Search Results

The POWERSEAL Sealer and Divider is a bipolar electrosurgical device intended for use in laparoscopic/minimally invasive or open surgical procedures where ligation of vessels, tissue bundles, and lymphatics is desired. POWERSEAL devices can be used on vessels (arteries and veins, pulmonary arteries, pulmonary veins) up to and including 7 mm, lymphatics, and tissue bundles. POWERSEAL devices are indicated for use in general surgery and such surgical specialties as urologic, colorectal, bariatio, vascular, thoracic, and gynecologic. Procedures may include, but are not limited to. Nissen fundoplication, colectomy, adhesiolysis, sleeve gastrectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy.

The POWERSEAL Sealer and Divider has not been shown to be effective for tubal sterilization or tubal coagulation for sterilization procedures. Do not use the POWERSEAL devices for these procedures.

The POWERSEAL 5mm laparoscopic jaw sealer divider is an electrosurgical bipolar device with an integral extending cutting blade. It features a pistol grip handle and is provided in shaft lengths of 23, 37, and 44 cm.

The POWERSEAL devices will be provided as sterile, single-use, hand-held bipolar electrosurgical instruments designed for use with Olympus electrosurgical generators to ligate (seal) and divide (cut) vessels, tissue bundles, and lymphatics. The jaws of the POWERSEAL are designed to seal vessels, and grasp and dissect tissue during open and minimally invasive general surgical procedures using radiofrequency (RF) energy, otherwise known as high frequency (HF) energy. A hand-actuated mechanism allows the user to open and close the instrument jaws. When the instrument jaws are correctly placed over the tissue or vessel to be sealed, the user operates a second control to initiate delivery of bipolar energy, which seals the tissue. When the sealing is complete, the user operates a separate control to activate a blade, which divides the tissue along the seal line.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the POWERSEAL Sealer and Divider, a medical device. It describes the device, its intended use, and the testing conducted to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, this document does not contain the information necessary to answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, as typically found in clinical trials or performance studies for AI/software-based devices.

The device in question (POWERSEAL Sealer and Divider) is an electrosurgical device, not an AI/software-based device. Therefore, questions 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are not applicable as they relate specifically to AI/ML model development and validation, ground truth establishment, and multi-reader studies.

The document discusses "performance requirements" and "acceptance criteria" in a general sense within the context of bench testing, preclinical (simulated use) evaluation, and animal studies, but it does not present a table of specific quantitative acceptance criteria and corresponding reported device performance with numerical results that would be expected for an AI/software product.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted or inferred from the provided text, and where the requested information is not present for an electrosurgical device submission of this type:

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

• Not explicitly provided in a quantitative table format. The document states: "System testing demonstrated that the performance requirements defined in the User Requirements Specification and Design Specification were met for the subject devices, and that they exhibit comparable performance characteristics to the predicate device."
• It also mentions: "Ex-vivo Vessel Burst Pressure testing was conducted on both the subject and predicate devices to demonstrate vessel sealing performance," and "Performance testing demonstrated that the device is as effective, and performs as well as the predicate devices."
• "Risk analysis was carried out in accordance with established internal acceptance criteria based on ISO 14971."
• While these statements indicate that acceptance criteria were defined and met for various tests (electrical, mechanical, functional, biocompatibility, sterilization, vessel burst pressure), the specific numerical criteria and the quantitative results are not included in this 510(k) summary. This type of detailed data is typically found in the full 510(k) submission, not the public summary.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated with numerical values. The text mentions "Ex-vivo Vessel Burst Pressure testing" which implies a sample of vessels, and "Acute Animal Study" and "Chronic Animal Study," also implying animal subjects. However, the specific number of vessels or animals is not provided.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not specified.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable in the traditional sense for these types of bench and animal studies. These are experimental studies designed to prospectively test the device's performance.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Not Applicable. This device is an electrosurgical tool, not an AI/software system requiring expert interpretation for ground truth establishment for a test set. The "ground truth" for this device's performance would be objective measurements (e.g., burst pressure, thermal spread, mechanical force) and pathological/clinical outcomes from animal studies, not expert annotations of images.

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

• Not Applicable. See explanation for #3. Adjudication methods like 2+1 are used for establishing consensus among human readers for AI/software ground truth, which is not relevant here.

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 an electrosurgical device, not an AI assistance tool for human readers. MRMC studies are for evaluating diagnostic imaging AI.

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

• Not Applicable. This is electrosurgical hardware. There is no "algorithm only" performance concept for this device.

