Search Results

HPM-6000U is intended to provide entirely non-invasive electromagnetic stimulation of pelvic floor musculature for the purpose of rehabilitation of weak pelvic muscles and restoration of neuromuscular control for the treatment of urinary incontinence in women.

The HPM-6000U is a non-invasive therapeutic device. The device produces electromagnetic field that interacts with the tissues of the human body. The electromagnetic field delivered in the muscular or neuronal tissue area is triggering the stimulation and tonisation.

The HPM-6000U is equipped with a color touch screen with wide view angle that significantly facilitates the use of the device. The on-screen information guides the user step-by-step through the entire therapy procedure. The therapeutic parameters are easily set using the touch screen, buttons and knob on the device. During the therapy the device keeps information about the applied therapy type, remaining therapy time and main therapy parameters on the screen.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the HPM-6000U device, which is an electromagnetic stimulator for treating urinary incontinence in women. The document explicitly states that the substantial equivalence determination for the HPM-6000U is NOT based on clinical testing. Instead, its safety and efficacy were demonstrated by comparing its technical characteristics with a predicate device, the Neotonus Model 1000 Muscle Stimulator System (K973096).

Therefore, there is no study described in this document that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria related to its clinical performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) using a test set against a ground truth.

However, the document does contain information about non-clinical testing for compliance with safety standards and a comparison table of technical specifications between the HPM-6000U and the predicate device, which serves as the basis for its substantial equivalence claim.

Given the information provided in the document:

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

Since no clinical efficacy study with specific performance acceptance criteria is detailed, the "acceptance criteria" here relate to technical specifications and safety standards compliance.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical test set data is provided as clinical testing was not performed for substantial equivalence. The comparison is based on the technical specifications of the device and its predicate.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical test set or ground truth established by experts is described.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable.

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:

• Not applicable. This device is a therapeutic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. No MRMC study was performed.

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

• Not applicable. The device is a physical therapeutic device, not an algorithm. Its performance is based on its physical/electromagnetic output, not an algorithm's classification or detection capabilities.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Not applicable. For the substantial equivalence, the "ground truth" is implied to be the established safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate device, as demonstrated through its technical specifications and intended use.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. No training set for an algorithm is mentioned as this is a physical medical device.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device