(57 days)
The AURORA Evacuator +Coag is a powered instrument with a handpiece intended for removal of soft tissue and fluids, and coagulation of tissue under direct visualization. Types of direct visualization may include laparoscopic, pelviscopic, endoscopic, percutaneous, and open.
The subject device, AURORA Evacuator +Coag, is provided sterile, for single use only. It is a disposable, handheld, battery powered instrument that combines the ability to remove fluids and soft tissue, apply bipolar energy for the coagulation of tissue, and apply irrigation directly to clear the surgical site during minimally invasive surgical procedures.
It consists of a wand and handle with connection ports for a bipolar electrode cable, vacuum source (for aspiration) and irrigation line. At the distal tip of the wand, a side aspiration window with an internally rotating whisk is provided to break up and aspirate soft tissue and fluids. The battery and motor that powers the whisk is contained in the device handle. Bipolar electrodes are located at the distal tip of the wand and can be activated to coagulate tissue when connected to an electrosurgical generator. When desired, an irrigation line may be connected to the handle and saline can be delivered to clear the surgical field as a procedural aid.
Bipolar electrosurgical generator/cables, vacuum source, and irrigation source are not provided with the device. Prior to use, the device is to be connected to electrosurgical generator, external vacuum source (i.e. operating room suction) and irrigation source (i.e. drip).
A green power indicator light is located on the top portion of the handle to show that power is available to the device. A suction control vent for the user to control vacuum pressure and a button for activating the whisk are located conveniently on the handle.
The provided text describes the AURORA Evacuator +Coag device, its indications for use, and a comparison to predicate and reference devices. It then lists a summary of non-clinical testing conducted to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness.
Here's an analysis of the text in the context of your request:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics in a structured format. However, it describes several tests performed and states that the device was found to be "substantially equivalent" or demonstrated "comparable" effects.
Here's an interpretation of potential "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" based on the text:
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Biocompatibility per ISO 10993-1 | Testing performed and results supported safe use (implied, as conclusion states "safe and effective use"). Specific tests conducted: Cytotoxicity (MEM Elution), Sensitization (Kligman Maximization), Irritation (Intracutaneous Injection), Systemic Toxicity (Systemic Injection), Materials Mediated Pyrogenicity. |
| Electrical Safety per IEC 60601-1 and IEC 60601-2-2 | Testing performed and results supported safe use (implied). |
| Emissions and Immunity per IEC 60601-1-2 | Testing performed and results supported safe use (implied). |
| Particulate Testing per USP | Testing performed and results supported safe use (implied). |
| Sterilization per ISO 11135-1 | Validated a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10-6. |
| Packaging and Shelf-life per ISTA 2A and ASTM F1980-16 | Testing performed and results supported safe use (implied). |
| Verification of product specifications (materials, bonds, physical, performance) | Verification performed and results supported safe use (implied). |
| Comparable thermal damage effect (coagulation zone) to predicate | Ex-vivo tissue studies (porcine heart, liver, and kidney) demonstrated comparable thermal damage effect (coagulation zone) when compared with the primary predicate under the same test parameters and conditions. |
| Comparable thermal damage as a function of temperature and time | Thermal damage as a function of temperature and time with the 3 tissue types supported comparability with the primary predicate. |
| Validation of product performance using surrogate soft tissue materials and fluids | Validation performed and results supported safe use (implied). |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Sample Size:
- For the ex-vivo tissue studies, the sample size is only specified as "porcine heart, liver, and kidney". The number of individual samples or replicates is not provided.
- For other tests like biocompatibility, electrical safety, etc., no specific sample sizes are mentioned.
- Data Provenance: The studies are described as "ex-vivo tissue studies" and "non-clinical testing." This implies laboratory-based testing rather than clinical data from human patients. There is no information regarding the country of origin of the data. Given it's non-clinical, the terms "retrospective" or "prospective" don't directly apply in the same way they would to human clinical trials.
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)
The document does not mention the use of experts to establish "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests. Non-clinical tests typically rely on standardized methods and measurements rather than expert consensus on subjective interpretations. For tests like thermal damage assessment, the ground truth would be based on scientific measurements and comparative analysis with a predicate device.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
No information is provided about any adjudication methods. This is consistent with non-clinical testing where subjective expert interpretation and adjudication are generally not primary components.
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 conducted or mentioned. The device is a surgical instrument (Electrosurgical Cutting and Coagulation Device and Accessories), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so MRMC studies involving human readers and AI assistance are not relevant here.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. The AURORA Evacuator +Coag is a physical medical device intended for surgical use. It is operated by a human and is not an algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" performance in the sense of an algorithm operating independently doesn't apply. Its performance is evaluated in conjunction with human operation.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" would be established by:
- Comparability to Predicate Device: For thermal damage, the ground truth was the established performance of the predicate device under the same conditions.
- Standardized Test Methods: For biocompatibility, electrical safety, sterilization, etc., the ground truth is defined by the specific parameters and requirements of the referenced ISO standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1, ISO 11135-1, IEC 60601 series, USP , ASTM F1980-16). These standards specify acceptable limits or methodologies.
- Physical and Performance Specifications: Internal product specifications verified through direct measurement.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this device is not an AI/ML algorithm. The non-clinical studies described are for verification and validation of the device's physical and functional properties, not for training a model.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable, as there is no training set mentioned.
§ 878.4400 Electrosurgical cutting and coagulation device and accessories.
(a)
Identification. An electrosurgical cutting and coagulation device and accessories is a device intended to remove tissue and control bleeding by use of high-frequency electrical current.(b)
Classification. Class II.