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

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established through objective measurements from bench testing (e.g., electrical, mechanical, functional tests), ex-vivo vessel burst pressure testing, and pathological/outcomes data from the acute and chronic animal studies (e.g., seal performance, safety, tissue effects, thermal margin).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

• Not Applicable. See explanation for #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SOLTIVE™ Laser System (SOLTIVE™ Pro SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Premium SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Laser Fibers, and Accessories) is intended for incision, resection, ablation, coagulation, hemostasis, and vaporization of soft tissue, with or without an endoscope, in the following indications: urology, lithotripsy, gastroenterological surgery and gynecological surgery.

The SOLTIVE Laser System (SOLTIVE™ Pro SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Premium SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Laser Fibers, and Accessories) is a thulium laser. producing a pulsed beam of coherent near-infrared light (1940 nm) upon activation by a footswitch. The beam is then directed to the treatment zone by means of an optical fiber coupled to a handpiece. An integrated LED touch screen gives the user control over the necessary laser system parameters. The SOLTIVE Laser System is equipped with a 550 nm aiming beam.

The SOLTIVE Laser System is produced in two models, the SOLTIVE™ Premium SuperPulsed Laser and SOLTIVE™ Pro SuperPulsed Laser. The Premium has a maximum power output of 60 Watts and a maximum Frequency output of 2400 Hz. A secondary, foldable screen is provided. The Pro can operate at a maximum power of 35 Watts and Frequency limited to 100Hz. Both systems are operated with a wireless footswitch or wired footswitch, and both systems can utilize an auxiliary video monitor to display operating parameters. The Premium and Pro Laser must be used with a SOLTIVE Laser Fiber, offered in diameters from 150 - 940 microns.

The system includes:

• Laser console
• Laser fibers sterile single use and reusable
• Foot pedal, wireless or wired
• Accessories power cord. HDMI cable, safety goggles/glasses, fiber cutter, fiber cleaver, fiber stripper and cart

The devices do not incorporate medicinal substances, tissues, or blood products. The laser fibers are single-use and reusable, and both single-use and reusable are initially sterilized by Ethylene Oxide. Fibers are compatible with the Olympus endoscope models as listed on the IFU.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for the SOLTIVE Laser System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through a labeling modification. This document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and the results of a study proving the device meets those criteria, particularly in the context of an AI/human-in-the-loop system.

The study described here is limited to performance testing of the laser system, which is stated to be identical to the predicate device. The changes are solely in updated labeling to clarify existing cleared Instructions for Use.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document explicitly states:

• "The subject of this 510(k) is a labeling modification to the SOLTIVE Laser Systems. The device hardware and software design is identical to the predicate. The subject change to the labeling clarifies currently cleared Instructions for Use." (Page 5)
• "Performance testing was conducted in support of the predicate devices and equivalently applies to the subject device as the labeling clarifications fall within the existing performance envelope of the laser system. Testing demonstrated that all performance requirements met the prescribed acceptance criteria, including the proposed labeling change." (Page 9)

No information specific to a clinical study, AI performance, or human reader effectiveness is present in this document. The acceptance criteria mentioned refer to the intrinsic performance specifications of the laser system itself, not to a diagnostic or assistive AI's performance as would be detailed in an MRMC or standalone study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Celeris System (reusable power pack and Disposable Sinus Debrider) is intended for cutting, debriding, and removal of thin bone and soft tissue in general ENT and Sinus/Rhinology procedures and applications would include:

· FESS (Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery) – Including Endoscopic approaches for: Polypectomy, Sphenoidectomy, Maxillary Antrostomy, Uncinectomy, Frontal Sinusotomy

· Turbinate Reduction / Turbinoplasty, including sub-mucosal resection.

The Celeris DSD handpiece is a single-use disposable debrider handle and blade permanently combined with a built-in motor that plugs into a reusable power pack that contains a power supply for motor control. The power pack is also part of the subject system. The power supply is able to auto-adapt to any voltage via the universal power cord connection. Motor control requires software on a controller board inside the power pack.

The handpiece incorporates a rotatable blade and attached RF cable for bipolar models. The blades are either standard, bipolar, or malleable. The bipolar function requires a separate electrosurgical generator (not part of this system), connected via a cable. The cutting performance is equivalent to the current Gyrus ACMI predicate models.

A trigger style button on the DSD handle, or analog footswitch (sold separately) connected to the power pack, activates the blade oscillation and a standard electrosurgical unit footswitch (sold separately) powers the binolar effect for bipolar blades. The electrosurgical generator and footswitch alone will control the RF energy delivery.

A nosecone on the DSD handpiece allows the blade cutting window to rotate left or right. The blades are offered in 2mm and 4mm variants, either straight or malleable, and standard or bipolar. The malleable blade angle is flexible, and the design allows the blade to be bent with the provided bending fixture up to 60° at the user's discretion.

