Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

TENS: The device is designed to be used for temporary relief of pain associated with sore and aching muscles in the shoulder, waist, back, neck, upper extremities (arm), lower extremities (leg), abdomen and bottom due to strain from exercise or normal household work activities.

EMS: The device is designed to be used to stimulate healthy muscles in order to improve and facilitate muscle performance. The device is designed to temporarily increase local blood circulation in healthy leg muscles.

Not Found

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for Shenzhen Yicai Health Technology Co. Ltd's Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator (TENS) does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, particularly for an AI/ML medical device.

This document is a standard clearance letter for a physical medical device (TENS/EMS) and focuses on regulatory aspects like:

• Substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• General controls (registration, listing, GMP, labeling, misbranding).
• Quality System (QS) regulation.
• Unique Device Identification (UDI) requirements.
• Indications for Use.

It does not detail performance studies conducted to establish effectiveness or safety beyond establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate. Specifically, it lacks any mention of:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes for test sets or data provenance.
• Number/qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) studies or effect sizes for human readers.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Training set sample size or ground truth establishment for training.

Therefore,Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter, I cannot describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the manner requested. The letter is for a physical medical device (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator) and outlines its regulatory clearance, not the details of a performance study, especially not one applicable to an AI/ML device as your detailed questions suggest.

The document does not contain any information related to:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications.
4. Adjudication method for the test set.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, or its effect size.
6. If a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
8. The sample size for the training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established.

This is a clearance letter for a device whose mechanism of action is electrical stimulation, not an AI/ML algorithm. The information you are seeking would typically be found in the 510(k) summary or the full submission, which are not included in this clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

Telescopes for adults
KARL STORZ HOPKINS Telescopes for Urology when used with sheaths, obturators, accessories, and instruments are intended to provide visualization and operative access during diagnostic and therapeutic urological procedures in adults.

Telescopes for adults and pediatrics
KARL STORZ HOPKINS Telescopes for Urology when used with sheaths, obturators, accessories, and instruments are intended to provide visualization and operative access during diagnostic and therapeutic urological procedures in adults and pediatrics.

The KARL STORZ HOPKINS Telescopes for Urology are rigid cystoscope systems, which provide visualization and operative access during urological procedures in adults and pediatrics. Urological devices consist of sheaths, obturators, accessories, and instruments, which are combined into a cystoscope system for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in the lower urinary tract such as prostate, bladder, and urethra. The sheath provides a working channel for therapeutic instruments, as well as ports for irrigation and aspiration. The obturator is inserted through the sheath for atraumatic insertion to the surgical site, then removed after placement. The telescope is inserted through the sheath for visualization of the surgical site. All instruments subject to this submission are optical instruments, and compatible with telescopes; the optical instruments are only compatible with adult systems. Compact telescopes are all-in-one cystoscopes with built-in sheaths, obturators, and optics, they do not require device compilation for use.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its accompanying summary for the KARL STORZ HOPKINS Telescopes for Urology. This document details the regulatory pathway for a medical device, specifically rigid endoscopes, not an AI software or system. Therefore, most of the questions regarding acceptance criteria and study design for AI performance are not applicable.

Here's an analysis of the provided information:

Analysis of Acceptance Criteria and Study for a Medical Device (Endoscope):

Given that this is a medical device (endoscope), the "acceptance criteria" are typically related to meeting established performance standards for such devices. The "study" refers to non-clinical bench testing to demonstrate compliance with these standards and substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't present a formal table of acceptance criteria with specific numerical performance targets and reported values in the way you might see for an AI algorithm's accuracy or sensitivity/specificity. Instead, the acceptance criteria are implicit in the adherence to international and national standards for medical devices, particularly endoscopes. The reported device performance is that it complies with these standards.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of an endoscope's non-clinical bench testing. The "test set" here refers to the actual device prototypes or representative samples tested in a laboratory setting to verify compliance with engineering and safety standards. The number of units tested isn't specified but typically involves a sufficient number to ensure reproducibility and meet statistical requirements for the specific test (e.g., several samples for biocompatibility, multiple cycles for reprocessing).
• Data Provenance: The testing is non-clinical bench testing, meaning it does not involve human subjects or real-world patient data. It is performed in a controlled laboratory environment by the manufacturer (KARL STORZ SE & Co. KG), likely in Germany given their address.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

