Search Results

The PERIscope Optical Dissector is intended for dissection of connective tissue and the creation of an operative cavity in the extraperitoneal spaces and subcutaneous areas. The instrument has application in various general surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic hernia repair.

The PERIscope Optical Dissector consists of a handle, a scope retainer clip, a cannula and a dissecting tip. The dissecting tip dissects tissue and creates a cavity that allows instrument passage. The dissecting tip allows visualization during insertion, tunneling, and dissection. The device is designed to be used with a trocar. The instrument is compatible with a 0° rigid endoscope that has a maximum diameter of 5.5 mm and is 290 mm to 300 mm in length.

This document provides limited information regarding acceptance criteria and studies. Based on the provided text, here’s a breakdown of the available information:

• No specific acceptance criteria: The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., minimum dissection depth, maximum tissue damage).
• No detailed study results: The document mentions "Preclinical testing" and "Animal testing" but does not provide specific performance data, statistical results, or a comparison table against any predefined criteria.

However, I can extract information related to the general performance assessment:

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

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample size: Not specified. The document only mentions "Animal testing."
• Data provenance: Not specified beyond "Animal testing." It does not mention country of origin, nor whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

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

• This information is not provided. The document does not describe a process for establishing ground truth using experts.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• This information is not provided. There is no mention of 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

• This information is not provided. The PERIscope Optical Dissector is a surgical instrument, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, so an MRMC study with human readers improving with AI assistance would not be applicable.

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

• This information is not provided. The PERIscope Optical Dissector is a physical surgical instrument, not an algorithm. Standalone algorithm performance is not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The document implies that the ground truth for performance was established by observing "satisfactory performance according to the requirements for an Optical Dissector during laparoscopic surgical procedures" in animal models. This suggests a functional/procedural ground truth based on the successful execution of intended surgical tasks. It is not explicitly stated if this involved pathology, expert consensus on outcomes, or other specific metrics.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This information is not provided, and the concept of a "training set" typically applies to machine learning algorithms, which is not relevant for this device.

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

• This information is not provided, as it is not applicable to the type of device described.

Ask a specific question about this device