A standard suction tube (sold separately) is attached to the DSD handpiece proximal suction port and a clip attaches the tubing to the power cable. The handpiece power cable plugs directly into the power pack. The non-sterile power pack plugs into a standard power outlet and only provides power to the connected DSD handpiece. When the handpiece is activated power is sent to the motor which oscillates a gear which in turn oscillates the inner blade. For bipolar models, the energy lead from the cable is connected directly to the blade and energy is provided by the separate electrosurgical generator footswitch. For bipolar models, insulation around the cutting window limits energy delivery to the surgical site.

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) summary for the Gyrus ACMI Celeris Disposable Sinus Debrider. It describes the device, its intended use, and the testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, the document does not describe a study involving an AI/algorithm model that processes data (like images) to provide diagnostic or prognostic information. Instead, it describes a physical medical device used for surgical procedures. Therefore, many of the requested criteria related to AI/algorithm performance, ground truth, expert review, sample size for test/training sets, and MRMC studies are not applicable to this submission.

Based on the information provided for this physical surgical device, here's an attempt to address the applicable parts of your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on the provided document for a physical surgical device):

The document details various non-clinical and preclinical tests to demonstrate the device's safety, effectiveness, and substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices. The "acceptance criteria" for a physical device like this are typically derived from recognized standards, performance requirements, and comparisons to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" indicates that the device met these criteria.

While not presented in a formal table with specific quantitative thresholds as one might expect for an AI model, the document implies the following acceptance criteria were met:

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Adapted for a Physical Surgical Device)

Here's an assessment of the other points, noting their applicability to a physical device rather than an AI/algorithm:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each non-clinical or preclinical test (e.g., how many units were tested for electrical safety, or how many tissue samples were used for performance evaluation). It mentions "representative samples" for stability testing.
   • Data Provenance: The tests are described as "non-clinical" and "preclinical," involving bench testing and ex vivo bovine tissue. There is no mention of human clinical data or patient data being used for these performance tests. Therefore, concepts like "country of origin" or "retrospective/prospective" studies for patient data are not applicable to the described performance testing.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • This question is highly relevant for AI/algorithm performance where "ground truth" often comes from expert adjudication of medical images or data.
   • For this physical surgical device, "ground truth" for performance is typically established by physical measurements, adherence to engineering specifications, and established biological responses in ex vivo models. There is no mention of expert consensus establishing a "ground truth" as would be done for an AI diagnostic tool. Qualifications would be standard engineering and biological testing expertise.

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

   • Not applicable in the context of testing a physical device's mechanical, electrical, or tissue interaction properties. Adjudication methods are typically for evaluating subjective interpretations, such as expert consensus on medical image findings.

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 designed for AI assistance in diagnostic tasks. The Celeris system is a surgical tool, not a diagnostic aid for human readers. No MRMC study was performed or needed for this type of device.

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

   • Not applicable. The device itself is a tool that requires human operation; it doesn't have a standalone algorithm that performs a task without human interaction in the way an AI diagnostic algorithm would. The "software" mentioned is for motor control within the power pack, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

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

   • For this physical device, the "ground truth" for its described performance tests are:
     • Electrical/Safety: Adherence to established international electrical safety standards.
     • Mechanical/Functional: Engineering specifications, comparative performance to predicate devices' known characteristics, and objective measurements of mechanical output (e.g., cutting performance).
     • Biocompatibility: Results of standardized biological tests (cytotoxicity, sensitization, etc.) as per ISO 10993 series.
     • Sterility: Validation of sterilization protocols to achieve specific sterility assurance levels.
     • Preclinical (Tissue): Objective measurements on ex vivo bovine tissue and visual comparisons (e.g., thermal impact, coagulation).

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. As this is not an AI/machine learning device, there is no "training set."

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

   • Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI model.

In summary, the provided document describes the regulatory submission for a traditional surgical device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/algorithm performance, training data, ground truth establishment by experts, and MRMC studies are not relevant to this specific device submission. The device's substantial equivalence and safety/effectiveness were demonstrated through engineering bench tests, preclinical ex vivo studies, and adherence to recognized performance and safety standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

1. The PK Needle is indicated for resection of soft tissue in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures.
2. The PK Spatula is indicated for resection and coagulation of soft tissue and blood vessels in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures.
3. The PK J-Hook is indicated for resection and coagulation of soft tissue and blood vessels in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures.

The Olympus PK Electrosurgical Instruments: PK Needle, PK Spatula, and PK J-Hook are bipolar electrosurgical instruments with the capability to resect, cut, and coagulate soft tissue and blood vessels in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures. They pass through a 5mm cannula or operating laparoscope working channel of 5mm or larger diameter. The devices are activated via buttons on the handle or by a foot pedal and plug into compatible Olympus generators (ESG-400 and ESG-410). The generator and device make up a medical electrical system.

