Search Results

The SPY Laparoscope is intended to be used for gynecological and general procedures that clinicians deem appropriate for the adult or pediatric patient aged one month or older, when the dimensions of the SPY Laparoscope are appropriate for the patient size and anatomy.

The SPY Laparoscope is part of Stryker's rigid endoscope product portfolio. The SPY Laparoscope is an optical instrument used to visualize or image a patient's anatomy during minimally invasive, endoscopic procedures for examination, diagnosis or therapy. The SPY Laparoscope transmits light in both the visible and near-infrared spectrum to illuminate the anatomy, then forms and relays the image of the surgical site to a camera system for image processing and display.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the SPY Laparoscope primarily details bench testing and compliance with various recognized standards to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It explicitly states that "The subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence."

Therefore, the information you've requested regarding acceptance criteria and study proving performance, particularly related to human-in-the-loop performance, multi-reader multi-case studies, and the specifics of clinical ground truth establishment, is not available in this document. The clearance is based on a demonstration of equivalent technical performance and safety through non-clinical testing.

Here's how we can address your request based on the provided text, focusing on the available information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Non-Clinical Testing)

Since no clinical study data is presented, the "acceptance criteria" here refers to meeting the performance specifications and standards compared to the predicate device, primarily through bench testing.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

Information Not Available (Due to Reliance on Non-Clinical Testing)

The following points cannot be addressed from the provided document because the 510(k) clearance was based on non-clinical testing for substantial equivalence, not on clinical performance studies involving human subjects or AI:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data. The "test set" here refers to the physical units of the SPY Laparoscope and reference devices used in the various bench tests. Data provenance is internal lab testing.
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 bench testing is derived from metrology and engineering standards.
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 an endoscope, not an AI-driven image analysis tool. The document explicitly states "The subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence."
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a hardware device; no AI algorithm is mentioned or evaluated in this context.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For non-clinical tests, "ground truth" is defined by established engineering and optical standards, and measurements. For example, FOV measurements are compared against an acceptable range, not a clinical diagnosis.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI or machine learning device requiring a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary: The FDA clearance for the SPY Laparoscope, as described in this 510(k) summary, is based entirely on a demonstration of non-clinical substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This includes demonstrating equivalent optical performance, electrical safety, biocompatibility, reprocessing efficacy, and overall risk management. Clinical studies or studies involving human-in-the-loop performance, AI, or advanced diagnostic accuracy metrics were not part of this clearance process.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SPY Cystoscopes/Hysteroscopes are intended to provide visualization in general urological and gynecological surgery through the minimally invasive approach, by utilizing natural orifices to access the surgical site.

The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is part of Stryker's rigid endoscope product portfolio. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is an optical instrument used to visualize or image a patient's anatomy during minimally invasive, endoscopic procedures for examination, diagnosis or therapy. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope transmits light in the visible spectrum to illuminate the anatomy, then forms and relays the image of the surgical site to a camera system for image processing and display.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope (K252012), here's a description of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

Important Note: The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter, which summarizes the information submitted by the manufacturer. It does not contain the full details of the testing performed. Therefore, some of the requested information (especially regarding specific test methodologies, exact sample sizes for training/test sets, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment details) is not explicitly stated in this summary. I will highlight what is present and what is inferred based on standard regulatory practices for this type of device.

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

The study performed to demonstrate the device meets acceptance criteria was a non-clinical performance and safety evaluation, primarily involving bench testing. This approach is common for optical, non-diagnostic devices like endoscopes, where functionality can be objectively measured. The submission explicitly states, "The subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence."

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The letter outlines the types of non-clinical tests performed, implying these are the areas for which performance criteria were established. While the letter doesn't provide specific numerical acceptance thresholds or the exact measured values, it states that the testing "demonstrates the device conforms with design input requirements, user needs and intended uses."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of devices tested) for the non-clinical bench tests. For most bench testing, typically a representative sample or a statistically significant number of production units are tested to ensure consistency and meet specifications.
• Data Provenance: This was non-clinical bench testing, not human data. Therefore, concepts like "country of origin of the data" or "retrospective/prospective" do not directly apply to the primary performance testing.

