Search Results

The Medtronic MR8 Drill System is indicated for the incision/cutting, removal, drilling, and sawing of soft and hard tissue, bone, and biomaterials in Neurosurgical (Craniofacial including craniotomy); Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT), Maxillofacial, Orthopedic, Arthroscopic, Spinal, Sternotomy, and General Surgical Procedures.

The MR8 Drill System consists of electric and pneumatic drill handpieces, attachments, surgical dissecting tools, and system accessories. The handpieces, attachments, and system accessories are provided non-sterile and are reusable. The surgical dissecting tools are provided sterile and are single use.

The document provided is a 510(k) summary for the Medtronic MR8 Drill System. It describes the device, its intended use, and comparison to predicate devices, along with a summary of performance testing. However, it does not provide the detailed acceptance criteria and study information typically found in a clinical study report for an AI/ML medical device. The MR8 Drill System is a surgical drill, not an AI/ML device.

Therefore, many of the requested sections below, such as details on AI performance, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, and MRMC studies, are not applicable to this submission. The information provided primarily focuses on the substantial equivalence of a physical surgical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for the performance tests in the same way typical for AI/ML performance, but rather states the criteria implicitly by comparing to predicate devices or conformity to standards.

Regarding AI/ML Specific Information (Many are Not Applicable to this Device):

This device is a surgical drill system, a physical medical device, and not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or therapeutic device. Therefore, the following sections are largely not applicable based on the provided FDA submission summary.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The "test set" for this device involved physical product testing and cadaveric use. Specific sample sizes for the cadaveric study are not provided in this summary.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable in the context of AI/ML ground truth. For the cadaveric study, professional users (surgeons/medics) would have evaluated the device, but specific numbers and qualifications are not detailed in this summary.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for this type of device and study.
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, as this is not an AI/ML device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For the cadaveric use, the "ground truth" would be the subjective and objective assessment of the device's performance and acceptability by the users during surgical simulation. For other tests, it's conformance to technical specifications and safety standards.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device