Search Results

The D R Burton® OxyPAP™ device is indicated for the treatment and prevention of atelectasis. It also has the ability to provide supplemental oxygen when used with compressed oxygen. It includes the option of a pressure manometer. The device is for patients (ages 5 years and above) who are capable of following directions for positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy.

Normal use of the D R Burton OxyPAP™ should not be more than 24 hours total combined time.

The environment of use is for hospital and clinical setting.

The OxyPAP device is a handheld respiratory therapy device that creates a positive airway pressure. The OxyPAP device is intended to be used by pediatric (ages 5 years and above) and adult patients in the hospital environment, under the supervision of a healthcare professional. The OxyPAP device is a single patient use device.

The provided text describes the D R Burton OxyPAP device, its indications for use, and a comparison to predicate and reference devices for a 510(k) submission. However, this document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, a specific study proving the device meets these criteria, or details regarding AI/algorithm performance and ground truth establishment.

The document is a US FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific quantitative acceptance criteria through a dedicated standalone study. The "Performance" and "Non-clinical Comparative Performance" sections primarily describe comparative testing to show similarity to existing devices.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request based on the provided text. I will explain what information is present and what is missing.

Summary of what can be extracted from the document:

• Device Name: D R Burton OxyPAP
• Device Type: Incentive Spirometer, Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) Therapy Device
• Indications for Use: Treatment and prevention of atelectasis; ability to provide supplemental oxygen when used with compressed oxygen. For patients (ages 5 years and above) capable of following directions for PAP therapy. Normal use not more than 24 hours total combined time. Environment of use: hospital and clinical setting.
• Predicate Device: K991300 – DHD Healthcare Corp. – Boeing, Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) Therapy Device
• Reference Devices: K173819 – Trudell VersaPAP™ Device; K040991 – Ambu Disposable Pressure Manometer

Missing/Not Applicable Information based on the prompt's requirements:

The document focuses on substantial equivalence for a medical device that is not an AI/ML powered device. As such, information typically associated with AI/ML device validation studies (like distinct acceptance criteria for algorithm performance, expert review for ground truth, MRMC studies, training/test set details, etc.) is not present and not applicable to this type of device submission.

Specifically, the following sections of your request cannot be answered from the provided text:

• 1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document presents comparative performance data (e.g., Mean PEEP, Mean Peak Expiratory Pressure), but these are comparisons to predicate/reference devices, not explicit acceptance criteria for a standalone study performance. There are no clear quantitative acceptance criteria stated for the D R Burton OxyPAP itself beyond being "substantially equivalent" to the predicate.
• 2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as this is a physical device, not an algorithm being tested on a data set. The "bench testing" mentioned includes performance testing and drop testing, but no "sample size" in the context of data points.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a physical device like this is established through engineering and clinical performance testing, not expert review of AI outputs.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
• 5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable. This is for an AI-assisted workflow, which is not the case here.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is a physical device, not an algorithm.
• 7. The type of ground truth used: For a physical device, "ground truth" would refer to measured physical properties or clinical outcomes. The document discusses "Biocompatibility" (material certification to a legally marketed device) and "Bench Testing" (comparative performance, drop testing, effects of aging). These are the "truths" for this device.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Information that is present (though not in the requested format for AI/ML devices):

• Device Performance Reported (Comparative, not against specific acceptance criteria):
  • Proposed OxyPAP:
    • Mean PEEP (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 2.81 @ 5 Lpm, 12 @ 10 Lpm, 12.75 @ 15 Lpm
    • Mean Peak Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 15 Lpm / 15 cmH2O; 20 (400 TV) / 21 (800 TV)
    • Mean Inspiratory Pressure (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: -0.7 @ 5 Lpm, -4.7 @ 10 Lpm, -3.46 @ 15 Lpm
    • Mean Expiratory Pressure (cm H2O) @ 800 ml TV: 3.1 @ 5 Lpm, 12.1 @ 10 Lpm, 13 @ 15 Lpm
  • Predicate DHD EzPAP (for comparison):
    • Mean PEEP (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 2 @ 5 Lpm, 8 @ 10 Lpm, 16 @ 15 Lpm
    • Mean Peak Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 15 Lpm / 15 cmH2O; 22 (400 TV) / 26 (800 TV)
    • Mean Expiratory Pressure (cm H2O) @ 800 ml TV: 5 @ 5 Lpm, 11 @ 10 Lpm, 20 @ 15 Lpm

The core conclusion of the document is that "Based upon the comparative performance testing we have demonstrated that the proposed device compared to the predicate and reference devices can be found to be substantially equivalent." This is the primary "acceptance criterion" for a 510(k) submission of this nature.

Ask a specific question about this device

Implacil Implant System is intended for placement in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit and/or multi-unit restorations. When a one-stage surgical is applied, the Implacil Implant System is intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Implacil Implant System is composed of three implant lines that are divided according to the implant-toabutment interface: External Hex (HE), Internal Hex (HI) and Morse Taper AR Due Cone (CM AR). HE and HI lines are composed of tissue-level implants while CM AR line of bone-level implants. Each implant line is composed of implants and related prosthetic components available in multiple designs (temporary, screwed, cementable, angled, straight, UCLA, ball).

HE implant line implants are available in two root-forms designs: conical (tapered) and cylindrical. Conical implants are available in three diameters and platforms (3.5, 4.0 and 5.0 mm) and five lengths (7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 mm). Cylindrical implants are provided in four diameters (3.3, 3.75, 4.0 and 4.75 mm), three platforms (3.5, 4.0 and 5.0 mm) and five lengths (8.0, 10.0, 11.5, 13.0 and 15.0 mm). HE cylindrical implants of diameters 3.75 and 4.0 share the same platform of 4.0 mm.

HI implant line implants are available in two root-forms designs: conical (tapered) and cylindrical. Conical implants are available in three diameters and platforms (3.5, 4.0 and 5.0 mm). For diameters 3.5 and 4.0 are available in the lengths 8.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 mm, and for diameters 5.0 are available in the lengths 7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 mm. Cylindrical implants are provided in four diameters (3.3, 3.75, 4.3 and 4.75 mm) and three platforms (3.5, 4.0 and 5.0 mm). For diameter 3.3 are available in the lengths 8.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 mm, and for diameters 3.75 and 4.3 are available in the lengths 7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 mm. HI cylindrical implants of diameters 3.75 and 4.3 share the same platform of 4.0 mm.

CM AR implant line implants are available in conical root-form design only, in four diameters (3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 mm) and five lengths (7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 mm).

lmplacil implants are made of commercially pure titanium (ASTM F67). Implacil prosthetic components are made of commercially pure titanium (ASTM F67) or titanium alloy (ASTM F136). Implant System screws (abutment screw, UCLA screws and coping screws) are made of titanium alloy (ASTM F136).

The subject device abutments components mate exclusively with the subject implants of the same line (HJ, HE, CM AR).

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a dental implant system. It outlines the device description, intended use, and a comparison to predicate and reference devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence. Crucially, this document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML-based medical devices.

The "Performance Data" section explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." Instead, it lists non-clinical data for physical and material properties of the dental implants, such as sterilization validation, shelf life testing, biocompatibility, and mechanical performance (fatigue and torsional loading).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, ground truth establishment, or MRMC comparative effectiveness studies, as these types of studies are not described in this 510(k) submission for a traditional medical device (dental implants), which are not a software device or AI/ML-based device.

If you are looking for information on acceptance criteria and study data for AI/ML-based medical devices, you would need to consult a different type of FDA submission, specifically for software as a medical device (SaMD) or AI-enabled medical devices, where such performance data would be critical for demonstrating safety and effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device