ||
- 8EC4A: 633 mW/cm² | ||
- 16HL7: 554 mW/cm² | ||
- 15L4: 563 mW/cm² | ||
- 8L2: 598 mW/cm² | ||
- 8V3A: 560 mW/cm² | ||
- 9MC3: 577 mW/cm² | ||
- 8TE3: 245 mW/cm² | ||
- PDOF: 506 mW/cm² | ||
TI (Thermal Index) | - 12L5A: 3.3 | |
- 4V2A: 5.6 | ||
- 5C2A: 4.7 | ||
- 8EC4A: 2.29 | ||
- 16HL7: 1.22 | ||
- 15L4: 5.8 | ||
- 8L2: 2.8 | ||
- 8V3A: 4.7 | ||
- 9MC3: 2.8 | ||
- 8TE3: 1.0 | ||
- PDOF: 4.2 | ||
MI (Mechanical Index) | - 12L5A: 1.8 | |
- 4V2A: 1.5 | ||
- 5C2A: 0.7 | ||
- 8EC4A: 1.8 | ||
- 16HL7: 1.6 | ||
- 15L4: 1.7 | ||
- 8L2: 1.7 | ||
- 8V3A: 1.7 | ||
- 9MC3: 1.3 | ||
- 8TE3: 1.3 | ||
- PDOF: 0.1 | ||
B-Mode Accuracy | AIUM Quality Assurance Manual for Gray-Scale Ultrasound Scanners | Evaluated (details not specified) |
Doppler Accuracy | AIUM Performance Criteria and Measurements for Doppler Ultrasound Devices | Evaluated (details not specified) |
Doppler Sensitivity | AIUM Performance Criteria and Measurements for Doppler Ultrasound Devices | Evaluated (details not specified) |
Electrical Safety | IEC60601-1 | Compliance verified |
EMC | IEC 60601-1-2, CISPR11 Class B | Compliance verified |
Usability | IEC60601-1-6 | Compliance verified |
Biocompatibility | ISO 10993 Part 5 and Part 10 | Biocompatibility reports fulfilled |
Software | IEC 62304 (Software Life Cycle Process), IEC 62366 (Application for Usability) | Undergone Quality Assurance testing |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not explicitly state a "sample size" for a specific test set of patient data. The studies performed are primarily non-clinical bench tests on the ultrasound system and its transducers.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable as the documented tests are primarily for physical and technical performance and safety, not diagnostic accuracy on patient data. The document mentions acoustic tank evaluations for transducers.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
Not applicable. The reported tests are not clinical studies that require expert-established ground truth on patient cases. They are technical performance evaluations against engineering standards and specifications.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. As no clinical test set with patient data requiring expert consensus or adjudication is described.
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 device is a diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI-powered image analysis tool. The document describes the system's technical and safety characteristics, not its comparative effectiveness in a clinical reading environment with AI assistance.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is a medical imaging device, not a standalone algorithm. The "performance" discussed relates to the physical and technical capabilities of the ultrasound system and its transducers.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
The type of "ground truth" for the tests performed is primarily based on technical standards and specifications (e.g., NEMA UD 2, NEMA UD 3, IEC 60601-2-37 for acoustic output; AIUM guidelines for B-Mode and Doppler accuracy/sensitivity; ISO 10993 for biocompatibility). For a diagnostic device, the "ground truth" is that it performs according to these established and recognized technical and safety benchmarks.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This is a hardware-based diagnostic imaging system, not an AI model that requires a training set of data.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
Not applicable, as there is no AI model or training set described in this document.
Ask a specific question about this device
(17 days)
The Teratech Corporation Terason™ uSmart3200T (also known as the BenQ UP200) is a general purpose Ultrasound System intended for use by a qualified physician for evaluation by ultrasound imaging or fluid flow analysis of the human body. Specific clinical applications and exam types include: Fetal, Abdominal, Intra-Operative (abdominal, organs and vascular), Pediatrics, Small Organ (Thyroid, Breast, Testes); Neonatal and Adult Cephalic; Trans-rectal, Trans-vaginal, Musculo-skeletal (Conventional and Superficial); Cardiac (Adult & Pediatric); Peripheral Vascular.
The Terason uSmart3200T ultrasound system is a portable tablet style full feature, general purpose, and diagnostic ultrasound system used to acquire and display high-resolution, real-time ultrasound data through multiple imaging modes. The Terason uSmart3200T Ultrasound System is equivalent to the previously cleared version of the uSmart3200T Ultrasound Systems. The modification includes the addition of 3 transducers (15L4, 16HL7, and 8EC4A) with the no change to tablet style computer form factor.
The Terason™ uSmart3200T ultrasound system was the previously cleared on the date of May 28, 2013 as described in the 510(k) submission (K131209). This system contains a proprietary ultrasound engine for controlling the acoustic output of the transducer and processing the return echoes in real time. This data are then transferred to the tablet computer over a FireWire (aka IEEE 1394) connection for further processing and generation and display of the ultrasound image.
