Search Results

The Easy Guide™ is indicated for use in diagnostic breast biopsy procedures to penetrate the breast under ultrasound guidance and provide a passageway through which a diagnostic biopsy of a breast may be performed.

The SenoRx Easy Guide™ Electrosurgical Access Device consists of a monopolar electrosurgical trocar used to penetrate the breast, and a cannula to provide a passageway through which a breast biopsy instrument may be placed.

This device, SenoRx Easy Guide™ Electrosurgical Access Device, is a Class II electrosurgical cutting and coagulation device. The provided text is a 510(k) summary and associated FDA correspondence, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting the results of a comprehensive study with acceptance criteria and detailed device performance metrics. Therefore, it does not contain the specific information required to complete all sections of your request.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text for the aspects that can be addressed:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided 510(k) summary does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria in terms of quantitative performance metrics, nor does it report detailed device performance data from a clinical or technical study. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on intended use, design, construction, materials, and technology.

Study Details (Based on available information)

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification and an FDA clearance letter. Such submissions primarily focus on establishing "substantial equivalence" to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than comprehensive clinical trials with detailed performance metrics and statistical analyses as might be found in a PMA submission or a detailed clinical study report.

Therefore, many of the requested details about a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" are not present in this type of regulatory document.

Here's what can be gathered, or explicitly stated as "not applicable" or "not provided":

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

   • Not provided. The document does not describe a specific clinical test set for performance evaluation. The substantial equivalence argument typically relies on bench testing, materials testing, and a comparison of technical specifications to predicate devices, rather than a prospective clinical study with a "test set" in the sense of patient data.

2. 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):

   • Not applicable / Not provided. Since no clinical test set for diagnostic accuracy or similar performance is described, there's no mention of experts establishing a ground truth for such a set.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. As no clinical test set requiring adjudication is described, this information is not relevant to the content.

4. 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:

   • No. This device is an electrosurgical access device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant and was not performed.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a hardware device; no algorithm-only performance study would be relevant.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. Given that the device is an electrosurgical access tool rather than a diagnostic device requiring truth determination for disease, this concept is not discussed. The "ground truth" for this type of device would relate more to its mechanical and electrical safety, and its ability to create a passageway, which would typically be assessed through engineering and bench testing, not expert consensus on pathology.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set."

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI model, this question is not relevant.

In summary, the provided 510(k) documentation focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to pre-existing devices based on design, materials, and intended use, rather than presenting detailed clinical study data with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics for a new, innovative technology.

Ask a specific question about this device