• Experts for Ground Truth: Not applicable. For a rigid endoscope, "ground truth" is defined by established engineering specifications and compliance with recognized national and international standards. The "truth" is whether the device performs according to these measurable standards, not a subjective interpretation by experts.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable. The "experts" involved are likely engineers, quality assurance personnel, and regulatory specialists within Karl Storz and external testing laboratories who are qualified to conduct and interpret the specified tests according to the standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations (e.g., in medical image diagnosis). For physical device testing, the results are typically quantitative measurements that either pass or fail against predefined criteria in the standards.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• MRMC Study: No. MRMC studies are used to evaluate the impact of a new diagnostic aid (like an AI system) on human reader performance across multiple readers and cases. This is not relevant for a rigid endoscope, which is a physical visualization and access tool.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable. This device is a physical endoscope, not an AI algorithm. Its function is to provide visualization, which inherently involves a human user (the clinician) in the loop.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Type of Ground Truth: The "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering specifications, safety standards (e.g., thermal safety), optical performance metrics (e.g., field of view, resolution), biocompatibility requirements, and validated reprocessing protocols as defined by the numerous ISO, IEC, AAMI, ASTM, and ANSI standards listed. It is a technical and regulatory compliance "ground truth."

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that undergoes training.

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

• Training Set Ground Truth: Not applicable. As this is not an AI device, there is no "training set" or "ground truth for the training set."

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical device (an endoscope) and not for an AI/software device. Therefore, the specific questions related to AI performance metrics, sample sizes for AI training/test sets, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies are not applicable to this submission. The "acceptance criteria" are demonstrated through non-clinical bench testing proving compliance with relevant industry standards and substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Fully Automatic Electronic Blood Pressure Monitor is for use by medical professionals or at home and is a non-invasive blood pressure measurement system intended to measure the diastolic and systolic blood pressures and pulse rate of an adult individual by using a non-invasive technique in which an inflatable cuff is wrapped around the upper arm. The cuff circumference is limited to 15cm-48cm (approx. 5.9"-18.9").

Fully Automatic Electronic Blood Pressure Monitor (BP-300C, BP-300CV, BP-300V, BPM1, BPX1, KD-338N, KD-553, KD-557BR, KD-558, KD-558BR, KD-595, KD-5031N, KD-5810, KD-5810B, KD-5811, KD-5811A, KD-5811V, KD-5815, KD-5920, KD-5920L, KD-5920TL, KD-5923, KN-550LT) is designed and manufactured according to IEC 80601-2-30.

The operational principle is based on Oscillo-metric and silicon integrates pressure sensor technology. It can calculate the systolic and diastolic blood pressure and display the result. The measurements results can also be classified by the function of blood pressure classification indicator. If any irregular heartbeat is detected, it can be shown to the user.

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for various blood pressure monitors. It outlines the regulatory approval process and compares the new devices to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria and study results in the format typically used for AI/software devices.

Specifically, this document describes validation against standards for medical electrical equipment (IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-1-11) and automated non-invasive sphygmomanometers (IEC 80601-2-30, ISO 81060-2). It focuses on the substantial equivalence of the physical blood pressure monitors and their underlying oscillometric and pressure sensor technology, rather than the performance of an AI algorithm based on a test set, ground truth, and expert interpretations.

Therefore, many of the specific questions about AI/software device validation (e.g., sample size for the test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) cannot be answered from this document.

However, I can extract information related to the performance of the blood pressure monitors themselves, based on the included standards.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (for Blood Pressure Monitor functionality, not AI):

Since this is a blood pressure monitor, the primary performance criteria relate to its accuracy in measuring blood pressure and pulse rate, and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards for automated non-invasive sphygmomanometers.

