Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(87 days)
This product is intended to pass suture through soft tissue lavers (fascia, muscle and perioneum) of a trocar wound at the end of laparoscopic surgery.
It is to be used only by surgeons trained in endoscopic/laparoscopic surgery.
The CrossBow Fascial Closure System is a set of single-use instruments primarily intended for the use of closing soft tissue layers (fascia, muscle and peritoneum) of a trocar wound following laparoscopic surgery. The CrossBow Fascial Closure System has two basic components: (1) a suture passer component used to pass suture through the abdominal wall, and (2) a guide used to repeatedly direct the needle through the abdominal wall using visual markers to reference the needle puncture location off the inner wall of the abdomen. The guide has two deployable snare loops used to secure and retrieve the free ends of suture passed by the suture passer. The device also has an accessory adaptor to accommodate larger size port defects.
The provided document describes the CrossBow Fascial Closure System and its substantial equivalence determination. Here's a breakdown of the requested information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Validation and/or Verification Method | Acceptance Value/Criteria | Verification and Validation Results |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical Testing (Needle Penetration) | To require comparable or less penetration force than competitive devices | Acceptable |
| Mechanical Testing (Snare Loop Integrity) | To exceed the strength of the expected loading requirements | Acceptable |
| Mechanical Testing (Needle Security in Passer) | To exceed the strength of the expected loading requirements | Acceptable |
| Mechanical Testing (Guide Suture Security) | To exceed the strength of the expected loading requirements | Acceptable |
| Mechanical Testing (Targeting & No. of Uses) | To provide accurate performance and expected number of uses | Acceptable |
| Surgeon Validation Lab (Animal model) | Successful placement of suture and closure of defect | Acceptable |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each mechanical test. However, it indicates a "Surgeon Validation Lab (Animal model)" was performed as part of the non-clinical performance data. The exact number of animals or trials within this model is not stated. The data provenance is implied to be from the manufacturer's internal testing as part of their 510(k) submission. No specific country of origin for data or whether it was retrospective/prospective is mentioned, but typically such validation studies are prospective for regulatory submissions.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
The document mentions "Surgeon Validation Lab (Animal model)" and that the device is "to be used only by surgeons trained in endoscopic/laparoscopic surgery." This indirectly suggests that surgeons were involved in validating the device, but it does not state the number of experts nor their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, board certification) for establishing ground truth in the animal model.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set results. The acceptance criteria for the mechanical tests are objective (e.g., "to exceed the strength," "to require comparable or less penetration force"), and the animal model criterion is "Successful placement of suture and closure of defect," which would likely be a direct observation by the participating surgeons.
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
A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is a surgical instrument, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically involve "human readers" or AI assistance in the way described. The comparative effectiveness assessment was against a predicate device (Weck EFx Fascial Closure System, K132362) based on mechanical and performance testing.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
This does not apply. The CrossBow Fascial Closure System is a physical surgical instrument, not an algorithm, and inherently requires human-in-the-loop performance (i.e., a surgeon). Standalone performance would refer to the device's mechanical integrity as tested, which was indeed evaluated.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
For the mechanical tests, the ground truth was based on objective measurements against defined criteria (e.g., strength, force, accuracy, number of uses). For the "Surgeon Validation Lab (Animal model)," the ground truth was direct observation and assessment of the successful placement of suture and closure of defect, likely by the surgeons performing the procedure in the lab. This could be considered a form of expert assessment based on procedural success.
8. The sample size for the training set
This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device and not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set."
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device and not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set."
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1