Search Results

JARIT® Hulka Uterine Tenaculum Forceps are indicated to stabilize the cervix and manipulate the uterine fundus under direct pelviscopic visualization in women whose uteri are anteverted or retroverted.

JARIT Hulka Uterine Tenaculum Forceps are an 11-inch long stainless steel, ring-handled instrument with ratchet closure having a single-tooth hook at the distal end of one arm and a 3.6 mm diameter uterine sound probe at the distal end of the other arm. The device is reusable, sterilizable and packaged non-sterile.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called JARIT® Hulka Uterine Tenaculum Forceps. This type of filing is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not for proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study. Therefore, the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and comparative effectiveness studies is not applicable to this document, as these types of studies are typically required for premarket approval (PMA) applications or de novo classifications, not 510(k) clearances for devices like this.

The document states: "The JARIT Hulka Uterine Tenaculum Forceps are substantially equivalent to the legally marketed predicate devices. The devices have the same intended use, design, materials and processing." This statement, along with the device description, serves as the basis for clearance.

To directly answer your questions based on the provided text:

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

   • N/A. The document does not describe acceptance criteria in the context of a performance study. Its equivalence is based on "same intended use, design, materials and processing" as predicate devices.

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

   • N/A. No test set or data provenance is mentioned as part of a performance study.

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)

   • N/A. No experts or ground truth establishment are part of this 510(k) submission.

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

   • N/A. No adjudication method is mentioned.

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

   • N/A. The device is a manual surgical instrument, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No MRMC study or AI component is relevant.

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

   • N/A. Not applicable, as this is a physical, manual instrument.

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

   • N/A. No ground truth is mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • N/A. No training set is mentioned.

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

   • N/A. No training set or ground truth establishment is mentioned.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence, and therefore does not contain the information you requested about acceptance criteria, study data, or ground truth pertaining to device performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device