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

• Not Applicable: Since this device is an optical instrument for visualization (not an AI/diagnostic algorithm interpreting images), and the testing was non-clinical bench testing, "experts" in the sense of clinical reviewers establishing ground truth for a test set (e.g., radiologists reading images) were not involved in the direct performance evaluation of the device's optical properties. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the established engineering and optical performance specifications.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable: Given that the performance evaluation was based on objective, quantitative bench testing (e.g., measuring MTF, FOV, transmission), there was no need for human adjudication of test results in the way one would adjudicate case labels for diagnostic AI. The results are based on instrumental measurements compared against specifications.

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

• No: The document explicitly states: "The subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence." An MRMC study is a clinical study involving human readers. Therefore, no MRMC study was performed or required for this 510(k) clearance.
• Effect Size: Not applicable as no MRMC study was conducted.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Not Applicable: This device is a physical optical instrument (cystoscope/hysteroscope), not an AI algorithm. Therefore, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" does not apply. Its performance is its ability to transmit light and form an image according to specifications, which was evaluated via bench testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering/Optical Specifications: The ground truth for this device's performance evaluation was established through pre-defined engineering and optical specifications (design input requirements) that the device must meet (e.g., a specific MTF value, a defined FOV range, acceptable levels of distortion, etc.). These specifications are typically derived from industry standards, predicate device performance, and user needs.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable: This is a hardware device; thus, it does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The design and manufacturing processes are refined through engineering, prototyping, and iterative testing, not through training on data.

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

• Not Applicable: As there is no "training set," this question is not relevant for this device. Ground truth for hardware development is established through engineering design principles, materials science, and manufacturing tolerances.

Summary of Approach:

The clearance for the SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope relied on a "Comparison to Predicate" approach, underpinned by extensive non-clinical bench testing to demonstrate that the new device's different technological characteristics (specifically smaller outer diameter and increased field-of-view) "do not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness" compared to the predicate devices. The safety and effectiveness were established by confirming the device met its design specifications for various optical and mechanical parameters.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Knotilus+ Biocomposite Knotless Anchor is intended to be used for soft-tissue to bone fixation in the shoulder, foot and ankle, knee, hand and wrist, elbow, and hip in skeletally mature pediatric and adult patients. It is indicated for use in the following procedures:

2.4x11.3mm, 2.9x12.5mm, and 2.9x15.5mm:

• Shoulder: Rotator Cuff Repair, Bankart Repair, SLAP Lesion Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, Acromio-Clavicular Separation Repair, Deltoid Repair, Capsular Shift, or Capsulolabral Reconstruction
• Foot and Ankle: Lateral Stabilization, Medial Stabilization, Achilles Tendon Repair, Hallux Valgus Reconstruction, Midfoot Reconstruction, Metatarsal Ligament and Tendon Repair
• Knee: Medial Collateral Ligament Repair, Lateral Collateral Ligament Repair, Patellar Tendon Repair, Posterior Oblique Ligament Repair, Iliotibial Band Tenodesis
• Hand and Wrist: Scapholunate Ligament Reconstruction, Ulnar or Radial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction
• Elbow: Biceps Tendon Reattachment, Ulnar or Radial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction, Lateral Epicondylitis Repair
• Hip: Acetabular Labral Repair

2.4x8.9mm:

• Hip: Acetabular Labral Repair

The Knotilus+ Biocomposite Knotless Anchors are hard-body, push-in, knotless bone anchors. The subject device is comprised of a poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) eyelet and poly-L-lactide ("PLLA") and beta-tricalcium phosphate ("β-TCP") anchor body, pre-assembled onto a disposable stainless-steel inserter, which enables insertion of the anchor into bone after creation of a pilot hole. The devices are single use, provided sterile, and are packaged in sterile barrier systems (SBS).

It appears there has been a misunderstanding. The FDA 510(k) clearance letter you provided is for a Knotilus+ Biocomposite Knotless Anchor, which is a medical device used for soft-tissue to bone fixation. This is a physical, implantable device, not a software or AI-driven diagnostic tool.