• IEC 60601-1:2005+AMD1: 2012+AMD2: 2020
• IEC 60601-1-2:2014+AMD1: 2020
• IEC 60601-1-11: 2015+AMD1: 2020
• IEC 80601-2-30: 2018 | All listed standards were met, demonstrating basic safety, essential performance, EMC, and home healthcare environment compliance. |

Unable to Answer from Document (Common for AI/Software Device Submissions, but not for this type of device):

The following questions are not applicable or cannot be answered from this 510(k) summary because the device described is a physical blood pressure monitor, not an AI/software device that interprets medical images or other complex data requiring expert adjudication, training sets, or MRMC studies.

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
  • Test Set Size: "A total of 231 patients (107 males and 124 females) were enrolled in the study." This is the clinical study population for blood pressure measurement accuracy.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study is described as a "clinical study," which implies prospective data collection for the purpose of the study.
• 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. Ground truth for blood pressure measurement is established through a standard auscultation method (manual measurement by medical professionals using a stethoscope and sphygmomanometer), not by interpretation of images by experts.
• Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
  • Not applicable. Ground truth is direct measurement by a reference method.
• 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 is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
  • The device is a standalone blood pressure monitor. No human-in-the-loop interaction for interpretation (as in AI devices) is relevant. Its performance is its direct measurement accuracy.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
  • Ground Truth: "Standard auscultation method was used as the reference blood pressure monitor measuring." This is the established clinical standard for direct comparison.
• The sample size for the training set:
  • Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device requiring a training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established:
  • Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

K5 is intended to supply power to and serve as a base for dental devices and accessories. This product is intended for use by dentist and dental assistance to assist dental treatment of patients for adjusting the position of the patient seat, operating the instruments, and supplying water into the oral cavity through a water line in dental clinical environments.

The K5 Cart, K5 Mount and K5 Swing are designed for dental treatment and are intended for dental use only and are intended for use by trained medical personnel only.

These devices consist of a foot controller, headrest, backrest, seat, armrest, doctor table, unit, dental light, auxiliary table and doctor stool.

These are an AC-powered dental operative unit with accessories, intended to supply power to and serve as a base for other dental devices. It includes a treatment chair, dentist element, assistant element and a dental light as offering several additional options and electronically-controlled chair movements with software and water unit functions.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the K5 Cart, K5 Mount, K5 Swing devices (K251491) indicate that these devices are Class I Dental Operative Units and Accessories. Class I devices are generally considered to be low-risk and often demonstrate substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing rather than extensive clinical studies.

The document extensively compares the proposed devices to a predicate device (K5, K233805) to establish substantial equivalence. It does not describe specific acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics with numerical thresholds for the device's function as a whole. Instead, it relies on compliance with recognized consensus standards and a detailed comparison of technological characteristics.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or improvement over human readers) are not applicable or not explicitly stated in this type of 510(k) submission for a Class I mechanical device. The "acceptance criteria" here are primarily met by demonstrating compliance with safety and performance standards relevant to dental operative units and showing that any differences from the predicate device do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document, addressing the points where information is available and noting where it's not applicable for this type of device and submission.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

As a Class I dental operative unit, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily established by compliance with recognized electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, and performance standards for dental equipment, along with demonstrating that any differences from a predicate device do not introduce new safety or effectiveness concerns. The performance is assessed qualitatively through compliance with these standards and by direct comparison of functionalities and specifications with the predicate device.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

It's important to differentiate that this 510(k) submission is for a mechanical/electrical dental operative unit, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). Therefore, many of the questions related to AI performance metrics, clinical study design for accuracy/sensitivity, expert readers, and ground truth establishment (common for imaging AI) do not apply to this clearance. The "study" here is primarily a series of non-clinical tests and a detailed comparison to a predicate device.

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of typical AI/imaging studies. Performance was demonstrated through compliance with recognized standards (IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 80601-2-60, IEC 60601-1-6, ISO 7494-1, ISO 7494-2) and direct engineering measurements and comparisons. This involved testing the physical device(s).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the sense of patient data. The testing involves engineering and safety evaluations of the manufactured devices.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable. The device is a dental operative unit, not an AI diagnostic tool requiring expert-established ground truth from medical images. Compliance with engineering standards and functional specifications constitutes the "ground truth" for this device type.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a study involving human reader adjudication of diagnostic outputs.

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:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI diagnostic or assistive device for human readers.

