Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(51 days)
Disposable Laparoscope Trocar
The Disposable Laparoscope Trocar has applications in abdominal, thoracic, and gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures to establish a path of entry for endoscopic instruments. The trocar may be used with or without visualization for primary and secondary insertions.
The proposed device is a basic equipment used during laparoscopic surgical, and the surgical device will enter into abdominal cavity via the passage established by the trocar. The proposed device is available in 5mm, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm four diameters to accommodate different sizes surgical instrument.
The document provided is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device called "Disposable Laparoscope Trocar." This summary describes the device and its equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on non-clinical testing. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria for a device performance study in the context of diagnostic accuracy, AI, or human reader performance.
Instead, the "acceptance criteria" discussed are related to standard engineering and biocompatibility tests for a surgical instrument. The study described is a series of non-clinical bench tests and an in-vivo animal study to demonstrate the safety and foundational performance characteristics of the trocar.
Therefore, many of the requested categories (such as sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, etc.) are not applicable to this type of submission.
Here's a breakdown of the available information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the benchmarks set by the predicate and reference devices, and by compliance with relevant ISO and ASTM standards. The reported device performance is mainly comparative to these existing devices and standards.
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Predicate/Standards) | Reported Device Performance (Subject Device K201641) |
|---|---|
| Biocompatibility: Complied with ISO 10993 standards for Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Intracutaneous, System Toxicity, Pyrogen. | Comply with ISO 10993 standards (for Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Intracutaneous, System Toxicity, Pyrogen) |
| Insertion Force: Comparable to predicate/reference devices (e.g., BLTC12 Average 4.2 N, B5LT Average 2.35 N) | RJTC-A5: Average 2.25 N |
| RJTC-A15: Average 4.08 N | |
| Removal Force: Comparable to predicate/reference devices (e.g., BLTC12 Average 10.19 N, B5LT Average 6.27 N) | RJTC-A5: Average 6.37 N |
| RJTC-A15: Average 10.31 N | |
| Leak Resistance: No Leakage | No Leakage |
| Snap Feature Retention Force: Comparable to predicate/reference devices (e.g., BLTC12 Average 11.98 N, B5LT Average 1.69 N) | RJTC-A5: Average 1.8 N |
| RJTC-A15: Average 11.8 N | |
| Sterilization Assurance Level (SAL): 10^-6 | 10^-6 |
| Endotoxin Limit: 20 EU per device | 20 EU per device |
| Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Residuals: Complies with ISO 10993-7:2008 | (Tested, implied compliance) |
| Bacterial Endotoxin Limit: Complies with USP | (Tested, implied compliance) |
| Seal Strength: Complies with ASTM F88/F88M-15 | (Tested, implied compliance) |
| Seal Leaks (Dye Penetration): Complies with ASTM F1929-15 | (Tested, implied compliance) |
| Tip Integrity: Maintained after insertion (from in vivo study) | (Evaluated, implied satisfactory) |
| Visualization Performance (for optical type): Adequate (from in vivo study) | (Evaluated, implied satisfactory) |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each specific bench test, but implied to be sufficient for statistical validity in engineering tests. For the in vivo study, it mentions a "porcine model," implying a number of animal subjects were used, but the exact count is not given.
- Data Provenance: Not specified where these tests were conducted, beyond the applicant being Beijing Biosis Healing Biological Technology Co., Ltd. (China). The tests are presumably retrospective data collected during device development.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
- This is not applicable as the evaluation involves physical and chemical property testing, not subjective expert assessment of clinical data or images.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- This is not applicable. Objective measurements and established testing protocols are used.
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 is not applicable as the device is a physical surgical tool (trocar), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- This is not applicable as the device is a physical surgical tool and does not involve an algorithm.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
- The "ground truth" for these tests are the established definitions and methodologies within the cited ISO and ASTM standards, as well as the performance characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices. For biocompatibility, it's the biological response as per standardized tests. For mechanical properties, it's the quantifiable physical measurements.
- For the in vivo study, the ground truth would be the direct observation of insertion force, fixation force, visualization, and tip integrity in a live biological model.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
- This is not applicable as there is no "training set" in the context of a physical medical device. This is not an AI/machine learning device.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- This is not applicable for the same reason as above.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1