The questions you've asked (about acceptance criteria, test set sample sizes, data provenance, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, training set details, etc.) are highly relevant to the validation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) medical devices, particularly those performing image analysis or diagnostic functions.

Since the provided document describes a physical bone anchor device, the concept of "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" as they relate to AI/ML performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, AUC, etc., derived from test sets and human expert evaluations) does not apply.

For a physical device like a bone anchor, "acceptance criteria" would typically relate to:

• Mechanical properties: E.g., Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS), pull-out strength, fatigue life, torsional strength.
• Biocompatibility: Absence of adverse tissue reactions.
• Sterility: Ensuring the device is free from microorganisms.
• Dimensional accuracy: Conforming to design specifications.
• Material properties: Chemical composition, degradation rates (for biocomposite materials).

The document states that "Non-clinical benchtop testing was performed to evaluate the performance characteristics of the Knotilus+ Biocomposite Knotless Anchor, including ultimate tensile strength (UTS), UTS after Cyclic Loading, UTS after Degradation, and insertion testing." It also mentions "Bacterial endotoxin testing." These are the types of studies that prove this device meets its performance and safety acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions related to AI/ML device validation based on the provided document because it describes a different class of medical device.

If you have a document related to an AI/ML medical device, please provide that, and I will be happy to answer your questions accordingly.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Stryker AlphaVent™ Knotless SP Biocomposite Anchor is intended to be used for soft-tissue to bone fixation in the shoulder, foot and ankle, knee, hand and wrist, elbow, and hip in skeletally mature pediatric and adult patients. It is indicated for use in the following procedures:

• Shoulder: Rotator Cuff Repair, Bankart Repair, SLAP Lesion Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, Acromio-clavicular Separation Repair, Deltoid Repair, Capsular Shift or Capsulolabral Reconstruction
• Foot/Ankle: Lateral Stabilization, Medial Stabilization, Achilles Tendon Repair, Hallux Valgus Reconstruction, Mid-foot Reconstruction, Metatarsal Ligament Repair/Tendon Repair
• Knee: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair, Medial Collateral Ligament Repair, Lateral Collateral Ligament Repair, Patellar Tendon Repair, Posterior Oblique Ligament Repair, Iliotibial Band Tenodesis, Quadriceps Tendon Repair, Secondary or Adjunct Fixation for ACL/PCL Reconstruction or Repair, Meniscal Root Repair, MPFL Repair/Reconstruction
• Hand/Wrist: Scapholunate Ligament Reconstruction, Ulnar or Radial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction
• Elbow: Biceps Tendon Reattachment, Ulnar or Radial Collateral Reconstruction, Lateral Epicondylitis Repair
• Hip: Capsular Repair, Acetabular Labral Repair, Gluteus Medius Repair, Proximal Hamstring Repair

The AlphaVent Knotless SP Biocomposite Anchors (herein referred to as the subject device(s)) are bone anchors with a screw-in mechanism. The subject device is comprised of a poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) eyelet and a biocomposite (Poly-L-lactic Acid (PLLA)/beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP)) anchor body, pre-assembled onto a disposable stainless-steel inserter, which enables insertion of the anchor into bone either via a self-punching mechanism or after creation of a pilot hole. The devices are single use, provided sterile, and are packaged in sterile barrier systems (SBS).

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter is for a medical device (Stryker AlphaVent™ Knotless SP Biocomposite Anchor), not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, a significant portion of the requested information (items 2-5, 7-9) is not applicable as these relate specifically to studies conducted for AI/ML performance evaluation.

However, I can extract and present the relevant information regarding acceptance criteria and performance testing for this physical medical device.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Stryker AlphaVent™ Knotless SP Biocomposite Anchor

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary, the device is a physical implant, and its performance is evaluated through non-clinical benchtop testing. The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by demonstrating equivalence or superiority to predicate devices in key performance areas.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for the non-clinical benchtop testing (e.g., number of anchors tested for UTS or insertion). The testing is described as "non-clinical benchtop testing," which implies laboratory-based experiments rather than human or animal studies. Therefore, provenance such as country of origin or retrospective/prospective is not applicable in the same way it would be for clinical data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications
Not applicable. This device is a physical implant, and its performance is assessed through objective, quantitative, non-clinical benchtop tests, not through expert interpretation of data or images.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. The performance is determined by objective physical measurements and comparisons, not through adjudication by experts.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that assists human readers.