This FDA 510(k) summary (K213831) describes the Olympus PK Electrosurgical Instruments (PK Needle, PK Spatula, PK J-Hook). The submission is a modification to the device labeling to add compatibility with an Olympus generator, ESG-410 cleared under K203277. The document states that the devices themselves are unchanged from their original clearances in terms of intended use, design, performance, and technological characteristics.

Therefore, the study information requested is based on the original clearances of these devices (K142154 for PK Needle, K142289 for PK Spatula, and K142350 for PK J-Hook) and the specific testing performed for the current submission to confirm compatibility with the new generator.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information provided in the document:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria with reported numerical device performance as typically expected for software or diagnostic device studies. Instead, it refers to compliance with recognized consensus safety standards and successful completion of non-clinical testing.

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

The document relates to electrosurgical instruments and their compatibility with a new generator. The testing described is primarily non-clinical (electrical, mechanical, functional). Therefore, the concept of a "test set sample size" as applied to patient data or images (common in AI/ML devices) is not directly applicable here. The document mentions "testing was conducted" on the subject device. Details on the specific number of devices tested for each non-clinical performance category are not provided within this summary.

Data provenance: Not applicable as this submission primarily concerns non-clinical hardware compatibility performance rather than patient data analysis.

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. Ground truth, in the context of expert review for medical imaging or diagnostic devices, is not relevant for this type of electrosurgical instrument compatibility submission. The "ground truth" for electrosurgical instruments is their ability to perform cutting and coagulation safely and effectively, and this is assessed through engineering testing against established standards.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used for expert consensus on clinical findings in diagnostic studies. This is a non-clinical performance and compatibility submission.

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/ML device or a diagnostic device. It is an electrosurgical instrument.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm. The performance of the device is described as "algorithm only" in the sense that its electrosurgical function is inherent to its design and energy delivery, rather than requiring human interpretation of an output. However, it is an instrument used by a human surgeon.

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

Not applicable in the typical sense. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering specifications, recognized international safety and performance standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ISO 14971), and the original performance characteristics of the predicate devices. Performance is measured against these technical benchmarks.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning device that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SOLTIVE™ Laser System (SOLTIVE™ Pro SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Premium SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Laser Fibers, and Accessories) is intended for incision, resection, ablation, coagulation, hemostasis, and vaporization of soft tissue, with or without an endoscope, in the following indications: urology, lithotripsy, gastroenterological surgery and gynecological surgery.

Urology:
· Ablation of Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy) [BPH]• Laser Resection of the Prostrate (LRP)• Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (LEP) · Laser Ablation of the Prostate (LAP) · Transurethral Incision of the Prostate (TUIP) · Condylomas · Urethral strictures · Lesions of external genitalia · Bladder neck incisions (BN) · Ablation and resection of bladder tumors, urethral tumors, and ureteral tumors Endoscopic fragmentation of ureteral, bladder, and renal calculi• Treatment of distal impacted fragments remaining in the ureters following lithotripsy

Lithotripsy and Percutaneous Urinary Lithotripsy Indications:
· Endoscopic fragmentation of ureteral, bladder and renal calculi including cystine, calcium oxalate, monohydrate and calcium oxalate dehydrate stones • Endoscopic fragmentation of calculi • Treatment of distal impacted fragments of steinstrasse when guide wire cannot be passed

Gastroenterology:
Open and endoscopic gastroenterology surgery (incision, resection, ablation, vaporization, coagulation and haemostasis) including:
· Appendectomy · Angiodysplasia · Polyps · Colorectal cancer · Biopsy · Telangiectasias
• Gall Bladder calculi • Telangiectasias of the Osler-Weber-Renu disease • Biliary/Bile duct calculi • Vascular Malformation . Ulcers . Gastric ulcers . Esophagitis . Duodenal ulcers . Esophageal ulcers . Non Bleeding Ulcers · Varices · Pancreatitis · Colitis · Haemorrhoids · Mallory-Weiss tear · Cholecystectomy · Gastric Erosions • Benign and Malignant Neoplasm

Gynecology:
Open and laparoscopic gynecological surgery (incision, excision, ablation, vaporization, coagulation and hemostasis) of soft tissue

The SOLTIVE Laser System (SOLTIVE™ Pro SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Premium SuperPulsed Laser, SOLTIVE™ Laser Fibers, and Accessories) is a thulium laser, producing a pulsed beam of coherent near-infrared light (1940 nm) upon activation by a footswitch. The beam is then directed to the treatment zone by means of an optical fiber coupled to a handpiece. An integrated LED touch screen gives the user control over the necessary laser system parameters. The SOLTIVE Laser System is equipped with a 550 nm aiming beam.

