Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K972487
    Device Name
    EMG RETRAINER
    Date Cleared
    1997-09-26

    (86 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    882.5050
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K892649, K915858

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use
    1. To determine the activation timing of muscles.
      a) retraining of muscle activation
      b) coordination of muscle activation
    2. An indication of the force produced by muscle
      a) control and maintenance of muscle contractions
    3. For use in relaxation training and muscle re-education.
    Device Description

    The EMG Retrainer is a device used to measure the bioelectrical signals produced by muscle activity. The main display will register activity and display the quantitative measurement with an analog bar display. Targets of muscle activity may be stored (utilizing audible signals on demand) configurable for activity that is within established limits or exceeding those limits depending on user preference. The EMG Retrainer also contains an auto-ranging function which eliminates manual scale adjustments unless that is the preference. The auto-ranging feature as well as the targeting function are not available on the other models and will be quite useful to the healthcare professional.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Chattanooga Group, Inc. EMG Retrainer, dated September 26, 1997. It describes the device, its intended use, and comparative specifications against predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

    Based on the information provided in the document:

    1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

      The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a set of quantified performance targets that the EMG Retrainer needed to meet for a specific study. Instead, it presents comparative specifications to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. The device performance is implicitly considered acceptable if it meets or exceeds the specifications of the predicate devices for key technical features, or if differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

      FeaturePredicate Devices (VERIMED Myoexerciser II, Myotrac 4001, Prometheus Pathway MR20)Chattanooga Single & Dual EMG Retrainer Performance
      Product NameMyoexerciser II, 4001, MR20EMG
      Pickup ConfigIndividual electrodes, Triangular Pattern, DeLuca in-line or ProprietaryTriangular or individual electrodes
      Active HeadNo, Yes, Yes (for Proprietary)No
      Input Impedance>10M ohm, 1,000,000 M ohm, unknown1,000,000 M Ohm with 4pF
      Input Noise(Not specified for predicates)180 dB, unknown
      CMRR (over frequency)120dB, >130 dB, >110 dB>120dB
      Input Ranges (rms)8 ranges, 0.8 to 20/200/2000 uV, 1 to 800 uV true RMS1uV to 2000uV Internal auto gain selection 8 Ranges
      Electrode Wire2 core + Screen, 2 core + Screen, 4 conductors2 core + Screen
      EarpieceYes, Yes 2.5mm Phono, YesYes 2.5mm Phono
      ThresholdAbove & Below, Above & Below & DifferenceAbove, Below & At Target per channel
      Threshold FeaturesN/A, Separate Hi/Lo indicating LedsBar Chart Dynamic Indication, set by manual, direct activity or % of activity
      Threshold Lock4 seconds then switch to deactivate, unknownYes, Dynamic Threshold Setting
      Continuous AlarmYes, Varying pulse rates, YesYes, Varying pulse rates
      StimulatorYes, No, Isolated RelayNo
      Historical RecordYes, N/A, 32 Training Sessions9 training sessions
      Battery Type9V3V Using AA cells
      Battery CompartmentSlide openSlide open
      Power Consumption6 to 11 mA, unknown10 mA w/ Management power (Carbon, Alkaline or Ni Cad)
      Dimensions85W140L30H, 61W112L28H, 1176938mm81W84L40D
      Weight180g, 70 g+bat., 280g150g
      Pocket ClipYesYes

      The document highlights that unique features of the EMG Retrainer not available on other models, such as auto-ranging and targeting function, "will be quite useful to the healthcare professional," implying an improvement over predicate devices.

    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 does not describe a clinical "test set" or a clinical study with patients. The substantial equivalence determination is based on a comparison of device specifications and intended use against legally marketed predicate devices, not on a clinical performance study. Therefore, information on sample size, data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for a test set is not applicable or provided.

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

      Not applicable. The document establishes substantial equivalence through engineering and functional specifications comparison, not through a clinical study requiring expert-established ground truth.

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

      Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring adjudication is described.

    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 MRMC study was done, as this submission predates widespread AI in medical devices and focuses on foundational EMG device functionality and substantial equivalence to existing devices. This device is not an AI-powered system, so the concept of improving human readers with AI assistance is not relevant here.

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

      Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device (EMG Retrainer) and not an algorithm for standalone performance evaluation in the context of AI. The performance outlined is that of the hardware device itself.

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

      Not applicable. The ground truth for establishing substantial equivalence in this context is the FDA-cleared predicate devices and their established safety and effectiveness based on their specifications and intended uses.

    8. The sample size for the training set:

      Not applicable. There is no mention of machine learning or an algorithm requiring a training set in this 510(k) submission.

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

      Not applicable. No training set is mentioned or implied.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1