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established through objective physical measurements and laboratory standards. For example:

• Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS): Measured in a lab using force-testing equipment against established engineering standards and comparison with predicate device performance.
• Insertion Performance: Evaluated against defined mechanical parameters and successful deployment in simulated "worst-case" conditions.
• Bacterial Endotoxin Testing: Measured against predefined regulatory limits for endotoxin levels (e.g., ISO or USP standards).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm for this physical device.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
Not applicable. There is no "training set" for an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Connected OR Hub with Device and Voice Control:
The use of the Connected OR Hub with Device and Voice Control is to allow for voice control and remote control of medical device settings by surgeons or operating room personnel, thereby eliminating the need to manually operate those devices compatible with the Connected OR Hub with Device and Voice Control or to rely on verbal communication between the surgeon and other operating room personnel in order to adjust the surgical equipment. It also has additional digital documentation functionality to electronically capture, transfer, store and display medical device data (non-medical device function), which is independent of the functions or parameters of any attached Stryker device.

SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control:
The use of the SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control is to allow for voice control and remote control of medical device settings by surgeons or operating room personnel, thereby eliminating the need to manually operate those devices compatible with the SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control or to rely on verbal communication between the surgeon and other operating room personnel in order to adjust the surgical equipment. It also has additional digital documentation functionality to electronically capture, transfer, store and display medical device data (non-medical device function), which is independent of the functions or parameters of any attached Stryker device.

The Connected OR Hub with Device and Voice Control and SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control are network compatible hardware platforms that carry out Medical Device Data System (MDDS) functionalities and allows the user to control the state, selection, and settings of compatible connected devices both wired and wirelessly.

The Connected OR Hub with Device and Voice Control and SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control consists of the following components:

• 1. Base Console which includes:
  • a) Medical Device Data System (MDDS) functionalities
  • b) Optional Device Control feature
  • c) Optional Voice Control feature
  • d) Optional Video Image Processing (VIP) feature
• 2. Device Control Package (software activation USB dongle and a handheld Infrared (IR) remote control)
• 3. Voice Control Package (software activation USB dongle and a wireless headset and base station)
• 4. Video Image Processing package (software activation USB dongle)
• 5. Connected OR Spoke (MDDS)

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the Stryker Connected OR Hub with Device and Voice Control and SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control describes the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them. However, it does not involve an AI system for diagnostic or prognostic purposes, but rather a control system for medical devices. Therefore, some of the requested information regarding AI-specific criteria (like effect size of AI assistance for human readers, ground truth type for training, etc.) is not applicable.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. A 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 specify a "test set" in the context of a dataset for an AI model. Instead, it refers to various engineering and validation tests. The "Performance - Bench" tests would have involved specific test cases and scenarios, but the sample size (number of tests, number of voice commands, etc.) is not explicitly detailed. The provenance is internal to Stryker's development and validation processes. Given the nature of software and hardware validation, these tests are typically conducted in a controlled environment as part of the manufacturing and R&D process.

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

This information is not explicitly provided in the document. For non-AI device validation, "ground truth" is typically established by engineering specifications, recognized standards (e.g., IEC, AAMI), and user needs. The validation process would involve qualified engineers and testers to confirm the device performs according to these pre-defined specifications. For "Usability," expert users (e.g., surgeons, OR personnel) or human factors engineers would likely be involved, but their number and specific qualifications are not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not describe an adjudication method in the context of multiple observers or interpretations for a test set, as would be common for AI performance evaluation. For the various "Pass" results, internal validation protocols and test reports would have been followed, likely involving engineering review and sign-off based on predefined success criteria for each test.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not done. This device is a control system (voice and remote control) for other medical devices and not an AI diagnostic or prognostic tool that assists human readers in interpreting medical images or data.