The SOLTIVE Laser System is produced in two models, the SOLTIVE™ Premium SuperPulsed Laser and SOLTIVE™ Pro SuperPulsed Laser. The Premium has a maximum power output of 60 Watts and a maximum Frequency output of 2400 Hz. A secondary, foldable screen is provided. The Pro can operate at a maximum power of 35 Watts and Frequency limited to 100Hz. Both systems are operated with a wireless footswitch or wired footswitch, and both systems can utilize an auxiliary video monitor to display operating parameters. The Premium and Pro Laser must be used with a SOLTIVE Laser Fiber, offered in diameters from 150 - 940 microns.

The system includes:

• Laser console ●
• Laser fibers sterile single use and reusable ●
• Foot pedal, wireless or wired ●
• Accessories power cord, HDMI cable, safety goggles/glasses, fiber cutter, .
• fiber cleaver, fiber gripper, sterilization trav, cart .

The devices do not incorporate medicinal substances, tissues, or blood products. The laser fibers are single-use and reusable, and both single-use and reusable are initially sterilized by Ethylene Oxide. Fibers are compatible with the Olympus endoscope models as listed on the IFU.

The provided text is a summary of a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the SOLTIVE Laser System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily due to a software update. While it discusses the device's technical characteristics, intended use, and compliance with standards, it does not contain information about studies conducted to prove that the device meets specific acceptance criteria related to its performance in surgical procedures, nor does it detail clinical performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required to answer your questions regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, specifically:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document does not list specific performance acceptance criteria for surgical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy, nor does it provide reported performance data for such criteria. The "Software verification tests" mentioned only confirm that "all performance requirements met the prescribed acceptance criteria" for the software itself, not for the device's clinical efficacy.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: No clinical test set or patient data is mentioned. The "testing" referred to is software verification.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as no human-read test set or ground truth establishment relevant to clinical performance is discussed.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 laser system for surgical procedures, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as no machine learning/AI training data is mentioned.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In essence, this document is a regulatory submission demonstrating technical equivalence and safety aspects (like sterilization, biocompatibility, and compliance with electrical/laser safety standards) of a laser surgical device after a software update. It is not a clinical study report describing the performance of the device in patient procedures using specific outcome measures and statistical analysis.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Gyrus ACMI EZDilate 3-Stage Balloon Dilatation Catheters are in adult and adolescent populations to endoscopically dilate strictures of the alimentary tract. It is also indicated in adults for endoscopic dilatation of the Sphincter of Oddi with or without prior sphincterotomy.

Both the predicate and proposed Gyrus ACMI EZDilate 3-Stage Balloon Dilatation Catheters consist of a semi-compliant nylon blow molded balloon; and, a shaft that communicates a fluid passage for expansion and collapse of the balloon portion, operated by an inflation device.

Like the predicate, the EZDilate Wire Guided Balloon is designed to be used with a 0.035 in. (0.89mm) guidewire and has a wire lumen sized appropriately. Each balloon catheter is packaged with a soft tip 0.035 in. (0.89mm) guidewire pre-loaded into the guidewire lumen. The guidewire is manufactured by Lake Region Medical; and, is cleared under K935198, Gastroenterology and Urology Guidewire Modifications. All wire-guided balloons with have lengths of 5.5cm and a catheter length of 240cm.

The balloon is inflated with a 60cc inflation device, which will be sold separately. The suggested inflation device is manufactured by Atrion (K032840).

The Gyrus ACMI EZDilate 3-StageWire Guided Balloon Dilatation Catheter is a reinforced catheter attached to a distal dilatation balloon. The semi-compliant balloon allows for a progressive radial expansion through three target sizes using one balloon. A silicone coating applied to the balloon increases ease of insertion, positioning of the balloon within the alimentary tract, and device removal.

The provided document K180086 describes the Gyrus ACMI EZDilate 3-Stage Balloon Dilatation Catheter and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a clinical study establishing specific performance criteria against predefined metrics.

Therefore, I cannot provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance with numerical values, as these are not part of the substantial equivalence claim.
• Sample size used for the test set or data provenance, as this was not a clinical effectiveness study.
• Number of experts, their qualifications, or adjudication methods for ground truth, as ground truth establishment for a diagnostic output is not relevant here.
• Information on a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or human reader improvement with AI assistance, as AI is not concerned in this submission.
• Information on a standalone algorithm performance, as AI is not concerned in this submission.
• Type of ground truth used (pathology, outcomes data, etc.), as this is a device clearance based on equivalence, not a diagnostic accuracy study.
• Sample size for the training set or how ground truth was established for it, as this is irrelevant for this type of device submission.