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

• Not applicable, as it's not an algorithm-based device in the diagnostic sense. The device performs its intended functions independently (e.g., moving chair, supplying water/air, powering instruments).

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

• For this device, "ground truth" is established by:
  • Compliance with recognized consensus standards: e.g., IEC 60601-1 (Electrical Safety), IEC 60601-1-2 (EMC), ISO 7494-1 (Dental Units), ISO 7494-2 (Dental Chairs).
  • Engineering specifications and measurements: Verifying that the device meets its design specifications for things like air pressure, water pressure, chair movement ranges, and patient load.

7. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning/AI device requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable. No training set is used.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) is intended for the treatment of facial wrinkles, and mild to moderate inflammatory acne. The red light is intended for the treatment of wrinkles, and the blue light is intended for the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.

The KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) is indicated for over-the-counter aesthetic use. The red light is intended for the treatment of wrinkles, and the blue light is intended for the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne. The device is vibrating in red light model. The device is powered by a Lithium-Ion rechargeable battery, and it has a charging cable, USB charging stand, protective goggles, storage case and instruction manual.

The wand can be rotated 135 degrees in either direction.

There are two switches of the device: one function is red light to wrinkle removal and vibration for relax, the other function is blue light to treat mild to inflammatory acne.

The device will automatically shut down after 12 minutes of operation. The recommended treatment time is 3 minutes per area. After every three minutes of treatment, the device will vibrate to indicate the time. If you need to continue treatment, simply turn on the device again.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) indicate that no clinical performance study was conducted to prove the device meets acceptance criteria. The summary explicitly states:

"7.2 Summary of Clinical Performance: Clinical testing was not needed for this 510(k). The non-clinical performance testing described above is sufficient to support that the device can be used safely and effectively."

Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided document as it pertains to clinical performance which was not performed or deemed necessary for this 510(k) clearance.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for clinical performance)
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
4. Adjudication method
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 typically for AI/imaging devices, not a light therapy wand)
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done (Not applicable for this device type)
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

However, based on the non-clinical tests performed, we can infer the acceptance criteria for those tests and their reported performance:

Non-Clinical Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Additional Information Not Applicable/Provided:

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed. For non-clinical tests, these metrics are not typically reported in this format.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No. This is typically for AI/imaging devices.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: No. This is typically for AI/software devices.
• The type of ground truth used: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable as no clinical study was performed.

In summary, the KALA Therapy Wand (Model: KALA-03) received 510(k) clearance based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical performance testing and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards, without the need for a separate clinical effectiveness study.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended Purpose: The K-Pack Embrace™ Active Safety Needle, being a hypodermic needle with safety shield, is intended to inject fluids into, or withdraw fluids from, parts of the body below the surface of the skin. The safety shield shall be manually locked (activated), after use, to cover the needle to minimize the risk of accidental needle stick.

Indications: The K-Pack Embrace™ Active Safety Needle is for general application – for treatment (injection of fluids) or diagnosis (withdrawal of fluids).

The K-Pack Embrace™ Active Safety Needle is a hypodermic single lumen needle, for single use consisting of stainless steel cannula that is sharpened at one end and at the other end joined to a female luer connector (hub) made of polycarbonate designed to be connected with a male luer connector (nozzle) of a hypodermic syringe. The K-Pack Embrace™ Active Safety Needle is compatible for use with standard luer slip and luer lock syringes. The K-Pack Embrace™ Active Safety Needle is packed in a hard plastic container (cap and case) made of polypropylene and sealed with a label.

This device features a hinged safety shield, made of polycarbonate, attached to the needle hub. The safety feature is activated when the safety shield is manually pressed over the needle immediately after use and prior to disposal to minimize the risk of accidental needle stick injuries. The safety shield is activated with a one-handed operation, using the finger, thumb, or surface activation.

The K-Pack Embrace™ Active Safety Needle is sterilized by ethylene oxide.

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the K-Pack Embrace™ Active Safety Needle does not contain the specific information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria in the way you've requested (e.g., details about AI studies, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and nuanced ground truth establishment).

