Search Results

The AQUABEAM® Robotic System is intended for the resection and removal of prostate tissue in males suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The AQUABEAM® Robotic System is intended for use in patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) resulting from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The AQUABEAM Robotic System is designed for resecting of prostate tissue during minimally invasive surgical procedures. The AQUABEAM Handpiece and AQUABEAM Scope are inserted via transurethral approach and advanced into the prostatic urethra. The AQUABEAM Robotic System is designed to utilize a high-velocity sterile saline waterjet as the cutting medium which is projected through a nozzle positioned within the prostatic urethra. The nozzle assembly motion is driven by a motor system, controlled by the user. The pressure is generated by a high-pressure pump system controlled by the AQUABEAM Console. The user is allowed to adjust the desired flow rates manually. All functions are displayed on the AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit. Pre-condition parameters are set on the AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit before operation. The AQUABEAM Robotic System, consists of the following nine components: AQUABEAM Console, AQUABEAM Motorpack, AQUABEAM Foot pedal, AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit, AQUABEAM Roll Stand, AQUABEAM Handpiece Articulating Arm, AQUABEAM TRUS Articulating Arm, AQUABEAM Handpiece, AQUABEAM Scope.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the AQUABEAM® Robotic System, which is intended for the resection and removal of prostate tissue. However, this document does not contain acceptance criteria or study data demonstrating the device meets specific performance criteria in the way that would typically be presented for an AI/ML medical device submission.

Instead, this 510(k) submission primarily focuses on:

• Device Description: What the AQUABEAM Robotic System is and how it works.
• Indications for Use: The medical conditions it is intended to treat.
• Technological Characteristics: Stating that these are unchanged from the predicate device.
• Device Comparison: Detailing changes only to the device labeling (specifically, to the contraindications section).
• Performance Data: Listing pre-existing non-clinical data (biocompatibility, sterilization, software/firmware verification, electrical safety, usability, system design validation, reliability testing) relied upon. This section does not outline new performance criteria or data related to the device's efficacy for tissue removal.
• Clinical Data Summary: Discussing a sub-group analysis from the WATER study (NCT02505919) and a study on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the context of the labeling change for contraindications, specifically regarding patients with diagnosed or suspected prostate cancer. This is to justify removing a contraindication, not to establish new performance metrics for the device's primary function of tissue removal.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and study data proving the device meets those criteria, as it is not present in the provided text. The document states that "The device's technological characteristics are unchanged, therefore no further non-clinical performance test data is required to support the subject device." and relies on prior non-clinical data and clinical data to support a change in contraindications.

The provided text does not contain:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes or data provenance for a test set proving performance for tissue removal.
3. Number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for a test set.
4. Adjudication method for a test set.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study results or effect size for AI assistance.
6. Standalone performance results.
7. Type of ground truth used for performance validation.
8. Sample size for a training set.
9. How ground truth for a training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AQUABEAM® Robotic System is intended for the resection and removal of prostate tissue in males suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The AQUABEAM® Robotic System is intended for use in patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) resulting from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The AQUABEAM Robotic System is designed for resecting of prostate tissue during minimally invasive surgical procedures. The AQUABEAM Handpiece and AQUABEAM Scope are inserted via transurethral approach and advanced into the prostatic urethra.

The AQUABEAM Robotic System is designed to utilize a high-velocity sterile saline waterjet as the cutting medium which is projected through a nozzle positioned within the prostatic urethra. The nozzle assembly motion is driven by a motor system, controlled by the user. The pressure is generated by a highpressure pump system controlled by the AQUABEAM Console. The user is allowed to adjust the desired flow rates manually. All functions are displayed on the AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit. Precondition parameters are set on the AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit before operation.

The AQUABEAM Robotic System, consists of the following nine components:

• . AQUABEAM Console
• . AQUABEAM Motorpack
• AQUABEAM Foot pedal .
• . AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit
• AQUABEAM Roll Stand
• . AQUABEAM Handpiece Articulating Arm
• AQUABEAM TRUS Articulating Arm
• AQUABEAM Handpiece •
• . AQUABEAM Scope

Based on the provided text, the device in question is the PROCEPT BioRobotics AQUABEAM® Robotic System.

It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary for a Special 510(k), which means the device is being cleared as substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device (AQUABEAM Robotic System 510(k) Number: K202961). The changes described are minor modifications related to sterility and the use life of a component. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" are primarily focused on demonstrating that these minor changes do not compromise the safety and effectiveness established in the predicate device's clearance.

The document does not provide details of acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets initial acceptance criteria in the way one might expect for a de novo device or a PMA application. Instead, it relies on substantial equivalence to a predicate device and non-clinical testing to confirm that the changes made do not negatively impact performance.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria and performance data for this Special 510(k) relate specifically to the changes made to the predicate device, primarily the sterilization method for the AQUABEAM Scope and its updated use life. The document asserts that the fundamental performance characteristics (e.g., maximum angle rotation, maximum depth of penetration) remain the same as the predicate.

Important Note: The original 510(k) for the predicate device (K202961) would contain the clinical trial data and design verification/validation testing that established the primary safety and effectiveness of the system for prostate tissue removal. This Special 510(k) is a supplement for minor changes.