However, based on the provided text, I can infer the "acceptance criteria" and how the device (Gyrus ACMI EZDilate 3-Stage Balloon Dilatation Catheter) was shown to "meet" these criteria in the context of a 510(k) submission:

1. Acceptance Criteria (Implied for 510(k) Substantial Equivalence):

For a 510(k) submission, the primary "acceptance criterion" is demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This typically involves showing that the new device:

• Has the same intended use as the predicate device.
• Has the same technological characteristics as the predicate device, or that differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

In this specific case, for the "minor process changes" that resulted in "rounders to the balloon; enhancing balloon visualization," the acceptance criteria for these particular changes would have been that the repeated performance tests demonstrated the device still met or exceeded the established specifications and safety profiles.

Reported Device Performance (against equivalence, not quantitative clinical metrics):

The submission asserts that the proposed Gyrus ACMI EZDilate 3-Stage Balloon Dilatation Catheter is "substantially equivalent" to the predicate devices and "presents no new questions of safety or effectiveness."

This is supported by:

• Identical intended use to a predicate Boston Scientific device (K112994).
• Identical design and scientific technology to its own predicate (K143609).
• No material changes from the predicate (K143609).
• Successful completion of a battery of performance tests following minor process changes.

2. Study that Proves the Device Meets the Acceptance Criteria:

The "study" in this context is the Traditional 510(k) Notification (K180086) document itself, which compares the new device to predicate devices and provides results from non-clinical performance testing.

Relevant information from the document:

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated as this is a technical verification, not a clinical study. The performance tests would have been conducted on a sufficient number of device samples to ensure design verification and validation, according to internal company procedures and relevant standards.
• Number of experts and qualifications, and adjudication method: Not applicable as this is a device clearance based on engineering and design comparison, not subjective expert assessment of diagnostic output.
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, etc.: No, this is not an AI/diagnostic imaging device, and such a study was not performed or required for this type of 510(k) submission.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
• The type of ground truth used: For the performance tests, the "ground truth" would be the established engineering specifications and safety limits for the device. For example, for "Balloon Burst Testing," the ground truth is a specific pressure at which the balloon must not burst, or a specific range. For "Dimensional Measurements," the ground truth is the specified dimensions.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as this is not an AI/machine learning device.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Specific Performance Tests Conducted (following minor process changes leading to improved balloon visualization):

The manufacturer conducted the following performance tests to demonstrate continued safety and effectiveness after minor process changes:

• Visual Inspection
• Dimensional Measurements
• Tensile Testing
• Fatigue Testing
• Luer Gauging Test
• Balloon Working Length
• Tip Stiffness Testing
• Compliance Testing
• Balloon Burst Testing
• Balloon Insertion Force Testing
• Balloon Retrieval Force Testing
• Balloon Friction Testing
• Balloon Deflation Testing
• Balloon Endoscope Compatibility Testing

The successful completion of these tests, along with the detailed comparison tables showing similarities in design features, intended use, and technological characteristics to the predicate devices, collectively serve as the "proof" that the device meets the implicit acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence to its predicates.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PK Morcellator is intended for cutting, and extracting tissue in laparoscopic gynecologic procedures. It is recommended to use the PK Morcellator in containment device (WA90500US) for removal of uterine tissue.

The proposed PK Morcellator is configured in an ergonomically friendly pistol grip configuration, and includes an axially oriented hollow shaft. The pistol grip integrates the electrical connection cable that allows bipolar RF energy to be supplied by the electrosurgical generator to the tissue site located at the distal end of the hollow shaft. The design of the pistol grip body is such that a clinician mav utilize a "ski-pole" grip on the Morcellator body, if that is their preference. The proposed PK Morcellator incorporates an improved smoke evacuation system to provide improved visibility during procedures. Smoke management can alternate between intermittent or constant by activating a trigger lock on the handle.

The hollow shaft of the Morcellator has an operative length of approximately 15 cm, extending distally from the pistol grip body. The surface of the Morcellator shaft is smooth, allowing the device to be introduced to the operative site through a trocar cannula seal, or with the use of the optional obturator, through an abdominal port. To facilitate optimal placement of the device during laparoscopic procedures, a depth stop normally located at the distal end of the pistol grip (at the junction of the pistol grip and Morcellator shaft), may be moved distally along the Morcellator shaft. The shaft has a nominal outer diameter of 15 mm. and a nominal inner diameter of 12 mm. The proximal end of the shaft also includes an elastomeric reducer that permits the passage of a grasper to the operative site and removal of tissue from the operative site, while preventing loss of pnuemoperitoneum.

