Classification of PACS has been covered from different angles in various posts. However I haven't found specifically what will help resolve a classification issue I'm having.
We have a PACS stand-alone software device used as a non-primary diagnostic aid for dental applications. We are in the early stages of CE marking this device. Using the MDD 93-42, Borderline Classification Guidance, and several other informal resources, we're not coming to a clear consensus on classification.
When evaluating the device per MDD Annex 9 Section 3, all rules leave the device as Class I (ie Rule 10 mentions "direct diagnosis of vital physiological processes.." where our device isn't a direct means to diagnosis nor are physiological conditions considered vital).
Going up to Annex 9 Section 2 (Implementing Rules), 2.3 states "Software, which drives a device or influences the use of a device, falls automatically in the same class." Our software connects to class iia and iib scanners, but does it "drive or influence" them?
This is where I get confused on the intention of the rule. Our software 1) displays the status of the scanner during acquisition, with all status information going from scanner -> software. 2) Upon starting acquisition, our software gives the "green light" to the scanner to initiate it's own acquisition protocol/parameters to complete the exam. Our device does not set any scanner parameters or directly turn it on or off; scanner must be prepared independently prior to acquisition. Where does this put us with "drive" or "influence"?
Now, looking at Borderline Classification Guidance, 8.4 (PACS) c(iii) states, "Standalone software, e.g. software which is used for image enhancement is regarded as driving or influencing the use of a device and so falls automatically into the same class. Other standalone software, which is not regarded as driving or influencing the use of a device, is classified in its own right". Our software DOES allow for the enhancement of images in a post-process fashion; again not setting scanner parameters such as exposure (risk associated with duration of radiation). I don't see where the added risk (bump in classification) is in this manner of image enhancement, as all raw images are displayed in the software as well. So, I'm not sure we meet the intention of this rule.
The Competent Authority we've just started speaking with claims that the "green light" we give to a 3rd party scanner "indicates that this software can control Extraoral X-ray units"
I would appreciate any input on this, as interpretation of these points has a huge impact on a small, low-risk device manufacturer. Thanks!
We have a PACS stand-alone software device used as a non-primary diagnostic aid for dental applications. We are in the early stages of CE marking this device. Using the MDD 93-42, Borderline Classification Guidance, and several other informal resources, we're not coming to a clear consensus on classification.
When evaluating the device per MDD Annex 9 Section 3, all rules leave the device as Class I (ie Rule 10 mentions "direct diagnosis of vital physiological processes.." where our device isn't a direct means to diagnosis nor are physiological conditions considered vital).
Going up to Annex 9 Section 2 (Implementing Rules), 2.3 states "Software, which drives a device or influences the use of a device, falls automatically in the same class." Our software connects to class iia and iib scanners, but does it "drive or influence" them?
This is where I get confused on the intention of the rule. Our software 1) displays the status of the scanner during acquisition, with all status information going from scanner -> software. 2) Upon starting acquisition, our software gives the "green light" to the scanner to initiate it's own acquisition protocol/parameters to complete the exam. Our device does not set any scanner parameters or directly turn it on or off; scanner must be prepared independently prior to acquisition. Where does this put us with "drive" or "influence"?
Now, looking at Borderline Classification Guidance, 8.4 (PACS) c(iii) states, "Standalone software, e.g. software which is used for image enhancement is regarded as driving or influencing the use of a device and so falls automatically into the same class. Other standalone software, which is not regarded as driving or influencing the use of a device, is classified in its own right". Our software DOES allow for the enhancement of images in a post-process fashion; again not setting scanner parameters such as exposure (risk associated with duration of radiation). I don't see where the added risk (bump in classification) is in this manner of image enhancement, as all raw images are displayed in the software as well. So, I'm not sure we meet the intention of this rule.
The Competent Authority we've just started speaking with claims that the "green light" we give to a 3rd party scanner "indicates that this software can control Extraoral X-ray units"
I would appreciate any input on this, as interpretation of these points has a huge impact on a small, low-risk device manufacturer. Thanks!