Search Results

The 8 mm Trocar has application in a variety of endoscopic procedures to provide a port of entry for endoscopic instruments.

The 8 mm Trocar consists of a cannula, an obturator, and a universal cannula seal. It provides a port of entry for endoscopic instruments typically through the abdominal or chest wall of the patient during endoscopic surgery. It is available in standard and long versions. The universal seal contains a valve and stopcock to allow for insufflation and the cannula has a fin for attachment to the da Vinci Surgical System and markings for placing the remote center in the body wall. The three components are packaged as a kit, and the obturator and cannula seal also packaged individually.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the 8mm Trocar, and therefore does not contain the specific acceptance criteria and detailed study results typically found in a clinical trial report or a comprehensive performance validation study. The FDA 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific numerical acceptance criteria through extensive clinical studies.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted, and what is not available from this document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Specific numerical acceptance criteria are not provided in this 510(k) summary. For devices like a surgical trocar, acceptance criteria would typically involve performance benchmarks for:
  • Mechanical Strength: Withstand insertion forces, resist bending/breakage during use.
  • Sealing Integrity: Maintain pneumoperitoneum/insufflation pressure.
  • Leakage: Minimize gas leakage around instruments.
  • Ease of Insertion/Withdrawal: Low friction for instruments.
  • ** biocompatibility:** Materials ensure patient safety.
  • Sterility: Achieved and maintained.
  • Dimensional Accuracy: Meet specified tolerances.
  • Human Factors/Usability: Safe and effective use by operators.
• Reported Device Performance: The document states: "Performance test data (bench, animal and cadaver tests) demonstrate that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the design output meets the design input requirements. The testing conducted consisted of dimensional measurements, functional verification, and simulated use in animal and cadaver models." It also mentions a "summative usability validation study." These are general statements of compliance, but specific quantitative results or how they directly align with unstated acceptance criteria are not provided.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "bench, animal and cadaver tests" and a "summative usability validation study" but does not give the number of devices tested, animals used, cadaveric trials, or human participants.
• Data Provenance: The document implies the data was generated by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. as part of this submission. It's an industry-sponsored study. It mentions "animal and cadaver models," suggesting prospective testing specific to this device. No country of origin for the data is explicitly stated, but as an FDA submission, the primary data generation likely took place in the US or in compliance with US regulatory standards.

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

• For Performance Testing (Bench, Animal, Cadaver): The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing ground truth for these tests. For these types of tests, "ground truth" would often be defined by engineering specifications, direct physical measurements, and observational outcomes.
• For Usability Study: The document states: "A summative usability validation study was conducted with users (surgeons and operating room staff) for the 8 mm Trocar." It does not specify the number of surgeons or OR staff, nor their detailed qualifications (e.g., years of experience). These users would serve as the "experts" providing feedback on usability and safety.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe any formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus) for establishing ground truth or evaluating performance. For engineering and functional tests, results are typically objective measurements. For the usability study, standard human factors methodologies would be applied to analyze user feedback and performance observations.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No MRMC study was done. This type of study is typically relevant for interpretative diagnostic devices (e.g., AI for radiology images) where multiple human readers assess cases, and their performance is compared with and without AI assistance. The 8mm trocar is a surgical instrument, not a diagnostic device, so an MRMC study is not applicable.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

• Not applicable. The 8mm trocar is a physical surgical instrument, not an algorithm or AI system. Therefore, "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm is not relevant. Its performance is always tied to human use (surgeon and OR staff).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Engineering/Functional Tests: Ground truth would be based on objective measurements (e.g., dimensional accuracy, force measurements), defined specifications/requirements, and observational outcomes in animal/cadaver models (e.g., successful instrument passage, maintenance of insufflation, absence of damage).
• For Usability Study: Ground truth is derived from user feedback and observations of task completion, errors, and critical incidents during simulated use cases, validated against predefined safety and effectiveness criteria.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. The 8mm trocar is a physical medical device, not an AI or machine learning algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the computational sense. The device's design is developed through engineering principles, bench testing, and iterative design, not by training an algorithm on a dataset.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set for a physical device like a trocar, this question is not relevant. Design inputs and requirements guide the development, and "ground truth" for these are established through clinical need, engineering standards, and regulatory requirements.

Ask a specific question about this device