The provided text describes the Gyrus ACMI, Inc. PK Morcellator (K161038) and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The information details non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate the device's safety and effectiveness.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document lists numerous non-clinical bench tests with objectives that serve as acceptance criteria. The text then states, "Performance testing summarized above demonstrates that the proposed PK Morcellator is substantially equivalent to the predicate device," implying that the device met these criteria. However, explicit numerical results for each test against the criteria are generally not provided in this 510(k) summary, which typically focuses on demonstrating equivalence rather than detailed pass/fail reports for every single test.

Below is a table summarizing some of the listed objectives as acceptance criteria. Since specific performance data (e.g., exact force values, flow rates) are not explicitly reported in the summary but rather affirmed as met, the "Reported Device Performance" column reflects this general confirmation of meeting the objectives.

Additional Requested Information:

1. 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 Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a numerical count for each test in human-related terms. For bench testing, the "samples" would typically refer to the number of devices tested for each condition. The document mentions "bovine tongue was selected as the tissue model for the PK Morcellator representing normal uterine tissue along with porcine/bovine blood" and "a porcine model" for usability/containment testing. No specific number of tissue samples or animals tested is provided.
• Data Provenance: The document implies the tests were conducted by Gyrus Medical Ltd. (Cardiff, United Kingdom) and Gyrus ACMI, Inc. (Southborough, MA, USA), as these are the entities associated with the device. The data is prospective, generated specifically for this 510(k) submission.

2. 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 mentions "Usability evaluation included surgeons with varying levels of experience" for user feedback and "trained laparoscopists with a range of experience" for containment system compatibility testing. However, it does not specify the number of experts, their qualifications (e.g., years of experience, specific board certifications), or how they established a "ground truth" in the traditional sense of diagnostic accuracy. Their input was more related to device usability and functional performance in a simulated clinical setting.

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

• This is not applicable as the studies described are primarily non-clinical bench and usability tests, not diagnostic accuracy studies requiring expert adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 for ground truth establishment. Expert feedback was used for usability, but not in a formal adjudication process for diagnostic ground truth.

4. 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 comparative effectiveness study was done. This document is for a medical device (morcellator), not an AI diagnostic algorithm, so such a study design is not relevant.

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

• Not applicable. This is for a medical device, not an algorithm.

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

• For the bench testing, the "ground truth" or reference for performance was based on engineering specifications and acceptable functional parameters (e.g., maximum temperature, minimum force, maximum leakage).
• For usability and compatibility, the "ground truth" was expert feedback and visual/functional assessment against predetermined acceptance criteria related to ease of use, deployment, and performance within a containment system. There was no pathological or outcomes "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense.

7. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that uses a "training set."

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

• Not applicable as there is no training set for an AI/machine learning algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended to clear the end of a rigid rod endoscope in order to maintain clear visualization of endoscopic procedures without having to remove the scope from the surgical site.

The device is indicated for use during routine diagnostic procedures and during endoscopic sinus surgery.

The InstaClear Lens Cleaner system is equivalent to the predicate device cleared under K982594. The system includes a reusable AC powered console with pump, a reusable footpedal, and sterile disposable single-use accessories.

The system is used to clear the end of a rigid endoscope in order to maintain clear visualization of endoscopic procedures without having to remove the scope from the surgical site. The device is indicated for use during routine diagnostic procedures and during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).

The system accessories include sterile sheaths to fit various sizes of 4mm Olympus and Storz endoscopes, a sterile irrigation tubeset, and a non-sterile footpedal. The console includes software to control irrigation delivery and suction.

This document describes the InstaClear Lens Cleaner device and its performance testing to support its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes used for each performance test. It refers to "representative samples" for stability and environmental testing.

• Data Provenance: The studies were non-clinical (electrical, mechanical, functional) performance testing and preclinical (bench) evaluations and testing. These are laboratory-based tests, not human trials.
• Country of Origin: Not specified, but conducted by Gyrus ACMI, Inc. a US-based company with manufacturing in Bartlett, TN, USA.

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

Not applicable. This device's performance was evaluated through non-clinical and preclinical bench testing against objective criteria and comparison to a predicate device, not through expert-reviewed clinical data or human studies.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As described above, the testing involved objective performance metrics and comparison to a predicate device, not expert adjudication of human subject results.

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 lens cleaner, not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool that would involve human readers.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical and preclinical performance tests was based on:

• Objective Engineering Specifications: For electrical safety, EMC, burst pressure, torque strength, etc.
• Established Sterilization Standards: For sterility assurance level.
• Simulated Use Conditions with Analogs: For cleaning performance (using a blood analog).
• Performance Characteristics of the Predicate Device: For comparative evaluation of features like cleaning cycle time, clearing performance, and leak/drip rate.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PK Cutting Forceps are indicated for electrosurgical coagulation, mechanical cutting, and grasping of tissue during the performance of laparoscopic and open general surgical procedures when used in conjunction with the general purpose ESG-400 workstation.

