Search Results

Resona R9/Resona R9 Exp/Resona R9S/Nuewa R9/Nuewa R9/Nuewa R9 Pro/Nuewa R9 Pro/Nuewa R9S/Resona 7/ Resona 7CV/Resona 7EXP/Resona 7OB/Resona 7OB/Resona Y / Resona R9W/ Resona R9W/ Resona R7W/ Nuewa R9W/ Nuewa R7W Diagnostic Ultrasound System is applicable for adults, pregnant women, pediatric patients and neonates. It is intended for use in fetal, abdominal, Intra-operative, small organ(breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal and adult cephalic, trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal(conventional, adult and pediatric cardiac, trans-esoph. (Cardiac), peripheral vessel,urology exams.

This device is a general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system intended for use by qualified and trained healtheare professionals for ultrasound imaging, measurement, display and analysis of the human body and fluid, which is intended to be used in a hospital or medical clinic.

Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD(Pulse wave Doppler), CWD(Continuous wave Doppler), Color Doppler, Amplitude Doppler, Combined mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, Smart 3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), iScape View, TDI(Tissue Doppler Imaging), Color M, Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO(Left Ventricular Opacification)), V Flow(Vector Flow), STE(Sound Touch Elastography), STQ(Sound Touch Quantification), Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The Resona R9, Resona R9 Exp, Resona R9 Pro, Resona R9S, Nuewa R9, Nuewa R9 Exp, Nuewa R9 Pro, Nuewa R9S, Resona 7, Resona 7CV, Resona 7EXP, Resona 7S, Resona 70B, Resona 7PRO, Imagyn 7, Resona Y, Resona R9W, Resona R7W, Nuewa R9W. Nuewa R7W Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose. mobile, software controlled, ultrasonic diagnostic system.

This system is a Track 3 device that employs an array of probes that include linear array, Phased array, pencil phased and convex array.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Resona R9 series Diagnostic Ultrasound System, which introduces modifications and new features to an already cleared predicate device (Resona R9, K202785). The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate devices, rather than comprehensive clinical studies on the device's diagnostic performance for specific conditions.

The study presented here is a non-clinical validation of new features against predefined engineering performance criteria, primarily using phantom studies.

Here's the breakdown of the information requested, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria and reported device performance are specified for three new features: FH Tissue Tracking QA, UltraSound ATtenuation analysis, and HepatoRenal Index Plus. These are performance metrics related to the accuracy of quantitative measurements.

Additional Information on the Study:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • FH Tissue Tracking QA: 10 fetal heart B-mode image samples. Data provenance is not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective), but the context of non-clinical testing with "image samples" suggests these were likely existing or specifically generated images, not new prospective patient data for this submission.
   • UltraSound ATtenuation analysis: Four groups of phantoms.
   • HepatoRenal Index Plus: Four groups of H/R-ROIs in a phantom.
   • Data Provenance: For the quantitative features, the testing primarily involved phantoms or existing image samples rather than new prospective patient data. The document does not specify country of origin for any human data or the retrospective/prospective nature of image samples.

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

   • FH Tissue Tracking QA: Ground truth was established by "manual-obtained values." The number of experts and their qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") are not specified.
   • UltraSound ATtenuation analysis & HepatoRenal Index Plus: Ground truth was established by the "calibrated value of the phantom" or "target value of the phantom." This implies a reference standard from the phantom's known properties, not human experts.

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

   • For the quantitative measurements using phantoms, adjudication is generally not applicable as the phantom itself provides the ground truth.
   • For "FH Tissue Tracking QA" where "manual-obtained values" are compared, the adjudication method is not specified.

4. 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:

   • No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The document explicitly states: "Clinical Studies: Not applicable. The subject of this submission... does not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." The studies described are non-clinical engineering performance assessments of new features.

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

   • The tests for "FH Tissue Tracking QA", "UltraSound ATtenuation analysis", and "HepatoRenal Index Plus" assessed the performance of the algorithm/system in extracting quantitative measurements, comparing them to ground truth (manual measurement or phantom values). This is essentially a standalone (algorithm only) performance evaluation for these specific features.

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

   • FH Tissue Tracking QA: Manual-obtained values (presumably from an expert, though not detailed).
   • UltraSound ATtenuation analysis & HepatoRenal Index Plus: Calibrated/target values of phantoms (physical reference standards).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not provide information regarding the sample size for any training set. This submission is for a modification/upgrade to an existing device, and the focus is on the performance of added features rather than the development of the core algorithm from fresh training data.

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

   • Since information on a training set is not provided, how its ground truth was established is also not specified.

Ask a specific question about this device