Search Results

The WEGO-PGLA Absorbable Surgical Suture is indicated for use in general soft tissue approximation and/or ligation, including use in ophthalmic procedures, but not for use in cardiovascular or neural tissue.

The WEGO-PGLA Absorbable Surgical Suture is a multifilament (braided), synthetic absorbable suture indicated for use in soft tissue approximation and/or ligation, including use in ophthalmic procedures, but not for use in cardiovascular or neural tissue. It is composed of PGLA suture and needle. The PGLA Suture is composed of a copolymer made from 90% glycolide and 10% L-lactide (PGLA); it is coated with the copolymer of glycolide and lactide (Polyglactin 370) and calcium stearate. The PGLA suture is available dyed and undyed (natural). The D&C violet No. 2 (Colour Index Number 60725) is the used colorant for dyed suture. The proposed suture is available in 6-0, 5-0, 4-0, 3-0, 2-0, 0 and 1, which are the sizes identified in the currently recognized United States Pharmacopoeia. The Synthetic Absorbable Suture is provided EO sterilized as a single use device.

The acceptance criteria for the WEGO-PGLA Absorbable Surgical Suture are defined by its compliance with various United States Pharmacopoeia (U.S.P.) monograph requirements and several international standards for medical devices. The study conducted to prove the device meets these criteria involved a series of bench tests.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

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

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

The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for each individual test. It generally states that "Bench tests were conducted to verify that the proposed device met all design specifications."

Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, however, the manufacturer is Foosin Medical Supplies Inc., Ltd in Weihai, Shandong, China. The testing was conducted to U.S. and International standards.

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

This information is not applicable to this type of device and study. The "ground truth" for surgical sutures is established by compliance with published, objective, and quantitative technical standards (like USP and ISO standards) and not by expert consensus on subjective observations. The performance metrics are physical and biological measurements.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. The tests are based on objective measurements against predefined thresholds within the standards, not on subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

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 surgical suture, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving AI is not relevant.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical product (surgical suture), not an algorithm or software. Its performance is evaluated through physical and biological bench tests.

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

The ground truth for this device is based on objective, quantitative measurements and adherence to established technical standards (e.g., USP monographs for diameter, tensile strength, needle attachment, and biological evaluation standards like ISO 10993).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This study does not involve machine learning or AI, so there is no concept of a "training set."

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device