Search Results

The Bioceptive Suction Cervical Retractor is indicated to snare, grasp, hold and manipulate cervical tissue.

Not Found

This is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device called the Bioceptive Suction Cervical Retractor. This type of document generally does not include detailed information about acceptance criteria and performance studies in the way you've requested for an AI/CAD device.

Here's why and what can be extracted:

• Device Type: The Bioceptive Suction Cervical Retractor is a manual surgical instrument. It's not an AI/CAD system or a diagnostic device that typically relies on specific metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC as primary acceptance criteria.
• 510(k) Process: The 510(k) pathway demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily superior performance against a rigid set of quantitative criteria in the same way an AI device might. The focus is on ensuring the new device is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices.
• Content of the Letter: This letter confirms the FDA's decision regarding substantial equivalence based on a premarket notification. It doesn't contain the actual study data or detailed acceptance criteria for the device's functional performance beyond typical safety and efficacy considerations for a manual surgical tool.

Therefore, for this specific document and device, I cannot provide the complete information you requested. However, I can infer what would typically be relevant for such a device and what might have been part of the underlying submission if it were an AI device.

Information Extracted/Inferred (with significant limitations due to device type):

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

   • Acceptance Criteria: For a manual surgical instrument, acceptance criteria generally relate to:
     • Biocompatibility: The materials used must be safe for contact with human tissue.
     • Sterilization: The device must be able to be effectively sterilized.
     • Mechanical Strength/Durability: The device must withstand expected forces during use without breaking or failing.
     • Functional Performance (non-AI): The device must effectively "snare, grasp, hold and manipulate cervical tissue" as intended. This is typically demonstrated through bench testing, simulated use, and potentially animal or cadaver studies, but not with typical AI metrics.
     • Safety: No increased risk of harm compared to predicate devices.
   • Reported Device Performance: The letter indicates the device is "substantially equivalent." This implies that the performance in the areas listed above was deemed comparable to existing devices. Specific quantitative metrics like sensitivity or specificity are not applicable or provided here.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable/Provided. For a manual surgical device, "test set" would refer to the samples used for mechanical testing, biocompatibility testing, or in-vitro/ex-vivo studies. This information is not in the clearance letter.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable/Provided. Ground truth for a manual instrument's performance is typically established by engineering tests and clinical evaluation by surgeons, rather than expert consensus on diagnostic interpretations.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable/Provided.

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 is not an AI-assisted device.

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

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For a manual device, ground truth would relate to its physical and mechanical properties, sterility, and performance in achieving its stated function (e.g., successful grasping of tissue without damage). This is typically established through engineering standards, material testing, and surgical observation (if clinical studies were part of the submission).

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory clearance letter for a manual medical instrument. It does not contain the detailed performance data or study specifics that would be present for an AI-powered diagnostic device, which is what your questions seem to anticipate.

Ask a specific question about this device