The PK Cutting Forceps are indicated for electrosurgical coagulation, mechanical cutting, and grasping of tissue during the performance of laparoscopic and open general surgical procedures when used in conjunction with the general purpose ESG-400 workstation. The device is a single use, sterile accessory, to be used in conjunction with the bipolar outputs of the Olympus workstation with PK software (ESG-400).

The proposed device is a modification of the Gyrus HALO PKS Cutting Forceps and includes an improved handle and improved jaw performance. The device handle has been redesigned with internal changes to improve ease of use. The jaws are identical as those found on the predicate Gyrus HALO PKS Cutting Forceps except that coatings have been added, and a mechanical bridge has been added inside the shaft.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the PK Cutting Forceps for the ESG-400 workstation. It outlines the device, its intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device, but it does not contain acceptance criteria or a study that specifically proves the device meets such criteria in the context of AI/algorithm performance.

The document describes performance testing for the physical device itself (electrical, mechanical, functional, and preclinical ex-vivo tissue evaluations) to ensure it functions as intended and is substantially equivalent to a predicate device. This is typical for a medical device clearance, but not for an AI/algorithm-driven device's performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested items related to "device performance" in the context of AI/algorithm criteria (such as sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set information) cannot be extracted from this document as it's not relevant to the type of device being described.

However, I can provide what is available regarding general performance and testing, interpreting "acceptance criteria" as general performance requirements and "reported device performance" as the results of the non-clinical and preclinical testing.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted or inferred from the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a table format for specific performance metrics like sensitivity/specificity. Instead, it states that the device was tested to perform as intended and meet design specifications, as well as demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device.

Regarding AI/Algorithm-Specific Information (which is largely absent from this document):

Since this is a submission for an electrosurgical cutting and coagulation device, not an AI-powered diagnostic or therapeutic algorithm, the following information is not provided in the document:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as there's no algorithm test set. The preclinical testing used bovine and porcine tissue (ex-vivo).
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for device performance was established through physical measurements, engineering standards, and visual assessment in preclinical models.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
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.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For preclinical testing, the ground truth was based on direct observation of physical performance (cutting, coagulation, grasping, thermal margin) on animal tissues, often compared against the known performance of the predicate device.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as there's no algorithm training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary: The document pertains to the clearance of a physical medical device (forceps) and its electrosurgical function, not an AI or algorithm-driven component. As such, the performance criteria and studies described are related to the safety and physical/functional equivalence of the hardware, not the analytical performance of an algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PK Needle is indicated for resection of soft tissue in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures when used with the Olympus ESG-400 Generator.

The PK Needle is a bipolar electrosurgical instrument with the capability to resect soft tissue and blood vessels in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures. The instrument will pass through a 5mm cannula or through an operating laparoscope working channel of 5mm or larger diameter. The device has an active blunt needle shaped tip and is activated via a button on the handle, or by a foot pedal. The proposed device plugs into the Olympus ESG-400 generator (K141225). The generator and device make up a medical electrical system. The instrument is to be used only with the Gyrus ESG-400 Generator.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "PK Needle." It's a regulatory submission to the FDA demonstrating that the new device is substantially equivalent to existing legally marketed devices, and it primarily focuses on device safety and performance characteristics for regulatory approval rather than clinical study results establishing diagnostic or therapeutic accuracy against ground truth.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to this type of document because it details the physical and functional characteristics of an electrosurgical device, not a diagnostic AI or image analysis system.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

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

The document describes several performance tests, but it does not specify explicit "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative, tabular format as one might expect for a diagnostic device's performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds). Instead, it states that tests were conducted and the device performed "substantially equivalent" to its predicate.

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

The document does not detail specific sample sizes for tests like "cutting equivalency" or "expected forces." The tests appear to be bench tests of the device itself rather than studies involving human subjects or clinical data sets on a large scale. Data provenance is not applicable as these are engineering and materials tests, not clinical data studies. The tests are prospective in the sense that they are performed on the manufactured device.

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 device is an electrosurgical instrument, not a diagnostic device where "ground truth" would be established by experts interpreting medical images or pathology. The "truth" here relates to engineering specifications and performance characteristics.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical outcomes, not for bench testing of device functionality.

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-assisted diagnostic or image interpretation device.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical electrosurgical instrument for direct surgical use.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is based on engineering specifications, material science standards (e.g., biocompatibility), and functional tests designed to mimic its intended use (e.g., cutting equivalency). It's not based on clinical "outcomes data" or "pathology" in the context of diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" in the machine learning sense.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device