Search Results

The Cleveland Multiport Ventricular Catheter Set is indicated for gaining access to the ventricles of the brain for the removal of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or for injecting Cytarabine.

The Cleveland Multiport Ventricular Catheter contains a main or central lumen for the insertion stylet which is surrounded by four minor lumens (equally spaced) that contain the microcatheters. The catheter includes a ribbed distal tip, a housing for locking the insertion stylet, and proximal male Luer fittings at the end of each micro-catheter. The ribbed distal tip of the main catheter allows the micro-catheters to retract into the main catheter, by stretching the catheter when the insertion stylet is fully inserted and locked. This stretched state allows the catheter tip outside diameter to reduce slightly for atraumatic insertion into the ventricles of the brain. Once the insertion stylet is removed the catheter tip returns to its relaxed state (larger outside diameter) and the micro-catheters deploy. The enlarged tip aids in backflow prevention during injection of fluids. The distal Luer fittings allow for connectivity to a standard syringe or infusion pumps for removal of CSF and/or infusion. The biocompatible metal insertion stylet provides temporary rigidity to the distal portion of the device during catheter insertion and is removed after placement. The Cleveland Multiport Ventricular Catheter has no software, power sources, or radiation emitting components.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Cleveland Multiport Ventricular Catheter Set." This submission is to demonstrate that the new device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. The document refers to various tests performed to support this claim, but it does not describe an AI/ML powered device, an acceptance criteria table with reported device performance in the context of AI/ML, nor does it include information about sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth establishment for AI/ML models.

The information provided relates to the physical and functional aspects of a traditional medical device (a catheter) and its comparison to existing catheters. Therefore, most of the requested fields are not applicable to the given text.

Here's an attempt to answer the applicable parts of your request based on the provided text, while explicitly stating when information is not available or not applicable:

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

The document lists various performance tests and their results, indicating that the device "passed" and "results demonstrate the Cleveland Multiport Ventricular Catheter is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." The specific quantitative acceptance criteria are generally implied rather than explicitly stated as numerical thresholds in this summary, but the results confirm compliance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Alcyone MEMS Cannula (AMC) System consisting of the AMC and the AMC Extension Line Set. is intended for iniection of Cytarabine (cytosine arabinoside) or removal of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the ventricles of the brain during intracranial procedures. The AMC System is not intended for implant. The device is intended for "single patient use only."

The AMC System is comprised of the AMC and its Extension Line sets. The AMC is a rigid cannula comprised of two independent channels. The fluid lumens are protected inside a 25cm rigid ceramic cannula. which transitions (steps-down) to a micro-tip. The micro-tip has two independent outlets at the tip that face sideways, designed to prevent plugging during insertion into the brain. The proximal end of the rigid cannula consists of a Y-connector with standard female luers that allow connection to each independent channel. AMC Extension Line Sets with standard male/female luers must be used with the AMC to connect the AMC to an infusion pump. The AMC must be used with a support structure (e.g. a stereotactic quide) to provide support and control during insertion. A safety-sheath, as with the predicate, and depth-stop, for user convenience, are provided on the AMC for this purpose.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Alcyone MEMS Cannula (AMC) System, aiming to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It is a regulatory submission, not a study report per se, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence rather than establishing novel acceptance criteria or conducting a traditional clinical study with defined endpoints for performance metrics like sensitivity/specificity.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (acceptance criteria performance, sample size for test set with data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, how ground truth for training set was established) are not directly applicable or explicitly stated in the context of an AI/ML-driven device evaluation. This document is for a medical device (cannula) and its evaluation is based on engineering and preclinical testing.

However, I can extract information related to the device's characteristics and the tests performed to demonstrate its safety and performance equivalence to a predicate device. I will adapt the requested table and sections to best fit the available information.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (as implied by equivalence to predicate) and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of a clinical study (e.g., specific clinical performance thresholds like sensitivity/specificity for a diagnostic AI). Instead, it demonstrates that the AMC System's performance characteristics are equivalent to or meet the requirements for its intended use, similar to the predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by successful completion of various engineering, biocompatibility, and functional tests, and by demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SmartFlow™ Flex Ventricular Catheter is intended for injection of Cytarabine or removal of CSF from the ventricles during intracranial procedures. The device is not intended for implant. This device is intended for "single patient use only."

The Catheter has a stepped distal tip with a 30 cm removable rigid ceramic stylet protecting the fluid lumen while providing rigidity to the distal portion of the device. The stylet is removed after insertion to the desired point. Soft tubing protects the lumen in the center portion and at the distal end where it terminates. The fluid containing central lumen is manufactured from PEEK tubing.

The Catheter will be marketed in the following sizes:
Ventricular Catheter .008 x 7.5mm tip
Ventricular Catheter .008 x 15mm tip
Ventricular Cathcter .021 x 7.5mm tip
Ventricular Catheter .021 x 15mm tip

Each unit will provide for an approximate 23 inch tubing extension.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (MRII MR Compatible Ventricular Catheter) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing a study proving performance against specific acceptance criteria for a new AI/software device.

