Search Results

The StealthStation® System is intended as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures in either open or percutaneous procedures. The StealthStation® System is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as the skull, a long bone, or vertebra, can be identified relative to a CT or MR based model or fluoroscopy images of the anatomy.

Example procedures include, but are not limited to:

Cranial Procedures:
Cranial Biopsies Placement Tumor Resections Craniotomies/ Craniectomies Skull Base procedures Thalamotomies/Pallidotomies Pituitary Tumor Removal CSF Leak Repair Pediatric Catheter Shunt Placement General Catheter Shunt Placement

Spinal Procedures:
Spinal Implant Procedures, such as Pedicle Screw

ENT Procedures:
Transphenoidal Procedures Intranasal Procedures Orbital Nerve Decompression Procedures Optic Nerve Decompression Procedures Polyposis Procedures Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy Encephalocele Procedures Sinus procedures, such as Maxillary Antrostomies, Ethmoidectomies, Sphenoidotomies/Sphenoid Explorations, Turbinate Resections.and Frontal Sinusotomies

Orthopedic Procedures:
Total Knee Arthroplasty (Primary and Revision) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Minimally Invasive Orthopedic Procedures Pediatric Orthopedics Total Hip Replacement (Primary and Revision) Periacetabular Osteotomies Tumor Resection and Bone/Joint Reconstruction Femoral Revision Stabilization and Repair of Pelvic Fractures (Including but not Limited to Acetabular Fractures)

This submission allows a surgeon an image guided instrument to place catheter shunts. The Catheter Introducer for the StealthStation® System is technically equivalent to the StealthStation® System. All systems use either active(LED's), passive reflective markers or electromagnetic coils to track surgical instruments in relation to an image guided reference frame. This information is correlated to the patient's CT, MR or fluoroscopic images of the anatomy.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a Catheter Introducer for the StealthStation® System. It describes the device, its indications for use, and a determination of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, specific device performance metrics, or details of a study demonstrating fulfillment of such criteria.

The document primarily focuses on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence, rather than a detailed performance study with defined acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this text.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided input:

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

• Cannot be provided. The document does not define specific acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy thresholds, failure rates) or report detailed device performance metrics from a study against such criteria. The "verification and validation activities" mentioned generally indicate testing was done but no specific results or targets are shared.

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

• Cannot be provided. The document does not describe a clinical study or a test set, hence no sample size, data provenance, or study design (retrospective/prospective) is available.

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)

• Cannot be provided. No information about ground truth establishment or experts involved is present, as no specific test set is detailed.

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

• Cannot be provided. No adjudication method is mentioned, as no test set or expert review process is described.

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

• Cannot be provided. This document is for a surgical navigation system, not an AI diagnostic tool. No MRMC study is mentioned, nor is there any AI component that would involve human readers improving with AI assistance.

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

• Cannot be provided. This device is an instrument for a surgical navigation system, which inherently involves human interaction (a surgeon using the instrument). The concept of "standalone" algorithm performance without human-in-the-loop is not applicable in this context.

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

• Cannot be provided. No ground truth type is mentioned as no specific performance study is detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Cannot be provided. This document describes a medical device, not a machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set" in the context of this submission. "Verification and validation activities" were performed, but these are typically engineering tests, not machine learning model training.

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

• Cannot be provided. As there is no training set for a machine learning model, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device