Search Results

The ureteroscope is intended to be used to visualize organs, cavities and canals in the urinary tract (urethra, bladder, ureter, calyces and renal papillae) via transurethral or percutaneous access routes. It can also be used in conjunction with endoscopic accessories to perform various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the urinary tract.

The RenaNav Ureteroscope System is comprised of a single-use ureteroscope and a multi-use video processing unit (VPU). The RenaNav Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope is a sterile, single use device and is compatible with the multi-use System Video Processing Unit. The Ureteroscope is used by physicians to access, visualize, and perform procedures in the urinary tract. The flexible shaft of the ureteroscope includes one working channel which enables the delivery of therapeutic accessories and irrigation/ contrast solutions to the distal tip and desired anatomical location.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the RenaNav Ureteroscope System, asserting its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (LithoVue System, K153049). It lists various performance tests conducted to assure this equivalence and functionality, but it does not include specific acceptance criteria values or the quantitative results of those tests. It also does not detail any comparative effectiveness studies (MRMC) with human readers or standalone algorithm performance, as the device is a medical instrument (ureteroscope) for visualization and procedures, not an AI/imaging analysis software.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from the given text. Below is an attempt to address the points based on the provided information, noting where information is absent.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document lists performance tests, but it does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or the reported device performance for each metric. It generally states that "All test results met the requirements" or "The device passed the following tests."

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

The document states that "All testing was performed on test units representative of finished devices." However, it does not specify the exact sample size for each test (e.g., number of ureteroscopes tested). There is no mention of data provenance in terms of country of origin or whether testing was retrospective or prospective, as the tests relate to device performance rather than patient data.

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

This information is not applicable and therefore not provided in the document. The device is a ureteroscope for direct visualization and procedures, not an AI or imaging analysis system that generates diagnostic interpretations requiring expert ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for the device's performance would be established through engineering specifications and objective measurements (e.g., measuring dimensions, image quality metrics, deflection angles), not expert consensus on medical images.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. As explained above, the tests are primarily engineering and functional assessments of the physical device, not an AI diagnostic system requiring adjudicated interpretations.

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

No such study was done or mentioned. This type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic aids, not for a direct visualization medical device like a ureteroscope. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through engineering and performance testing.

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

Not applicable. The device is a ureteroscope, a physical instrument for visualizing and performing procedures. It does not operate as a standalone algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the RenaNav Ureteroscope System's performance is established through engineering specifications, physical measurements, and industry standards (e.g., ISO, IEC). For example:

• Dimensional Verification: Measured against design specifications.
• Image Testing: Objectively measured against predefined optical and image quality parameters.
• Biocompatibility: Demonstrated through lab tests against ISO 10993-1.
• Electrical Safety & EMC: Verified against IEC 60601 series standards.

There is no "expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data" as ground truth in the context of this device's performance testing for 510(k) clearance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. The device is a physical medical instrument, not an AI model that requires a "training set."

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

Not applicable. As there is no AI model or training set, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device