Therefore, the information required to populate most sections of the table and answer the subsequent questions is not present in the provided text, as this document describes a traditional medical device submission, not an AI/software device.

However, I can extract information related to the device's technical specifications and the Performance Testing – Bench section, which acts as the "study" proving the device meets certain operational criteria.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted based on the provided text:

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

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test, but phrases like "All samples" and "All Bone Anchors" suggest that specific, likely small, batches of devices/components were tested. The exact number of units per test is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The studies are described as "Bench testing" performed by "MRII, Inc." This indicates the data is from in-vitro (lab/bench) testing of the physical device, not patient data. No country of origin for data is specified beyond the company's location (Irvine, CA, USA). It's prospective in the sense that the tests were conducted specifically for this submission.

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. This is a traditional device submission focused on physical and material properties, not an AI/software device requiring expert ground truth for classification or detection tasks. The "ground truth" for these tests is based on objective physical measurements and adherence to engineering specifications.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessments, often for AI performance evaluation. The tests described here are objective bench tests.

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 is not an AI/software device, and no MRMC study was performed.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device. The device's "performance" is its physical function, not an algorithm's output.

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

The "ground truth" for the performance tests is derived from:

• Pre-defined engineering specifications and limits (e.g., specific flow rates, pressure limits, force thresholds).
• Comparative performance against the legally marketed predicate device.
• Objective physical measurements (e.g., fluid volume, pressure, force, visual inspection for damage/leaks).
• Compliance with recognized standards (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11137-2 for sterility).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device and does not involve training data.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MR Compatible Ventricular Cannula is intended for injection of Cytarabine or removal of CSF from the ventricles during intracranial procedures. The device is not intended for implant. The device is intended for "single patient use only."

The Cannula has a stepped distal tip with a 30 cm rigid ceramic stylet protecting the fluid lumen while providing rigidity to the distal portion of the device. Soft this in areets the lumen in the center portion and at the distal end where it terminates at a female luer fitting. The fluid containing central lumen is manufactured from non-reactive silica. The cannula will be marketed in the following sizes: 16 ga Ventricular Cannula, .008" ID x 4ft; 16 ga Ventricular Cannula. .008" ID x 10ft; 14 ga Ventricular Cannula, .021" ID x 4ft; 14 ga Ventricular Cannula, .021" ID x 10ft.

The provided text describes the SurgiVision MR Compatible Ventricular Cannula and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Adson Cannula), but it does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study designed to prove the device meets those criteria in the context of typical AI/ML device evaluations. This document describes a traditional medical device submission (a cannula), not a diagnostic AI/ML device.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, specific performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, AUC), sample sizes for test/training sets, expert consensus, MRMC studies, or standalone performance are not present because they are not applicable to this type of device submission.

However, I can extract the information relevant to the device's technical validation and comparison to the predicate device.

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

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for performance metrics like those seen in AI/ML diagnostic devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, it describes performance and material characteristics that are either equivalent to the predicate or designed for specific needs (like MR compatibility). The "reported device performance" is essentially that it functions as intended and is safe and effective.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The testing described is bench testing, not a clinical study on human subjects where patient data provenance would be relevant.

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. This is a medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm requiring expert-established ground truth from images or data.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

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 is a medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

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

For this type of device, "ground truth" is established through engineering and materials testing, demonstrating that the device physically performs as intended and meets safety standards. For example:

• Biocompatibility: In vitro and in vivo (animal) studies to confirm material safety, assessed against ISO 10993 standards.
• Performance (flow rates, rigidity): Bench testing using simulated conditions and fluids (e.g., Cytarabine, primate CSF).
• MR Compatibility: Physical testing of the device in an MRI environment to confirm safety (e.g., no excessive heating, no significant image artifact).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

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

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

Summary of the Study/Testing that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The document describes several types of testing performed to demonstrate the device's safety, effectiveness, and substantial equivalence to the predicate device:

• Sterilization and Shelf Life Testing: Validation using the VDmax25 procedure of ISO 11137-2 to ensure the device remains sterile and functional over its shelf life.
• Biocompatibility Testing: Conducted per ISO 10993 (Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices), including cytotoxicity, material mediated pyrogen, ISO maximization study, intracutaneous toxicity, and systemic toxicity. All tests yielded acceptable results.
• Performance Testing Bench:
  • Design verification testing.
  • Comparison testing with the predicate Adson Cannula.
  • Pressure withstand testing.
  • Injection/aspiration testing.
  • Lateral tip deflection testing.
  • Transit testing in conformance to D4169.
  • Accelerated aging testing.
• Cytarabine Injection and Primate CSF Aspiration Testing: Completed with acceptable results, validating the device's intended use with specific fluids.
• MR Compatibility Testing: The device is stated to be "Safe in a 1.5T MRI environment" and "MRI Safe. All brain contacting components tested safe in a 1.5T environment."

The conclusion from these tests was that the "MR Compatible Ventricular Cannula functions as intended and is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate device." The differences in design (e.g., single-patient use, MR compatibility, different materials, longer rigid section, no stylet, integral extension) are noted to "meet the needs of the MR work environment and do not represent changes that effect the safety or effectiveness of the device."

Ask a specific question about this device