Search Results

The MC2 Portable X-ray System is indicated for use by qualified/trained medical professionals on adult patients for orthopedic radiographic, orthopedic serial radiographic, orthopedic fluoroscopic, and orthopedic interventional procedures of extremities distal to the shoulders and distal to the knees. The device is not intended for use during surgery. The device is not intended to replace a stationary radiographic system.

The device is to be used in healthcare facilities where qualified operators are present (e.g., outpatient clinics, urgent cares, imaging centers, sports medicine facilities, occupational medicine clinics).

The device is not intended to be used in environments with the following characteristics:

• Aseptic or sterile fields, such as in surgery
• Home or residential settings or other settings where qualified operators are not present ●
• Vehicular and moving environments ●
• Environments under direct sunlight ●
• Oxygen-rich environments, such as near an operating oxygenation concentrator ●

The MC2 Portable X-ray System ("MC2 System" or "MC2") is a portable and handheld X-ray system designed to aid clinicians with point-of-care visualization through diagnostic X-rays of extremities distal to the shoulders and distal to the knees. The device allows clinicians to select desired technique factors best suited for their patient's anatomy. The MC2 consists of two major system components: the emitter and the cassette. The MC2 emitter and cassette are battery-powered and are charged via a wired charger. The system is intended to interface wirelessly to an external tablet when used with the OXOS Device App or to a monitor with an off-the-shelf ELO Backpack and the OXOS Device App. The MC2 utilizes an Infrared Tracking System to allow the emitter to be positioned above the patient's anatomy and aligned to the cassette by the operator. The MC2 also utilizes a LIDAR system to ensure patient safety by maintaining a safe source-to-skin distance.

The MC2 is capable of three X-ray imaging modes: single radiography, serial radiography, and fluoroscopy. In single and serial radiography modes, the user can utilize the entire range of kV values (40-80kV), while fluoroscopy mode is limited to 40-64kV. In single radiography mode, the user can utilize the entire range of mAs values, while serial radiography and fluoroscopy are limited to 0.04-0.08 mAs. Single radiography acquisitions may be performed handheld, while serial radiography and fluoroscopy require the emitter to be in a stand-mounted configuration.

The MC2 contains various safety features to ensure patient and operator safety. The primary interlocks that ensure system geometry is maintained include a source-to-image distance interlock, an active area interlock, a source-to-skin distance interlock, and a stand-mounted interlock.

The source-to-image distance interlock uses the Tracking System to disallow X-ray acquisition when the device is outside the bounds of source-to-image distance (SID). This acts concurrently with the source-to-skin distance (SSD) interlock which uses the LIDAR system to disallow X-ray acquisition below 30cm source-to-skin distance. Both conditions must be met for X-ray acquisition to be allowed. The active area interlock uses the Tracking System to prevent the X-ray field from extending beyond the bounds of the active area. The stand-mounted interlock prevents handheld X-ray acquisition in serial radiography and fluoroscopy modes.

In addition to the components listed above, the MC2 includes accessories, such as a clinical cart and a wireless foot pedal should be used for stand-mounted imaging when initiating single, serial or fluoroscopic acquisitions remotely. The clinical cart supports the MC2 for stand-mounted operation and allows the user to position anatomy easily. An accessory stand such as the clinical cart is required to facilitate stand-mounted imaging modes. Radiography and Photo modes may be used without a stand.

The provided text details the regulatory approval of the OXOS Medical, Inc. MC2 Portable X-ray System (K241567) but does not contain specific acceptance criteria or the detailed results of a study proving the device meets those criteria. The document states that a comprehensive, task-based image quality study was conducted and that five radiologists clinically evaluated the image quality, but it does not provide the quantitative results, acceptance thresholds, or statistical analyses from this study.

Therefore, much of the requested information cannot be extracted from the given text.

Based on the provided document, here's what can be inferred or explicitly stated:

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document states:

• "All components of the MC2, including software, were verified and validated to demonstrate compliance with the appropriate regulations and in accordance with the risk profile analysis." (Page 10)
• "All forms of testing showed the MC2 to be compliant with the relevant standards and safe and effective in the procedures and scenarios outlined in the Indications for Use." (Page 10)
• "The MC2 Portable X-ray System met bench testing acceptance criteria as defined in the test protocols." (Page 10)

However, the specific "acceptance criteria as defined in the test protocols" and the actual "reported device performance" against these criteria are not detailed.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document only mentions that "a comprehensive, task-based image quality study was conducted to assess the clinical adequacy of the device's imaging performance" and "Radiologic technologists acquired images in all acquisition modes." (Page 11)
• Data Provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective): Not specified.