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

• For the non-clinical testing described in this Special 510(k) (sterilization, biocompatibility, reliability of the scope): The document does not specify the sample sizes used for these specific tests (e.g., how many scopes were tested for sterility or reliability).
• For any pre-existing "Clinical Trial data" referenced from the predicate device: The specific sample sizes and data provenance for the clinical studies supporting the predicate device's original clearance are not provided in this document. The document simply states "Clinical Trial data" was performed on the predicate device and is still applicable.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications of Experts

This document pertains to a device (AQUABEAM Robotic System) for prostate tissue removal, not an AI/imaging diagnostic device. Ground truth, in the context of this device, would typically refer to the clinical outcomes and validation of its physical performance during surgery, rather than a diagnostic AI's performance against expert-labeled images.

Therefore, the concepts of "number of experts used to establish ground truth for the test set" and "qualifications of those experts" are not applicable in the context of this device's regulatory submission as described here. The "experts" involved would be the clinical investigators and surgeons who participated in the clinical trials supporting the predicate device's clearance.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

As this is not an AI/imaging diagnostic device requiring expert adjudication of image interpretations, an adjudication method for a test set is not applicable in the context of this device's regulatory review as described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of Human Improvement with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

This is not applicable as the AQUABEAM Robotic System is a surgical device, not an AI or imaging diagnostic device where MRMC studies are typically performed.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This is not applicable for the same reasons as above. The device is a robotic surgical system, not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

For the overall performance of the AQUABEAM Robotic System (as established by the predicate device's original clearance and affirmed by this Special 510(k)), the "ground truth" would be clinical outcomes data related to prostate tissue removal and improvement in LUTS due to BPH, potentially supported by pathology of removed tissue and confirmed through clinical follow-up.

For the specific non-clinical tests in this Special 510(k) (sterilization, biocompatibility, scope reliability), the "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering and biological standards (e.g., SAL of 10^-6 for sterility, passing cytotoxicity tests, meeting internal design specifications for cycles).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. The AQUABEAM Robotic System is a hardware-based medical device for surgery. It is not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable for the same reasons as #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AQUABEAM® Robotic System is intended for the resection and removal of prostate tissue in males suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The AQUABEAM® Robotic System is intended for use in patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) resulting from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The AQUABEAM Robotic System is designed for resecting of prostate tissue during minimally invasive surgical procedures. The AQUABEAM Handpiece and AQUABEAM Scope are inserted via transurethral approach and advanced into the prostatic urethra.

The AQUABEAM Robotic System is designed to utilize a high-velocity sterile saline wateriet as the cutting medium which is projected through a nozzle positioned within the prostatic urethra. The nozzle assembly motion is driven by a motor system, controlled by the user. The pressure is generated by a high-pressure pump system controlled by the AQUABEAM Console. The user is allowed to adjust the desired flow rates manually. All functions are displayed on the AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit. Pre-condition parameters are set on the AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit before operation.

The AQUABEAM Robotic System, consists of the following nine components:

• AQUABEAM Console .
• . AQUABEAM Motorpack
• . AQUABEAM Foot pedal
• AQUABEAM Conformal Planning Unit .
• . AQUABEAM Roll Stand
• AQUABEAM Handpiece Articulating Arm
• . AQUABEAM TRUS Articulating Arm
• . AQUABEAM Handpiece
• . AQUABEAM Scope

The provided text describes the AQUABEAM® Robotic System and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (DEN170024). It details various non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate this equivalence, but does not include information about acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria in a quantitative manner (e.g., using specific metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy with established thresholds).

The document focuses on verification testing to show that changes to the device (e.g., software, hardware) perform as intended and that the system remains substantially equivalent to the previously cleared predicate device.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is available, and what is missing based on your request:

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

The document provides a table of "Non-Clinical Testing" and "Conclusion" which states that "all acceptance criteria were met" for various categories. However, it does not explicitly define those acceptance criteria (e.g., "Software performed as intended" is a conclusion, not a measurable criterion with a numerical target). Therefore, a detailed table as requested cannot be constructed from the provided text.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The text mentions "cadaver study" for design validation, but doesn't specify sample size, origin, or retrospective/prospective nature.

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)

This information is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

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/not provided. The device is a robotic system for surgical resection, not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool for human readers in the context of image interpretation.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. The device is a physical robotic system, not an algorithm in the typical sense of standalone AI performance.

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

For the system design validation, the document mentions a "cadaver study." While it doesn't explicitly state the "ground truth" for this cadaver study, it implies that the performance of the system in resecting prostate tissue on cadavers served as a proxy for validating its functionality. The nature of the ground truth (e.g., precise tissue removal confirmed by dissection or imaging) is not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/not provided. The device is a robotic system, not a machine learning model that undergoes a "training set."

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

This information is not applicable/not provided for the same reason as point 8.

Summary of available information related to acceptance criteria and performance:

The document states that a variety of non-clinical tests were performed on the AQUABEAM Robotic System to demonstrate substantial equivalence to its predicate device. For each category of testing, the conclusion is that "all acceptance criteria were met." However, the specific metrics and thresholds for these "acceptance criteria" are not detailed.

Here's what the document indicates regarding testing and conclusions:

Table of Acceptance "Criteria" (Implicit) and Reported Device Performance:

Additional relevant points from the text:

• Clinical Trial Data: "Existing clinical trial data is sufficient to establish the safety and effectiveness of the subject device, AQUABEAM Robotic System with the changes in design subject of this traditional 510(k) do not change the mode of operation/mechanism of action of the device." This indicates that previous clinical data for the predicate device, which shares the same indications for use and mechanism of action, is being leveraged, eliminating the need for new clinical trials for this specific 510(k) submission.
• The 510(k) submission is for changes to an existing, already cleared device, demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate (DEN170024). The focus is on showing that the changes do not negatively impact safety or effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device