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

The device's core functionality involves control of medical devices, including "voice control of medical device settings." While this incorporates voice recognition, it's not a standalone AI algorithm for medical diagnosis or interpretation. The "Voice Recognition Performance" was tested, implying a standalone evaluation of this component, but it's part of a human-in-the-loop control system. The other listed tests (Electrical Safety, EMC, etc.) are inherent to the device's standalone hardware and software performance.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth for this device's validation is based on:

• Recognized Standards: e.g., IEC 60601-1 for electrical safety, IEC 60601-1-2 for EMC, AAMI TIR69 for wireless technology, IEC 62304 for software, IEC 62366-1 for usability.
• Device Input Specifications: Internal engineering requirements for video compatibility, environmental robustness, voice recognition accuracy, and overall system design.
• User Needs and Intended Uses: The device must meet the functional requirements for surgeons and operating room personnel to control medical devices effectively and safely.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. For the voice recognition component, a training set would have been used to develop the voice models. However, the document does not specify its size or characteristics, as it's not the primary focus of the 510(k) summary for this type of device.

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

Not explicitly stated. For the voice recognition feature, the ground truth for training would typically involve a large dataset of spoken commands, explicitly transcribed and labeled, to train the voice recognition model to accurately identify the intended commands. This process is standard for developing speech recognition systems.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Stryker ICONIX anchors are intended to be used for soft-tissue to bone fixation in the foot, ankle, knee, hip, hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder. Specific indications are listed below.

Elbow: Biceps Tendon Reattachment, Ulnar or Radial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.

Shoulder: Rotator Cuff Repair, Bankart Repair, SLAP Lesion Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, Acromio-Clavicular Separation Repair. Deltoid Repair, Capsular Shift or Capsulolabral Repair.

Hand/Wrist: Scaphulolunate Ligament Reconstruction, Carpal Ligament Reconstruction, Repair/ Reconstruction of collateral ligaments, Repair of Flexor and Extensor Tendons at the PIP, DIP, and MCP joints for all digits, Digital Tendon Repair.

Foot/Ankle: Lateral Stabilization, Medial Stabilization, Achilles Tendon Repair, Metatarsal Ligament Repair, Hallux Valgus Reconstruction, Digital Tendon Transfers, Mid-foot Reconstruction.

Knee: Medial Collateral Ligament Repair, Lateral Collateral Ligament Repair, Patellar Tendon Repair, Posterior Oblique Ligament Repair, Illiotibial Band Tenodesis, Medial Patellofemoral Ligament (MPFL) Repair/Reconstruction, Quadriceps Tendon Repair.

Hip: Capsular Repair, Acetabular Labral Repair, Gluteal Tendon Repair, Proximal Hamstring Repair.

The Stryker ICONIX Anchors are intended for single use only.

The ICONIX Anchors, ICONIX TT Anchors, and ICONIX Anchors with Needles are soft tissue fixation devices with a push-in design, provided preloaded on a disposable inserter. ICONIX Anchors with Needles have needles attached to the free ends of all working sutures. All of the ICONIX All-Suture Anchors are composed of a sheath structure that contains one or more working sutures. The sheath bunches as the anchor is deployed to fixate in bone. Once the anchor has been inserted in the bone, the working sutures are used to complete the soft tissue repair or reconstruction procedure, in accordance with the surgeon's preferred technique for procedures within the indications for use.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (ICONIX All-Suture Anchor) seeking to expand its indications for use. It does not describe an AI/ML powered device, nor does it contain information about acceptance criteria, study details, or performance metrics in the context of an AI/ML study.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request as it pertains to AI/ML device performance. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for expanded surgical procedures, not on the performance of a new AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The 1688 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality is indicated for use in general laparoscopy, nasopharyngoscopy, ear endoscopy, sinuscopy, neurosurgery and plastic surgery whenever a laparoscope/ endoscope/ sinuscope/ sinuscope is indicated for use. The 1688 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality is indicated for use in adults and pediatric patients.

A few examples of the more common endoscope surgeries are laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic hernia repair. Iaparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic pelvic lymph node detection, laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy. Iaparoscopic anterior spinal fusion, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, nnee arthroscopy, small joint arthroscopy, decompression fixation, wedge resection, lung biopsy, pleural biopsy, dorsal sympathectomy, pleurodesis, internal mammary artery dissection for coronary artery bypass, coronary artery bypass grafting where endoscopic visualization is indicated and examination of the evacuated cardiac chamber during performance of valve replacement.

