Search Results

The HALO360 Energy Generator intended use is for the coagulation of bleeding and non-bleeding sites in the gastrointestinal tract.

The HALO360 Energy Generator is indicated for use in the coagulation of bleeding and non-bleeding sites in the gastrointestinal tract including but not limited to, the esophagus. Indications include Esophageal Ulcers, Mallory-Weiss tears, Arteriovenous Malformations, Angiomata, Barrett's Esophagus, Dieulafoy Lesions, and Angiodysplasia.

The HALO360 Coagulation System consists of the HALO360 Energy Generator model 1100C-115B with a disposable single-use HALO®60 Coagulation Catheter, output cable, and an optional footswitch. The HALO360 Coagulation System performance and mode of operation is substantially equivalent to the already cleared HALO360 Coagulation System, and Stellartech Coagulation System 2.

There are no changes associated to the HALO360+ Coagulation Catheter.

The HALO360 Energy Generator model 1100C-115B is configured with an output cable (model CCC-001B), an optional footswitch (model FS-100B), and a power cord.

There are no changes to the hardware associated to HALO360 Energy Generator cleared by the 510(k) K050831 and K051168. There are minor changes implemented to the software version of the generator.

This submission addresses software changes for HALO360 Energy Generator cleared by the 510(k) K050831 and K051168. These minor changes implemented to the software version of the generator did not raise any new questions of safety or efficacy.

This 510(k) summary describes a device modification, not a study establishing new acceptance criteria or performance. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, and performance metrics is not present in the provided document.

The submission focuses on minor software changes to the HALO360 Energy Generator and demonstrates substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. It confirms that "These minor changes implemented to the software version of the generator did not raise any new questions of safety or efficacy."

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted from the document based on your request:

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

This information is not provided in the document. The submission states that the differences were evaluated on bench, implying functional testing was performed to ensure the software changes did not negatively impact performance, but specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance results are not reported. The primary claim is substantial equivalence based on the absence of new safety or efficacy questions.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document refers to "bench" evaluation, which typically involves laboratory testing rather than testing on a "test set" of patient data as might be relevant for AI/diagnostic devices.

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)

This information is not provided in the document. This is not applicable as the submission is about a software update for an electrosurgical generator, not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

This information is not provided in the document and is not applicable for this type of device modification submission.

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 information is not provided in the document and is not applicable. The device is an energy generator for coagulation, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

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

This information is not provided in the document. This is not directly applicable. The device is a hardware generator with software control, not a standalone algorithm. Its performance is demonstrated through its function, not through an "algorithm only" evaluation in the context of an AI device.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The ground truth for such a device would typically be its ability to perform its intended coagulation function safely and effectively, which would be assessed through engineering and bench testing, not expert consensus or pathology in this context.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the document. This concept is not applicable as the device is not an AI algorithm that undergoes "training" on a dataset in the conventional sense. The "software changes" were likely developed and tested internally rather than trained on a distinct dataset.

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

This information is not provided in the document and is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device