The Terason™ uSmart3200T ultrasound tablet weighs 4.9 pounds (2.21 Kg) and has an 11.5" backlit touch screen. The tablet dimensions (8.82"(H) x 12.64"(W) x 1.25"(D)) are chosen to allow portability. A Lithium-Polymer battery (integrated into the tablet) provides 2 hours of continuous ultrasound scanning. The tablet includes a docking station (for charging) that uses a medicalgrade power supply. The ultrasound transducer connector is identical to that used in the Terason™ predicate device, the uSmart3200T. Optional accessories include a cart and printer.
The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Terason uSmart3200T and BenQ UP200 Ultrasound System. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study. Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information requested in terms of acceptance criteria, specific study designs (like MRMC or standalone performance), sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, or training set details.
The submission primarily lists the device's technical specifications and how they compare to predicate devices. The "Non Clinical Tests" section refers to compliance with various electrical safety, usability, and acoustic output standards, which serve as the "acceptance criteria" for regulatory clearance in this context. However, these are performance standards, not clinical performance metrics.
Here's a summary of the available information based on your request, highlighting what is not present in this type of regulatory document:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are generally compliance with international and national standards for medical devices, particularly regarding safety and technological characteristics. The "reported device performance" is demonstrated through this compliance and the assertion of substantial equivalence to predicate devices which have already met such criteria.
Acceptance Criteria (Standards Met) | Reported Device Performance (Compliance) |
---|---|
IEC 60601-1: General Requirements for Safety | Compliance demonstrated via Intertek Test Record Number 100825075BOX-001 |
IEC 62366 & IEC60601-1-6: Usability engineering | Compliance demonstrated via Intertek Projects 100825075BOX-004A & 100825075BOX-003A |
IEC 60601-1-2: Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) | Compliance demonstrated via Test Record Number 100933162BOX-017 and Radiated Emissions Reports (101224397BOX-001, 101188849BOX-001a) |
CISPR11 Class B: Radiated Emissions | Compliance demonstrated via Radiated Emissions Reports (101224397BOX-001, 101188849BOX-001a) |
IEC 60601-2-37 / EN60601-2-37: Safety of Ultrasonic Medical Diagnostic and Monitoring Equipment (for transducers) | Compliance demonstrated via Intertek Reports for each transducer (100404852BOX-002, 100404852BOX-004, 100404852BOX-003) |
NEMA UD 3: Acoustic Output Display | Compliance mentioned |
Biocompatibility Tests (ISO 10993 Part 5 and Part 10) | Compliance demonstrated via biocompatibility reports for new transducers |
AAMI TIR No. 12: Designing, Testing and Labeling Reusable Medical Devices | Compliance mentioned |
GMPs & ISO-13485 quality systems | Compliance asserted |
Track 3 devices, Indications for Use (for predicate devices) | Similar indications for use and technological characteristics to predicate devices (K131209, K112953, K110020) |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
This document does not describe a "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation with patient data. The tests performed are non-clinical compliance tests against established safety and electrical standards. Therefore, information on sample size and data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for a clinical test set is not applicable or present.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable. This document does not pertain to a clinical study requiring expert ground truth for interpretation.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring adjudication is described.
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 510(k) submission for a diagnostic ultrasound system and transducers, which does not involve AI or comparative effectiveness studies with human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable, as this device does not involve a standalone algorithm for performance evaluation.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
Not applicable, as no clinical ground truth is established or used in this submission. The "ground truth" here is compliance with engineering and safety standards.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable, as this document does not describe a machine learning model or training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable, for the same reason as above.
Summary of Approach:
This 510(k) submission demonstrates substantial equivalence primarily by:
- Listing the device's technical characteristics and comparing them directly to previously cleared predicate devices (Terason uSmart3200T (K131209), Terason™ t3000 (K112953), Terason™ T3200 (K110020)).
- Highlighting that the modifications (addition of three transducers and software updates) do not alter the fundamental technological characteristics or intended use.
- Providing evidence of compliance with a comprehensive set of non-clinical safety, electrical, usability, and acoustic output standards.
The "study" that proves the device meets the "acceptance criteria" here consists of these non-clinical tests and direct comparisons to predicate devices, rather than clinical performance studies with patient data. The regulatory body (FDA) reviews these submissions to ensure the new device is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices, without requiring new clinical efficacy data if substantial equivalence is adequately demonstrated.
Ask a specific question about this device
(25 days)
The Teratech Corporation Terason™ uSmart3200T is a general purpose Ultrasound System intended for use by a qualified physician for evaluation by ultrasound imaging or fluid flow analysis of the human body. Specific clinical applications and exam types include: Fetal, Abdominal, Pediatrics, Small Organ (Thyroid, Breast, Testes); Neonatal and Adult Cephalic; Musculo-skeletal (Conventional and Superficial); Cardiac (Adult & Pediatric); Peripheral Vascular.