The 1688 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality is an endoscopic camera system that produces live video in the surgical field during surgical endoscopic procedures. The system is sensitive in the visible and infrared spectrums. The optical image is transferred from the surgical site to the camera head by a variety of rigid and flexible endoscopes, which are amera head. The 1688 4K Camera System consists of three main components: (1) a camera control unit (CCU); (2) a camera head with an integral cable that connects to the CCU; and (3) a coupler for attaching an endoscope to the camera head.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Stryker Endoscopy 1688 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, particularly in the context of clinical performance or AI-assisted improvements.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document focuses on regulatory approval based on equivalence to a previously approved device, primarily addressing mechanical and electrical safety, and performance as an endoscopic camera system, rather than AI-driven performance metrics or clinical study results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SPY Cystoscopes/Hysteroscopes are intended to provide visualization in general urological and gynecological surgery through the minimally invasive approach, by utilizing natural orifices to access the surgical site.

The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is part of Stryker's rigid endoscope product portfolio. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is an optical instrument used to visualize or image a patient's anatomy during minimally invasive, endoscopic procedures for examination, diagnosis or therapy. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope transmits light in the visible spectrum to illuminate the anatomy, then forms and relays the image of the surgical site to a camera system for image processing and display.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Stryker Endoscopy SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a standalone study proving specific clinical performance metrics with a test set, ground truth, or human reader involvement for an AI/ML device.

Therefore, the requested information regarding "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of an AI/ML device with details like sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, is not applicable to this document.

This document details:

• Device Type: A traditional medical device (optical instrument for visualization in surgery), not explicitly an AI/ML powered device.
• Regulatory Pathway: 510(k) Pre-market Notification, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed predicate device.
• Performance Testing: Primarily non-clinical bench testing and compliance with recognized voluntary consensus standards.

Here's a breakdown of what is provided, framed as closely as possible to your request, but highlighting the absence of AI/ML specific criteria:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document lists various performance tests and their "Pass" results, indicating that the device met the criteria set by the respective standards or comparative testing. The acceptance criteria themselves are implicitly defined by compliance with these standards (e.g., "In accordance with FDA-recognized voluntary consensus standard IEC 60601-1:2020").

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This document describes non-clinical testing of a physical medical device, not a performance study on a test set of data (e.g., images for an AI algorithm).

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 an AI/ML algorithm is not relevant to the described testing.

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. The device is a direct visualization tool, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative system for human readers.

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.): Not applicable. The "ground truth" here is compliance with established engineering and safety standards, and equivalence to a predicate device's performance.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. The device does not involve a training set as it's not an AI/ML product.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AlphaVent Knotless SP PEEK Anchor is intended to be used for soft-tissue to bone fixation in the shoulder, foot and ankle, knee, hand and wrist, elbow, and hip in skeletally mature pediatric and adult patients. It is indicated for use in the following procedures:

Shoulder: Rotator Cuff Repair, Bankart Repair, SLAP Lesion Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, Acromio-clavicular Separation Repair, Deltoid Repair, Capsular Shift or Capsulolabral Reconstruction

Foot/Ankle: Lateral Stabilization, Medial Stabilization, Achilles Tendon Repair, Hallux Valgus Reconstruction, Mid-foot Reconstruction, Metatarsal Ligament Repair/Tendon Repair

Knee: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair, Medial Collateral Ligament Repair, Lateral Collateral Ligament Repair, Patellar Tendon Repair, Posterior Oblique Ligament Repair, Iliotibial Band Tenodesis, Quadriceps Tendon Repair, Secondary or Adjunct Fixation for ACL/PCL Reconstruction or Repair, Meniscal Root Repair, MPFL Repair/Reconstruction

Hand/Wrist: Scapholunate Ligament Reconstruction, Ulnar or Radial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction

Elbow: Biceps Tendon Reattachment, Ulnar or Radial Collateral Reconstruction, Lateral Epicondylitis Repair

