Search Results

The MGB LAPALUX telescope is a laparoscope designed for general, gynecological and plastic surgery. It is similar in design to other telescopes currently available for commercial distribution in the United States.

AI/ML Overview

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the MGB LAPALUX® Telescope, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria (from recognized standards)	Reported Device Performance (Implied by substantial equivalence)
DIN 58140, part 1 & 2 (fiber optics)	Complies and is substantially equivalent to predicate device
DIN 58105, part 1, 12/86 (medical telescopes)	Complies and is substantially equivalent to predicate device
DIN 58141, part 1 3, 8/89 and part 4, 6/90 (fiber optics testing)	Complies and is substantially equivalent to predicate device
EN 1441 (risk analysis)	Complies and is substantially equivalent to predicate device
EU Directive 93/42/EWG, appendix 1, 6/93 (Medical Device Directive)	Complies and is substantially equivalent to predicate device

Explanation: The documentation explicitly states, "Although there are no performance standards established by the FDA for these devices, the MGB LAPALUX telescope has been designed and manufactured to meet the following standards." The basis for clearance is that the device "has no significant differences in design, materials or other technological characteristics compared to the predicate device" and is therefore "substantially equivalent." This implies that by meeting these standards, the device performs equivalently to the predicate and thus meets its "acceptance criteria."

Regarding the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, the provided document does not describe a clinical study with a test set, experts, or ground truth in the way one might expect for a modern AI/ML device.

This submission is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from 1998 for a rigid medical telescope (laparoscope). The primary method of demonstrating safety and effectiveness for such devices at that time, and particularly for this type of device, was Substantial Equivalence (SE) to a legally marketed predicate device.

Let's address the specific points based on a Substantial Equivalence pathway, even if they don't perfectly align with AI/ML study methodologies:

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

Sample Size: Not applicable. There was no specific "test set" in the context of a clinical study for this 510(k) submission. Substantial equivalence is primarily demonstrated through comparison of design, materials, and intended use with a predicate device.
Data Provenance: Not applicable for a clinical test set. The "data" here would be the technical specifications and design parameters of the MGB LAPALUX® Telescope and its predicate (Karl Storz Hopkins II rigid autoclavable telescope). The provenance of these specifications is likely the manufacturer's engineering and quality assurance processes in Germany (MGB Endokopische Geräte GmbH Berlin).

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

Not applicable. As no clinical "test set" was described, no external experts were used to establish ground truth in this manner. The "experts" involved would be the manufacturer's engineers and quality control personnel who ensured the device met the listed DIN and EN standards, and potentially internal medical advisors on device design.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There was no clinical "test set" requiring an 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

Not applicable. This device is a passive optical instrument (a laparoscope), not an AI-based system. Therefore, no MRMC study, human reader improvement, or AI assistance is relevant.

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

Not applicable. This device is a passive optical instrument, not an algorithm, and does not operate standalone in this context (it's observed by a human).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" in this context is established by compliance with recognized international standards (DIN, EN, EU Directive) and the documented equivalence of specifications and performance to a legally marketed predicate device. This is a technical and regulatory ground truth rather than a clinical ground truth derived from pathology or outcomes data.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device and therefore does not have a "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

Not applicable. As no training set exists, no ground truth was established for it.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1