The Terason™ uSmarl3200T ultrasound system is equivalent to the previously cleared version of the t3200 and t3000 Ultrasound Systems described in the following 510(k) submissions (K110020 and K112953). This system contains a proprietary ultrasound engine for controlling the acoustic output of the transducer and processing the return echoes in real time. These data are then transferred to the tablet (previously laptop computer) over a FireWire (aka IEEE 1394) connection for further processing and generation and display of the ultrasound image.
The Terason™ uSmart3200T ultrasound tablet weighs 4.9 pounds (2.21 Kg) and has an 11,5" backlit touch screen. The tablet dimensions (8,82"(H) x 12,64"(W) x 1,25"(D)) are chosen to allow portability. A Lithium-Polymer battery (integrated into the tablet) provides 2 hours of continuous ultrasound scanning. The tablet includes a docking station (for charging) that uses a medical-grade power supply. The ultrasound transducer connector is identical to that used in the Terason™ predicate device, the t3200. Optional accessories include a cart and printer.
The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for the Terason™ uSmart3200T Ultrasound System, detailing its substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. It focuses on regulatory compliance, safety, and performance characteristics rather than clinical study results establishing diagnostic accuracy against a ground truth.
Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided text:
- A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in terms of diagnostic accuracy metrics). The document refers to compliance with safety and performance standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1) but not clinical performance acceptance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC against a ground truth.
- Sample size used for the test set or its provenance.
- Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
- Adjudication method for the test set.
- Whether a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done or its effect size.
- Whether a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
- The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data).
- Sample size for the training set.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established.
However, based on the document, I can provide the following relevant information regarding the device's acceptance criteria and the study that proves its compliance with regulatory standards:
The device's acceptance criteria are primarily defined by compliance with established international and national standards for medical electrical equipment, including safety, usability, electromagnetic compatibility, and acoustic output. The "study" proving the device meets these criteria consists of specific non-clinical tests and reports generated by accredited testing laboratories (Intertek).
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (focused on technical compliance):
Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Standard/Requirement | Reported Device Performance/Compliance |
---|---|---|
General Safety | IEC 60601-1 Medical Electrical Equipment Part 1: General Requirements for Safety | Intertek Test Record Number 100825075BOX-001 (indicates compliance) |
Usability | IEC 62366, Medical Devices: Application of usability engineering to medical devices | Intertek Project: 100825075BOX-004 (indicates compliance) |
IEC 60601-1-6, Medical Electrical Equipment Part 1-6: General requirements for safety- Collateral standard: Usability | Intertek Project: 100825075BOX-003 (indicates compliance) | |
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) | IEC 60601-1-2:2007, Medical Electrical Equipment - Part 1-2; General requirements for basic safety and essential performance - Collateral Standard: Electromagnetic compatibility - Requirements and tests | Intertek Test Record Number, 100933162BOX-017 (indicates compliance) |
Specific Safety (Ultrasound) | IEC 60601-2-37 / EN60601-2-37 Medical Electrical Equipment Part 2: Particular requirements for the safety of ultrasonic medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment | Transducer Model 5C2A: Intertek Report 100825075BOX-006 (compliance) |
Transducer Model 12L5A: Intertek Report 100825075BOX-007 (compliance) | ||
Transducer Model 4V2A: Intertek Report 100825075BOX-005 (compliance) | ||
Acoustic Output Display | NEMA UD 3 Acoustic Output Display | Terason uSmart3200T Ultrasound System User Guide (16-3301) (indicates adherence to display requirements) |
Biocompatibility (Transducers) | ISO 10993 Part 5 and Part 10 | Biocompatibility reports for all transducers (indicates compliance) |
Substantial Equivalence (General) | Comparison to predicate devices: Terason™ t3000 (K112953) and Terason™ t3200 (K110020) | The FDA's 510(k) clearance letter (K131209) states the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices for the stated indications for use. |
Indications for Use | General purpose ultrasound imaging and fluid flow analysis for specific clinical applications | The device supports Fetal, Abdominal, Pediatrics, Small Organ (Thyroid, Breast, Testes); Neonatal and Adult Cephalic; Musculo-skeletal (Conventional and Superficial); Cardiac (Adult & Pediatric); Peripheral Vascular. |
Important Note: This document describes a 510(k) submission, which primarily aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device. It does not typically involve new clinical efficacy studies with ground truth establishment in the way that, for example, a novel diagnostic AI algorithm would. The "performance" here refers to meeting established safety and performance standards for ultrasound devices, and demonstrating that changes from predicate devices (e.g., changing from laptop to tablet) do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1