Search Results

The Applied Medical Modular Trocar System is a sterile single use device, or may be used with a reusable stainless steel or reusable DuraGold® cannula and is intended for use in coniunction with Applied's currently marketed trocar products to establish a path of entry for endoscopic instruments for use during general, abdominal, gynecological and thoracic minimally invasive procedures or to gain access through tissue planes and/or potential spaces for endoscopic instruments. If utilizing the Applied Medical Optical Separator Obturator with the Modular Trocar System it may be used with or without visualization for primary and secondary insertions.

The Modular Trocar System is a sterile single use device, intended for use in conjunction with Applied's currently marketed Trocar products. A standard trocar assembly consists of an obturator, a seal and a cannula system.

The Modular Trocar System will be available in sizes of 5mm, 11mm, 12 mm and 15mm diameter in lengths ranging from 55mm to 150mm.

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study report with the specific information requested in the prompt. The document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Modular Trocar System) and primarily focuses on its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on performance and functional testing.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be directly extracted or inferred from the provided text.

However, based on the available information, here's what can be reported:

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

Note: The document states "The performance and functional testing of the Modular Trocar System included tests to verify the inflation and leakage as compared to its predicate devices." and "The performance and functional testing demonstrated that the Modular Trocar System is substantially equivalent to its predicate devices and it introduces no new safety and effectiveness issues when used as instructed." This implies that the acceptance criteria for these aspects were met if the device performed comparably to its predicates and presented no new risks.

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 text only mentions "performance and functional testing" without detailing the methodologies, sample sizes, or data provenance.

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 type of detail is typically associated with studies involving human interpretation or clinical outcomes, which are not the focus of this 510(k) summary. The evaluation focuses on physical device performance.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

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 not applicable to the device described. The Modular Trocar System is a physical surgical instrument, not an AI or imaging device that would involve human readers or AI assistance in interpretation.

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

This is not applicable to the device described. This refers to AI algorithm performance, not a physical medical device like a trocar system.

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

The concept of "ground truth" as typically used in AI or diagnostic device studies relying on expert consensus or objective medical findings is not directly applicable here. For this device, the "ground truth" would be established by validated physical performance metrics and engineering standards related to inflation, leakage, and mechanical integrity, as compared to well-established predicate devices. The document implies that the device's performance was compared against the known and accepted performance characteristics of its predicate devices to demonstrate equivalence.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the document and is not applicable for this type of device where "training set" refers to data for machine learning. The device undergoes manufacturing and quality control, not algorithm training.

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

This information is not provided in the document and is not applicable for this type of medical device as it's not an AI or data-driven system.

Ask a specific question about this device