Search Results

The Stonebuster Endoscopic System for Stone Removal (SESSR) Catheter for Endoscopy is intended to provide access to the ureteral canal and to be used to guide the currently available visualization devices and accessory devices such as bionsy forceps, cytology brushes, stone retrieval baskets, etc. during endoscopic procedures.

The indications for use of the catheter are in urological applications.

The Stonebuster Endoscopic System for Stone Removal (SESSR) Delivery Catheter is a sterile, single-use device comprised of one main component: a flexible triple lumen delivery catheter with three Luer-Lock delivery ports. This device is intended to provide access to the ureteral canal and to be used to guide the currently available visualization devices and accessory devices such as biopsy forceps, cytology brushes, stone retrieval baskets, etc. during endossopic procedures.

The SESSR Delivery Catheter is introduced into the desired anatomical location through the SESS sheath with a minimum working channel diameter of 4.3mm. The distal tip of the SESSR is straight or benefit at minimum of 6.5 mm from the distal tip of 10 degrees providing the physician with (when using visualization devices) a wider field of view.

The provided document (K083788) describes the Stonebuster Endoscopic System for Stone Removal (SESSR) and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain details about acceptance criteria, a specific study proving device performance against those criteria, or clinical trial data as requested.

The basis for clearance is demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not through a study proving predefined acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested fields cannot be directly answered from the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and explanations for what cannot:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or report device performance against such criteria. The "performance" assessment is based on a comparison to predicate devices, focusing on design, materials, and intended use.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
Not applicable. This was a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence, not a clinical study with a "test set" in the context of AI/algorithm performance. The data provenance includes material specifications and sterilization validation.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable. No "ground truth" was established by experts for a test set in this 510(k) submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication was used.

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 medical instrument (catheter), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI-related performance metrics are irrelevant.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This device is a medical instrument (catheter), not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
Not applicable in the context of an algorithm's ground truth. The "truth" for this submission was demonstrating that the device's design, materials, and intended use were comparable to existing, legally marketed predicate devices, and that it met relevant standards for sterility.

8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. No training set was used, as this is not an AI/algorithm-based device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. No training set was used.

Summary of what the document does provide regarding device evaluation:

• Sterility Testing: A full cycle, single lot batch validation was completed to ensure sterility using ethylene oxide (EtO) gas, contracted with STS Life Sciences Division of Ethox. The reports of these results were included in Section 14.1 of the submission.
• Shelf Life: Currently set at six months, with ongoing monitoring of samples to ensure sterility and functionality, with plans to adjust the shelf life based on these observations.
• Bench Testing: The conclusion mentions "bench test results conducted with the Stonebuster Endoscopic System for Stone Removal (SESSR)." However, the document does not detail these bench tests, their methodologies, or specific quantitative results beyond stating they support substantial equivalence.
• Comparison to Predicate Devices: The primary "proof" of meeting safety and effectiveness is through a detailed comparison (Table 1) to two predicate devices:
  • Boston Scientific Corporation UASS Ureteral Access Sheath (K022135)
  • Bard Dual Lumen Ureteral Catheter (K032521)
    This comparison covers indications for use, shaft material, hub material, sterility, single-use nature, and number of lumens. The sponsor argues that any differences are "insignificant with respect to safety and effectiveness."

In essence, for a traditional 510(k) such as this, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, supported by foundational tests like sterility validation and general engineering/material specifications, rather than a clinical trial or algorithm performance study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ophthalmic laser endoscope is indicated for intraoperative photocoagulation of the ciliary processes in the treatment of glaucoma, proliferative retinopathies, visualization of the internal ocular structures in retinal detachment, and for visualization of the anterior segment which do not allow a posterior view.

Glaucoma
This instrument is indicated for the treatment of glaucoma in patients who have failed with conventional topical and systemic medications, or previous laser photocoagulation, or trabeculectomy and other filtering procedures, or other cyclodestructive procedures.
The endophotocoagulation of ciliary processes under direct endoscopic view is a recognized procedure and has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of glaucoma.

Vitreoretinal Surgery
The endoscopically controlled endophotocoagulation that is possible with the MicroProbe is also useful for endophotocoagulation:

• To produce chorioretinal scar around retinal breaks or retinotomy sites
• To perform intraoperative panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in proliferative retinopathies
• To perform intraoperative retinal photocoagulation on a scleral buckle
• To perform intraoperative photocoagulation around focal neovascularization

The Endo Optiks E2 MicroProbe™ is the principal component in a new portable laser and endoscopy system. The complete system consists of the therapeutic laser, the endoscope, the monitor and the footswitch. This compact unit creates the opportunity to simultaneously image and photocoagulate the ciliary processes through a corneal incision. It is especially indicated for the safe and effective treatment of glaucoma in combination with cataract surgery. Important vitreo-retinal applications can be realized. It can be used for the contact and non-contact excision, hemostatis, incision and vaporization of soft tissue. The E2 MicroProbe is a modification to the packaging of the original MicroProbe.

Based on the provided documents for the Endo Optiks E2 MicroProbe, here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The documents do not specify a test set sample size or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective data) for any clinical or nonclinical studies. The assessment for this 510(k) relies on nonclinical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This information is not provided in the documents. The submission emphasizes nonclinical testing and substantial equivalence, not clinical validation based on expert-established ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the documents. As the submission focuses on nonclinical testing for substantial equivalence, a clinical adjudication method is not applicable here.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done and is not mentioned in the provided documents. The submission relies on nonclinical testing for substantial equivalence.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This question is not applicable as the E2 MicroProbe is a medical device (laser and endoscopy system), not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its physical and functional capabilities, not in an independent algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for this submission appears to be engineering specifications and established performance characteristics of the predicate device. The testing demonstrated that the E2 MicroProbe satisfied its own system specifications and that its performance was substantially equivalent to the legally marketed predicate device (Uram Ophthalmic Laser Endoscope - MicroProbe).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as the E2 MicroProbe is a medical device, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a training set. The evaluation is based on the device's physical and functional performance, not learned data.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device