The document is a standard 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device (a hypodermic needle with a safety shield) that demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The "Non Clinical Test" section focuses on:

• Performance testing: Verification of the device's design against recognized international standards (ISO 7864, ISO 9626, ISO 80369-7, ISO 6009, ISO 23908, ISO 11607-1, USP , and FDA guidance on sharps injury prevention). These standards define various physical and functional requirements for hypodermic needles and their safety features.
• Biocompatibility testing: Evaluation of the materials in contact with the body according to ISO 10993.
• Sterilization and shelf-life testing: Validation of the sterilization method (Ethylene Oxide) according to ISO 11135 and shelf-life studies according to ASTM F1980.

The document does not describe an AI/ML-based device or a study involving human readers, AI assistance, ground truth established by experts, or any of the elements typically associated with the kind of acceptance criteria you've detailed in your prompt (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC for an AI model).

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions related to AI/ML study design and expert review methodology based on the provided text. The device described is a physical medical device, not a diagnostic AI system.

Ask a specific question about this device

KHEIRON® Spinal Fixation System including patient specific K-ROD is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies), degenerative spondylolisthesis with objective evidence of neurological impairment, fracture, dislocation, deformities or curvatures (i.e. scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), spinal stenosis, spinal tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

When used for posterior, non-cervical, pedicle screw fixation in pediatric patients, KHEIRON® Spinal Fixation System including patient specific K-ROD is indicated as an adjunct to fusion to treat progressive spinal deformities (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, or lordosis) including idiopathic scoliosis, neuromuscular scoliosis, and congenital scoliosis. Additionally, KHEIRON® Spinal Fixation System including patient specific K-ROD is intended to treat pediatric patients diagnosed with spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis, fracture caused by tumor and/or trauma, pseudarthrosis, and/or failed previous fusion.

This system is intended to be used with autograft and/or allograft.

Pediatric pedicle screw fixation is limited to a posterior approach.

Patient specific K-ROD devices are compatible with NuVasive Reline System components and Seaspine Mariner System components that are compatible with ø5.5mm and/or ø6.0mm rods as well as screws ø4.5mm or larger and at least 25mm in length.

S.M.A.I.O.'s patient specific K-ROD is part of the 510(k) cleared KHEIRON® Spinal Fixation system (K211981, K232650) designed for stabilization and correction of chronic instability or deformity of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. The patient specific K-ROD is manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V ELI per ASTM F136 and is available in diameters of 5.5 and 6.0 mm.

The Seaspine Mariner System is a 510(k) cleared pedicle screw system (K222110) that consists of a variety of screws, hooks, rods, lock screws, transverse connectors, rod-to-rod connectors, iliac connectors, and general instruments. Implant components are available in a variety of sizes and can be rigidly locked into a variety of different configurations to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. The Seaspine Mariner System is designed to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the posterior thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. The Seaspine Mariner System is also used to treat severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4) of the L5-S1 vertebral joint in skeletally mature patients receiving fusion by autogenous bone graft.

The purpose of this Special 510(k) Device Modification is to extend indication of S.M.A.I.O.'s patient specific K-ROD (K211981, K232650) for use with the Seaspine Mariner System (K222110).

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a spinal fixation system, which is a medical device, not an AI/software device. Therefore, the provided text does not contain the information needed to answer the questions about AI/software device acceptance criteria and study details (such as sample size, ground truth expert qualifications, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, etc.).

The letter explicitly states:
"We have reviewed your section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent...".
It refers to the device as "KHEIRON® Spinal Fixation System, including patient specific K-ROD".

The performance data mentioned (Dynamic compression bending – ASTM F1717, Static torsion – ASTM F1717, Static axial gripping capacity – ASTM F1798, Static torsional gripping capacity – ASTM F1798) are mechanical tests performed to verify the physical properties and compatibility of the spinal fixation system components. These are not related to AI model performance or clinical accuracy studies typically seen with software as a medical device (SaMD).

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request as the provided document does not contain the type of information required for an AI/software device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The GEISTER® K-Rex™ rongeurs are manually operated instruments indicated for cutting or biting bone during surgery involving the skull or spinal column.