Hip: Capsular Repair, Acetabular Labral Repair, Gluteus Medius Repair, Proximal Hamstring Repair

The AlphaVent Knotless SP PEEK Anchors (herein referred to as the subject device(s)) are bone anchors with a screw-in mechanism. The subject device system is comprised of a poly-ether-etherketone (PEEK) eyelet and anchor body, pre-assembled onto a disposable stainless-steel inserter, which enables insertion of the anchor into bone via self-punching or after creation of a pilot hole. The devices are single use, provided sterile, and are packaged in sterile barrier systems (SBS). The AlphaVent Knotless SP PEEK Anchors are sterilized via Ethylene Oxide to a Sterility Assurance Level of 106. The devices are intended to be used in a professional healthcare facility.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the AlphaVent Knotless SP PEEK Anchor, a medical device. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study with acceptance criteria and device performance in the way typically seen for a diagnostic or AI-driven device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for describing acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this type of regulatory submission. This document highlights benchtop testing for product safety and equivalence, not clinical performance against ground truth.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, indicating when information is not present:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study (Based on 510(k) Summary)

This 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the AlphaVent Knotless SP PEEK Anchor to a legally marketed predicate device (Arthrex SwiveLock Anchor, K203495) and a reference device (Stryker AlphaVent PEEK Suture Anchor, K231093). The "study" described is a series of non-clinical benchtop tests, a biological risk assessment, and bacterial endotoxin testing, designed to show the new device performs at least as safely and effectively as the predicate.

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

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

The 1788 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality is indicated for use in general laparoscopy, nasopharyngoscopy, ear endoscopy, sinuscopy, neurosurgery and plastic surgery whenever a laparoscope/ endoscope/ arthroscope/ sinuscope is indicated for use. The 1788 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality is indicated for use in adults and pediatric patients.

A few examples of the more common endoscope surgeries are Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic hernia repair, Laparoscopic appendectomy, Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node detection. Laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy. Laparoscopic and thorascopic anterior spinal fusion, Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, Knee arthroscopy, Small joint arthroscopy, Decompression fixation, Wedge resection, Lung biopsy, Pleural biopsy, Dorsal sympathectomy, Pleurodesis, Internal mammary artery dissection for coronary artery bypass, Coronary artery bypass grafting where endoscopic visualization is indicated and Examination of the evacuated cardiac chamber during performance of valve replacement.

The users of the 1788 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality are general and pediatric surgeons, gynecologists, cardiac surgeons, thoracic surgeons, plastic surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, ENT/neurosurgeons and urologists.

The 1788 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality is an endoscopic camera system that produces live video in the surgical field during surgical endoscopic procedures. The system is sensitive in the visible, infrared spectrums. The optical image is transferred from the surgical site to the camera head by a variety of rigid and flexible to the camera head. The 1788 4K Camera System consists of three main components: (1) a camera control unit (CCU); (2) a camera head with an integral cable that connects to the CCU; and (3) a coupler for attaching an endoscope to the camera head.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets acceptance criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Stryker Endoscopy 1788 4K Camera System with Advanced Imaging Modality.

It primarily focuses on:

• Regulatory Clearance: Affirming that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.
• Device Description: A brief overview of the camera system and its components.
• Indications for Use: The specific medical procedures and patient populations for which the device is intended.
• Technological Comparison: Stating that the subject device has similar technological characteristics to its predicate, with the addition of an optical shutter.
• Non-Clinical Testing Summary: Listing various non-clinical bench, software, EMC, and electrical safety tests performed to standards like IEC 62304, IEC 60601, and ANSI AAMI ES 60601. It concludes that these tests successfully completed to conform with recognized safety standards and design specifications.
• Absence of Clinical Studies: Explicitly stating, "The subject devices do not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence."

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information such as:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample size and data provenance for a test set.
3. Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study results.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
7. Type of ground truth used.
8. Training set sample size.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established.

This document indicates that substantial equivalence was determined based on non-clinical testing against recognized safety standards and a comparison of technologies, rather than through a clinical study with detailed performance metrics and ground truth establishment against an AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device