Search Results

Curaline Polyurethane Foam Dressings are intended for the management of partial and full thickness wounds; pressure ulcers (Stage I-IV); diabetic ulcers; acute and chronic venous stasis ulcers; arterial ulcers; skin grafts, donor and recipient sites; burns (1" and 2nd degree); skin tears and avulsions; abrasions; tube, catheter, and IV sites; dermatologic disorders: under compression bandages and wraps; traumatic wounds; acute and chronic wounds: and minimal, moderate, and heavily exuding wounds.

The Curaline Polyurethane Foam Dressing is composed of a hydrophilic polyurethane matrix backed with a semipermeable polyurethane film which limits oxygen and moisture vapor permeability and is a barrier to liquids. The dressing contains a cleanser (F68 surfactant), a moisturizer (glycerin), and an absorbing agent (superabsorbent polymer), all in the polyurethane matrix. Both F68 and glycerin are soluble in wound fluid or skin moisture. The superabsorbent polymer contained in the dressing draws and absorbs moisture from wound fluid.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Curaline Polyurethane Foam Dressing. It describes the device, its intended use, and claims substantial equivalency to legally marketed predicate devices. The document details studies conducted to prove the device's safety through biocompatibility tests. However, it does not contain the type of AI-specific acceptance criteria, performance data, or study designs (e.g., sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, MRMC studies) that your request outlines.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor details about sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, as these items are not present in the provided text.

The closest relevant information from the document is related to the biocompatibility studies, which are a type of acceptance criteria for medical devices, albeit not AI-specific performance criteria.

Here's what can be extracted:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Biocompatibility)

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified for biocompatibility studies beyond "New Zealand White rabbits" for skin irritation.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but these are in vitro and animal safety studies. Country of origin is not mentioned.

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/Not specified. Biocompatibility tests rely on standardized laboratory protocols and observations rather than expert human interpretation of complex data for ground truth.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. As above, these are lab tests with defined endpoints, not subjective human assessments 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

• No. This is a medical dressing, not an AI diagnostic or assistive device.

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

• No. This is a medical dressing, not an algorithm.

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

• For biocompatibility: Standardized assay results (e.g., cell viability for cytotoxicity, visual assessment of skin reactions for irritation/sensitization) in accordance with ISO standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device