Geister Geister® K-Rex™ rongeurs are reusable stainless steel instruments that are coated with TiAIN that are sterilizable and packaged non-sterile.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Geister K-Rex Rongeurs does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/software device. Instead, the document describes a traditional medical device (surgical rongeurs) and its clearance process.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information (table of acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, etc.) as the provided text does not pertain to an AI/software device or a study involving such elements.

The documentation focuses on:

• Device Description: Manual, reusable stainless steel instruments coated with TiAIN, used for cutting or biting bone.
• Intended Use: Cutting or biting bone during surgery involving the skull or spinal column.
• Substantial Equivalence: Comparison to existing legally marketed rongeurs (predicate devices) based on intended use, technological characteristics (materials, bite size, length, jaw opening/angles, footplates, detachable, ejector), and performance.
• Non-Clinical Performance Data: Biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993), Reprocessing/Cleaning/Sterilization validation (ANSI/AAMI ST98:2022, ISO 17665, ISO 17664), and a "Cutting performance test" of 10,000 cycles compared to the predicate device to show similar performance.
• Clinical Performance Data: Stated that no clinical testing was required as the device is equivalent to predicate devices with proven safety and efficacy.

In summary, the provided document describes the clearance of a mechanical surgical instrument, not an AI/software-based medical device. Thus, the specific metrics and study methodologies typically associated with validating AI/software performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment by experts, training/test sets) are not present in this 510(k) clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

The KARL STORZ Flexible Video-Uretero-Renoscope is indicated for endoscopic examination in the urinary tract and can be used to examine the interior of the kidney, and using additional accessories, to perform various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

The KARL STORZ Flexible Video-Uretero-Renoscope (PNs 11278VSE, 11278VSUE) is a video endoscope used for visualization within the upper urinary tract (ureters) and kidneys. The endoscope includes a luer with two ports to allow access for instrumentation, as well as irrigation. The Flexible Video-Uretero-Renoscope models 11278VSE and 11278VSUE differ only in the direction of the distal tip deflection. With 11278VSUE when the control lever is pushed forward towards the distal tip, the distal tip deflects down and with 11278VSE the deflection is opposite.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary describe a medical device (FLEX XC ureteroscope), not an AI or software-based medical device. Therefore, the information requested about acceptance criteria and studies that apply to AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) are not present in this document.

The clearance is based on the substantial equivalence of the KARL STORZ Flexible Video-Uretero-Renoscope (FLEX XC) to a previously cleared predicate device (K141250 KARL STORZ Flexible Video-Uretero-Renoscope).

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning the device's performance, but it does not include any of the AI/SaMD specific criteria you requested as the device is a physical endoscope.

Device: KARL STORZ Flexible Video-Uretero-Renoscope (FLEX XC)
Product Code: FGB
Regulatory Class: Class II

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-AI/SaMD)

Since this is a physical medical device (endoscope), the "acceptance criteria" primarily relate to its physical and functional specifications, and its compliance with relevant performance and safety standards.

Note on Differences: The subject device (FLEX XC) shows an improved deflection range (285° up/down vs. 270°) and a potentially wider field of view range (80-110° vs. 80-95°) compared to the predicate. The submission argues these differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness, supported by non-clinical bench testing.

Study Details (Based on provided document)

The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not required to demonstrate the substantial equivalence to the predicate device. Non-clinical bench testing was sufficient to assess safety and effectiveness and to establish the substantial equivalence of the modifications."

Therefore, the following information, which is typically relevant for AI/SaMD clinical validation studies, is not applicable or not provided in this document:

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable, as no clinical test set for AI/SaMD performance was used. The reported "performance" comes from bench testing of the physical device.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for AI/SaMD performance was not established.
3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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: Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this medical device is its compliance with recognized performance standards and its physical and functional characteristics being comparable (or superior, without raising new concerns) to a cleared predicate.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Conclusion: The provided FDA 510(k) clearance documentation for the KARL STORZ Flexible Video-Uretero-Renoscope (FLEX XC) pertains to a traditional physical medical device, not a software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) or AI-enabled device. The clearance is based on a demonstration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical bench testing, not through clinical studies involving human readers or AI algorithm performance analysis. Therefore, the specific criteria and study details related to AI/SaMD validation are absent from this document.

Ask a specific question about this device