Search Results

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Versaport V2 Bladeless Optical Trocar is intended for use in a variety of gynecologic, general, thoracic and urologic endoscopic procedures to create and maintain a port of entry. The trocar may be used with or without visualization for primary and secondary insertions.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Versaport V2 Bladeless Optical Trocar 5-mm, 11-mm and 12-mm, with transparent cannula and obturator, allows optical entry for visualization of tissue layers during insertion. It is available in standard (100 mm), short (70 mm) and long (150 mm) cannula lengths. The obturator housing contains a scope retention mechanism and the trocar housing contains internal seals to prevent loss of pneumoperitoneum when instruments are inserted into a port or withdrawn completely from a port. The 5-mm, 11-mm and 12-mm Versaport seal system accommodate instruments indicated as 5-mm up to 11-mm and 12-mm respectively.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a reprocessed medical device, the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Versaport V2 Bladeless Optical Trocar. It asserts substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on functional performance studies, cleaning performance, biocompatibility, and sterilization and packaging validations. However, it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria (thresholds) for each performance test, nor does it present detailed "device performance" in a comparative table against those criteria. It also does not describe a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of clinical trials or multi-reader multi-case studies, but rather product verification and validation testing.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding detailed acceptance criteria, specific performance numbers, sample sizes for test sets (beyond the implied "models included in clearance"), data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies is not available in the provided document. The document describes a technical testing scheme for reprocessing rather than a study evaluating diagnostic AI performance.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria (Not explicitly stated as numerical thresholds in this document)
The document states that the functional characteristics were "evaluated and were found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device based on the following tests." This implies that the acceptance criteria for the reprocessed device were to perform comparably to the original predicate device on these tests. Actual numerical or qualitative thresholds for "passing" these tests are not provided.

Reported Device Performance:
The document does not provide specific numerical or qualitative performance results for the reprocessed device. It only states that the device was "found to be substantially equivalent" based on the described tests.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document lists 15 specific reprocessed device models (combinations of diameter, length, and fixation/smooth cannula) that were included in the clearance. For each of these models, it implies that representative samples were tested across the various performance evaluations. However, the exact number of units tested for each specific test (e.g., how many devices were tested for seal leakage) is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The studies are described as "Performance Testing" conducted by the submitter, Medline ReNewal. This implies the data were generated prospectively as part of this 510(k) submission process for the reprocessed device. The country of origin for the data is not explicitly stated, but Medline ReNewal is based in Redmond, Oregon, USA, suggesting the testing was likely conducted in the USA or supervised by their US-based QA/RA department.

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

• This information is not applicable and not provided. The device is a surgical trocar, not an AI/diagnostic imaging device where "ground truth" would typically be established by expert readers or pathology. The "ground truth" for this device's performance relies on engineering and biological safety standards for reprocessing and functional equivalence to the original device.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 typically refer to expert consensus in interpreting images or clinical data, which is not relevant to the described performance testing of a surgical instrument.

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

• This information is not applicable and not provided. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, but a reprocessed surgical instrument. Therefore, MRMC studies and the concept of human reader improvement with AI are not relevant.

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

• This information is not applicable and not provided. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

7. The type of ground truth used

• As mentioned, the concept of "ground truth" in the context of expert consensus or pathology is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's substantial equivalence is based on meeting engineering performance specifications, cleaning efficacy, biocompatibility standards, and sterilization validation results, all benchmarked against the original (predicate) device's validated performance and relevant regulatory standards (e.g., ISO standards for biocompatibility).

8. The sample size for the training set

• This information is not applicable and not provided. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set. The "training" for this device would refer to the validated reprocessing procedures, not data used for an algorithm.

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

• This information is not applicable and not provided for the reasons stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Compression Limb Sleeves are designed to be used with a pump system to apply sequential compression to the lower limbs to prevent deep vein thrombosis.

Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Compression Limb Sleeves are used with a pump system to apply sequential compression to the lower limbs (leg and foot). They are made of a variety of materials and come in various sizes. They are originally manufactured as single use devices.

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device and does not contain the detailed information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study that proves the device meets those criteria. The document explicitly states:

• "The functional characteristics of the proposed devices have been evaluated and found to be equivalent to the predicate devices after the specified number of reprocessing cycles."
• "Testing included: bioburden testing; biocompatibility testing (cytotoxicity, irritation, sensitization); cleaning process validation; equipment qualification; and visual inspection."

While these are types of tests performed, the document does not provide:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: It lists types of tests but not specific criteria (e.g., "bioburden must be

Ask a specific question about this device