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

• Number of Experts: "five radiologists clinically evaluated the image quality." (Page 11)
• Qualifications of Experts: Only "radiologists" are mentioned; specific qualifications such as years of experience are not provided.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. It is mentioned that "five radiologists clinically evaluated the image quality," but there is no description of how their evaluations were combined or adjudicated (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none).

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and if so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• MRMC Study Done: Yes, a "comprehensive, task-based image quality study" was performed with "five radiologists clinically evaluated the image quality." However, this study appears to be an assessment of the device's imaging performance itself for clinical adequacy, not a direct comparative effectiveness study of human readers with vs. without AI assistance.
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement: Not discussed or measured, as the study described is not focused on AI assistance to human readers. The MC2 appears to be an X-ray system, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• The MC2 is an X-ray system, not an algorithm. Therefore, "standalone (algorithm only)" performance metrics are not applicable in the typical sense for an AI model. The performance testing section refers to the system's overall compliance and image quality.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Type of Ground Truth: The "clinical evaluation of image quality" by radiologists suggests that the ground truth for image quality assessment was based on expert consensus/evaluation of the images themselves for their "clinical adequacy." It doesn't explicitly state if pathology or outcomes data were used in establishing this ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document describes the MC2 Portable X-ray System as a medical device, specifically an X-ray system, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the common sense. Therefore, information about a "training set sample size" is not applicable to this device's description.

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

• As mentioned above, the device is an X-ray system, not a machine learning model. Thus, the concept of a "training set" and its "ground truth establishment" is not relevant to the information provided about this particular device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Micro C Medical Imaging System, M01 is a handheld and portable general purpose X-ray system that is indicated for use by qualified/trained clinicians on adult patients for taking diagnostic static and serial radiographic exposures of extremities. The device is not intended to replace a radiographic system that has both variable tube current and voltages (kVp) in the range that may be required for full optimization of image quality and radiation exposure for different exam types.

The Micro C Medical Imaging System, M01 (subject device) is a handheld X-ray system designed to aid clinicians with point of care visualization through diagnostic X-rays of distal extremities. The device allows a clinician to select desired technique factors best suited for their patient anatomy. The Micro C Medical Imaging System, M01 consists of three major subsystems: The Emitter, Cassette, and Control Unit. The System is interface an external Monitor (touchscreen or non-touchscreen display), keyboard and a mouse, and can provide a remote operator interface over the network to a laptop. The Micro C Medical Imaging System, M01 utilizes a computer vision positioning system to allow the emitter to be positioned above the patient anatomy and aligned to the cassette by the operator. The device is used in a clinical environment.

This looks like a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Micro C Medical Imaging System, M01". The summary primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device and discussing technical characteristics and compliance with various standards.

There is no information provided regarding acceptance criteria nor a typical clinical study with patient data that would involve the following:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for image quality or diagnostic performance, nor does it report device performance against such metrics.
• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: There is no mention of a test set with patient data.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: As there's no clinical test set, there's no mention of experts or ground truth establishment.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable as there's no patient test set.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable as there's no patient test set or reader study mentioned.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The document describes an X-ray imaging system, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, this is not applicable.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable as there's no clinical test set.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as there's no AI algorithm with a training set discussed.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable as there's no AI algorithm with a training set discussed.

What the document does provide:

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on:

1. Technological Characteristics Comparison (Table 5-2 and 5-3): This table compares the subject device (Micro C Medical Imaging System, M01) with a predicate mobile X-ray system (Nomad MD 75kV Handheld X-Ray System, K140723) and reference devices (KDR™ AU-DDR System, K193225 and Faxitron VisionCT, K173309). It details various technical specifications like product code, regulation, classification, indication for use, age of device use, principle of operation, image type, detector characteristics (for the detector incorporated), collimator, weight, dimensions, triggering mechanism, SSD, SID, light field, energy source, exposure time, mA, kVp, ingress protection, image processing, connectivity options, DICOM compliance, and device package contents.
2. Non-Clinical Performance Data: The document states that testing was performed successfully according to a list of international standards (e.g., ISO, IEC) and FDA regulations. These standards cover aspects like risk management, diagnostic X-ray system requirements, electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, usability, X-ray tube assemblies, software product lifecycle, biocompatibility, labeling, and laser safety.
3. Additional Non-Clinical Performance Testing: This includes Functional Testing, an Image Quality Study, Usability Testing, and a Cleaning Study. However, no specific details, criteria, or results from these studies are provided in this summary.

Conclusion from the document:
The summary concludes that the Micro C Medical Imaging System, M01 is similar to the legally marketed predicate device (Nomad MD 75kV Handheld X-Ray System) in intended use, similar technologies, and performance data, and therefore does not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness, thus supporting its substantial equivalence claim.

Ask a specific question about this device