Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(134 days)
HELICA TC LAPAROSCOPIC CUTTING AND CAUTERISING (LTC) PROBE
The device is a helium gas electrosurgical cutting and coagulator for use in all soft tissue surgery- laparoscopic, endoscopic and open.
The device is a helium gas electrosurgical coagulator for use in all soft tissue surgery-laparoscopic, endoscopic and open. It consists of two parts: A power generator control unit with a Helium gas supply and an application probe. An ionised gas plasma flame is generated in a controlled Helium gas flow at the end of a 4mm PTFE application tube (the probe). This produces a corona-type flame issuing from the open end of the probe with a high electron temperature but low molecular temperature of about 20C. When the probe is brought close (within 3 mm) to a surface connected to earth - such as human tissue - the corona-type flame changes to an arc discharge flame with a temperature of approx. 800C. The inert Helium gas flow in which the discharge takes place protects the area of discharge and minimises oxidation. This plasma flame can be used to stop blood flow from damaged tissue by cauterisation. The electrical generator provides an alternating current at a fixed frequency in the kilo hertz range with a power supply range of between 2 and 30W. The new probe is the LTC. This is a cutting probe where the 4mm PTFE tube retracts, exposing the point which is approximately 8-10mm long. This probe works by using the Corona flame passing between the point and the tissue at the nearest point which could be on the side of the probe. The point area which is hot then cuts through the tissue and cauterises small blood vessels as it passes through.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Helica Laparoscopic Cutting & Cauterising (LTC) Probe. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than presenting extensive clinical trial data or performance against detailed acceptance criteria.
Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, and extensive performance metrics for a novel, standalone AI device (which this is not) is not present in the provided document.
Here's an analysis based on the available information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document does not explicitly state formal acceptance criteria in the manner one would typically find for a new, innovative device requiring extensive clinical validation. Instead, the "acceptance" hinges on demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device. The performance comparison focuses on qualitative characteristics and a single in-vitro comparison rather than quantitative metrics against predefined thresholds.
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Substantial Equivalence) | Reported Device Performance (from "Summary of Non Clinical Tests") |
|---|---|
| Equivalence in Indicated Use: Same intended use as predicate. | "The device is a helium gas electrosurgical cutting and coagulator for use in all soft tissue surgery-laparoscopic, endoscopic and open." This is the same as the predicate (Helica "TC" Laparoscopic Cauterising Probe, K972267), with the addition of the "cutting" function. |
| Equivalence in Operating Principle: Uses the same fundamental technology. | "use the same operating principle" (Helium gas electrosurgical cauterization, now with a cutting mechanism via a retracting sheath and exposed point). |
| Equivalence in Design: Similar overall construction. | "incorporate the same design" (basic Helica probe design, with modification to the handle for sheath retraction). |
| Equivalence in Materials: Made from similar components. | "incorporate the same materials" |
| Equivalence in Shelf Life: Similar stability over time. | "have the same shelf life" |
| Equivalence in Packaging: Similar packaging methods. | "are packaged using the same materials and processes" |
| Safety (qualitative comparison): Should be at least as safe, preferably safer, than the predicate. | The helium unit has "much better control of the depth of necrosis" than the Argon Beam Coagulator (ABC) (a competitor, not necessarily the predicate, but used for comparison). It implies "much lower power at point of application" than ABC, leading to a conclusion of being "safer" than ABC. While the comparison is with ABC, it supports the non-inferiority/safety argument for the new device. |
| Effectiveness (qualitative comparison): Should achieve similar therapeutic effects. | "similar results" to the ABC in terms of effect, implying effectiveness for the intended use. |
2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
- Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions an "in vitro comparison." Typically, "in vitro" studies do not involve human subjects or a "test set" in the clinical trial sense. If there were tissue samples, the number is not provided.
- Data Provenance: The study was an "in vitro comparison." No country of origin is specified for the data as it was likely laboratory-based. It is retrospective in the sense that it's a comparison study performed on existing technology principles, not a prospective human clinical trial.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications:
- Number of Experts: One expert is named: "Dr. John Webb, Ph.D."
- Qualifications: "Ph.D." The specific field of his Ph.D. or his medical specialization (e.g., surgeon, pathologist) is not stated. The context implies expertise in the technical aspects of electrosurgery.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
Not applicable. This was an in-vitro comparison, not a study requiring adjudication of expert interpretations of medical images or conditions.
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:
Not applicable. This device is an electrosurgical tool, not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive system. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human reader improvement with AI assistance is not relevant or described.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:
Not applicable. This is a physical electrosurgical device, not a standalone algorithm.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:
The "ground truth" for the in-vitro comparison appears to be macroscopic and microscopic assessment of tissue effects (depth of necrosis, width of effect) under controlled laboratory conditions, as observed and interpreted by Dr. John Webb. This would be a form of objective measurement and expert observation.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:
Not applicable. This device did not involve machine learning or an AI algorithm requiring a training set.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
Not applicable. No training set was used.
Ask a specific question about this device
(819 days)
HELICA TC
The device is a helium gas electrosurgical coagulator for use in all soft tissue surgery--laparoscopic, endoscopic, and open.
The 'TC' is a microprocessor controlled Helium Thermal Coagulator. Working at 2 to 33 watts of power with Helium gas flows of 1 to 5 liters/minute depending on procedure and probe. The 'TC' automatically works with all of the flexible disposable probes. Models T, C, D, E, R, and S. (Size range 2.5mm to 4mm x 60 mm to 310mm)
Please provide the full text of the study or report that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria. The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Helica TC (Thermal Coagulator) and a clearance letter from the FDA, which describes the device and its intended use, and states that it has been found substantially equivalent to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the detailed study information needed to fill out all aspects of your request (e.g., specific acceptance criteria, study design, sample size for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, MRMC studies, or standalone performance data).
The provided text only includes a comparison of the Helica TC with predicate devices regarding safety and performance, mentioning "Published studies show that gas-enhanced electrosurgery is safe effective" but not providing details about these studies or how they specifically relate to the Helica TC's acceptance criteria. It also lists compliance with electrical standards (IEC 601-1, IEC 601-2-2, ANSI/AAMI HF18) as a performance metric.
Therefore, without the actual study report, I cannot provide a complete answer to your request. If you can provide the study report, I would be happy to analyze it and extract the requested information.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1