Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K060764
    Date Cleared
    2007-03-12

    (356 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    884.6200
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    SATURN 3 LASER SYSTEM

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Saturn 3 Laser System is to be used to drill a small tangential hole in, or to thin, the zona pellucida of the embryo in selected in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients with otherwise poor prognosis for successful pregnancy outcome, such as: Advanced maternal age, Prior failed IVF, Cryopreserved embryos, Abnormal zona pellucida morphology.

    Device Description

    The Saturn 3 Laser System is a device that images, targets, and controls the power and pulse duration of a laser beam used to ablate a small tangential hole in, or to thin, the zona pellucida of an embryo for assisted hatching or other assisted reproduction procedures.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Saturn 3 Laser System." This device is intended for assisted reproduction procedures. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Hamilton Thorne Zilos-tk (K050768). As such, the concept of "acceptance criteria" for performance and a study proving those criteria are met, in the sense of a new clinical trial establishing efficacy, is not explicitly presented for the Saturn 3 Laser System itself. Instead, the submission relies on demonstrating equivalence in key technical characteristics and referencing existing clinical evidence for similar technology.

    Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

    The submission does not specify numerical "acceptance criteria" for the Saturn 3 Laser System's performance in the traditional sense. Instead, it asserts its equivalence to the predicate device in specific technical aspects and overall safety.

    Acceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance (Saturn 3 Laser System)
    Equivalence to Predicate Device (Hamilton Thorne Zilos-tk (K050768))Substantially equivalent based on multiple factors.
    Pulse energies deliveredComparable to the predicate device.
    Hole size creation in embryo zona pellucidaCreates similarly sized holes to the predicate device.
    Safety for use on human embryosClinical trials show the system is safe for use on human embryos when operated in the prescribed manner.
    Method of operationOperated in a similar way by the user compared to the predicate device.
    Co-alignment of target and ablated hole (Non-clinical)Within 1 µm (comparable to the predicate).
    Laser WavelengthEquivalent
    Laser PowerEquivalent
    Pulse time rangeEquivalent
    Laser classificationEquivalent
    Number of preset pulse timesEquivalent
    Presets user definableEquivalent
    Pilot laser for alignment checkingEquivalent
    Pilot laser powerEquivalent
    Pilot laser classificationEquivalent
    Custom objective to focus infrared parfocal to visibleEquivalent
    Objective magnificationEquivalent
    Objective Numerical ApertureEquivalent
    Computer generated targetEquivalent
    Hole size indicatorEquivalent
    Still image recordingEquivalent
    Video image recordingEquivalent
    Measurement toolsEquivalent
    Report generationEquivalent

    2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

    The submission references a clinical study for the general safety of laser drilling but doesn't detail a specific "test set" for the Saturn 3 Laser System in terms of sample size or provenance. The non-clinical testing refers to measurements, not a patient-based test set.

    • Clinical Testing Sample Size: Not specified for a study specifically testing the Saturn 3 Laser System. The reference is to a published paper showing the safety of laser use on human embryos, implying it's not a de novo study for this specific device in this submission.
    • Data Provenance (Clinical): "Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2005 Vol. 11, No. 6. 697-710" refers to a published scientific article, suggesting a peer-reviewed study. The text doesn't specify if it was retrospective or prospective or the country of origin of the data from that specific paper.
    • Non-clinical Testing Sample Size: Not applicable in terms of patients; measurements of laser power, pulse length, and co-alignment.

    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)

    Not applicable. The clinical evidence cited is a published study on the effects of zona drilling, not a diagnostic device requiring expert consensus for ground truth on a test set. Non-clinical data involves objective measurements.

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

    Not applicable, as there is no described test set requiring expert adjudication for ground truth.

    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. The Saturn 3 Laser System is an active laser device for assisted reproduction, not a diagnostic device involving "human readers" or "AI assistance."

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

    Not applicable. This is a hardware device with human operation, not an algorithm.

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

    For the safety assertion: The clinical study referenced implies outcomes data related to "development of human biopsied embryos as revealed by blastomere viability, cytoskeletal analysis and molecular cytogenetics" in comparing different zona drilling methods. This serves as the "truth" for the safety claim.
    For the technical characteristics: Objective physical measurements (e.g., laser power, pulse length, co-alignment accuracy) and feature comparison against the predicate device.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

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

    Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1