Search Results

The FibroScan® 630 is intended to provide shear wave speed measurements and estimates of tissue stiffness as well as ultrasound coefficient of attenuation (CAP: Controlled Attenuation Parameter) in internal structures of the body. The Shear wave speed and stiffness measurements may be used as an aid to clinical management of adult patients with liver disease.

FibroScan® 630 is indicated for non-invasive measurement in the liver of 50 Hz shear wave speed and estimates of stiffness as well as determining a 3.5 MHz ultrasound coefficient of attenuation (CAP: Controlled Attenuation Parameter).

The shear wave speed and stiffness, and CAP may be used as an aid to diagnosis and monitoring of adult patients with liver disease, as part of an overall assessment of the liver.

Shear wave speed and stiffness may be used as an aid in the clinical management of pediatric patients with liver disease.

FibroScan® 630 (Expert) is also indicated for noninvasive measurement in the spleen of 100 Hz shear wave speed and estimates of stiffness that may be used as an aid to diagnosis, monitoring and clinical management of adult patients with liver disease, as part of an overall assessment of the liver.

FibroScan® system consists of a system unit and a hand-held probe. It is based on Vibration-Controlled Transient Elastography (VCTE™) technology and is designed to perform non-invasive measurements of liver/spleen shear wave speed and estimates of tissue stiffness. The probe containing a mechanical vibrator produces low-amplitude elastic waves that travel through the skin and intercostal space into the liver/spleen. Ultrasound is used to track the shear (elastic) wave, measure its speed and provide estimated stiffness. The results are displayed on the system unit.

The focus of this submission is the new FibroScan® 630, available in two configurations: FibroScan® 630 'Prime' (FS630P) and FibroScan® 630 'Expert' (FS630E). Both FS630P and FS630E include improvements of the FibroScan appearance and user interface.

The FS630P version has the same indications as the previously cleared models and is only indicated for non-invasive measurement of 50 Hz shear wave speed in the liver and estimates of its stiffness, as well as determination of a 3.5 MHz ultrasound coefficient of attenuation (CAP: Controlled Attenuation Parameter). The FS630E includes an expansion of the intended use to include noninvasive measurement of shear wave speed at 100Hz in the spleen and estimates of its stiffness as well as an inclusion of a B-Mode ultrasound imaging system to help the user locate the liver or spleen.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the FibroScan® 630, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for FibroScan® 630

The acceptance criteria for the FibroScan® 630 are implicitly defined by its equivalence to the predicate device, FibroScan® 530 Compact, and the clinical support for its expanded indications. The reported device performance is presented as a comparison to the predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document explicitly states that the FibroScan® 630 is considered "equivalent" to the predicate in terms of bias and precision. Therefore, the acceptance criteria are to perform comparably to the predicate device within a specified range, or to have a similar safety and effectiveness profile. Numerical acceptance criteria are given for the liver and spleen shear wave speed and CAP bias and precision, which must fall within a range similar to or better than the predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NTU-USB ultrasound USB box is a general ultrasound imaging system intended for use by a qualified physician or sonographer for clinical diagnosis. Specific clinical applications and exam types include:

1. Small Organ (Breast)
2. Peripheral Vessel

The NTU-USB Ultrasound USB box is a standalone ultrasound system which can perform real-time anatomical imaging of Small Organs/Parts (e.g. Breast) and blood flow measurements of Peripheral Vascular. Users include ultrasound imaging technicians (sonographers) and physicians. The NTU-USB Ultrasound USB box may be used in a hospital (e.g. imaging laboratory, emergency room, patient bedside, operating room), medical clinic, physician's office or a mobile imaging center.

The NTU-USB Ultrasound USB box consists of two major components: 1) USB box; and, 2) Transducer. The USB box housed the microprocessor, memory, amplifiers and a power supply for the microprocessor. The USB box performs the calculations involved in processing the data to produce the displayed ultrasound image.

The USB box is designed to connect with a Windows x86platform PC/laptop (not included in this product) and a compatible linear transducer. It receives command and display on the UI of the PC/laptop and following sends electrical currents to and receives electrical pulses from the compatible transducer.

The system provides qualified physicians with a friendly workflow and sufficient image quality for the following applications:

B (2D) mode, ColorDoppler (CD), Pulsed Wave Doppler (PW) mode

Available with the system is a Linear array transducer allowing for many clinical applications. Accessories include an AC adaptor and a USB 3.0 cable. Case studies can be stored to USB memory stick, DVD, and other industry standard archiving devices using the connected PC/laptop.

The NTU-USB ultrasound USB Box contain the hardware and software which collect and pro-process 'rough' data and send it via USB 3.0 connection to a Windows based PC. The main application software is NTU-USB SW running on the PC, it is receiving data, processing and showing image/data on the screen. The main user interface shows an ultrasound image, controls and drop-out menus. The ultrasound images and calculated/measured data can be stored in memory.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the NTU-USB Ultrasound USB Box, which is a regulatory submission to the FDA. It does not contain a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of diagnostic performance or clinical effectiveness. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices by showing compliance with applicable performance standards and safety evaluations.

Therefore, many of the requested sections about specific diagnostic performance acceptance criteria and a dedicated study showing the device meets these criteria cannot be filled from the provided text.

However, I can extract information related to the device's technical performance and safety evaluations as presented in the 510(k) summary.

Here's the breakdown of what can be inferred from the document:

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

The document focuses on showing compliance with general safety and performance standards for ultrasound devices, rather than specific diagnostic accuracy metrics. The "acceptance criteria" here are the requirements of these standards.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

The document states, "No additional clinical testing is required, as the indications for use are not a novel indication as shown by the predicate devices." This means there was no specific clinical test set used to establish diagnostic performance for this submission. The "testing" referred to is against technical and safety standards, not a clinical trial. Therefore, information about sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective nature of a clinical test set is not provided.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience):

Not applicable, as no clinical test set for diagnostic performance was conducted.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical test set for diagnostic performance was conducted.

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. The NTU-USB Ultrasound USB Box is described as a "general ultrasound imaging system" and does not mention any AI capabilities for diagnostic assistance. The submission focuses on device safety and general imaging capabilities, not comparative diagnostic effectiveness studies or AI integration.

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

Not applicable. This device is a hardware and software system for generating ultrasound images, not an algorithm for standalone diagnostic interpretation. It is intended for use by a "qualified physician or sonographer."

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

Not applicable, as no clinical test set for diagnostic performance was conducted. The "ground truth" for the submission is the compliance with established medical device performance and safety standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable, as no clinical training set for a diagnostic algorithm was used or mentioned. The "training" for this device would refer to its own internal software development and validation against engineering specifications, not a clinical data training set for AI.

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

Not applicable, as this information is not relevant to the type of device and submission described.

Ask a specific question about this device