Search Results

The intended use of this device is for laparoscopic surgery by general, thoracic, gynecologic and urological surgeons.
The GeniCon trocar is available in 2.5, 5, 7/8, 10 and 12mm diameter with a mono-slit stainless tip. This trocar has application in gynecologic, general, thoracic and urology endoscopic procedures to establish a port of entry for instrumentation.

This device incorporates several design features which facilitate the surgeons use both during insertion and while instrumentation is being inserted and manipulated.
Trocar Tip:

• A modified single slit tip to provide easier insertion for the surgeon by enabling the tip to . minimally incise the tissue while providing a lower profile transition from the stainless tip to the cannula.
  Trocar Handle:
• Enlarged to provide a more positive fit in the surgeon's palm during insertion, and provides a . groove to provide a more positive fit for the thumb during removal or re-insertion.
  Cannula:
• Trapezoidal fascia threads, they provide an easier insertion while a positive anchoring during . instrument use.
• CO2 port with male luer cap provides a "finger grip" during device insertion while the male luer . cap is easier to remove and replace than the Apple silicone cap.
• . Double wall valve lock, assists in maintaining the valve position and to alleviate the premature release sometimes experienced by the Apple product.

The provided text describes a medical device submission (510(k)) for a trocar/cannula system, not an AI or software device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria such as sample size for test/training sets, expert qualifications, and MRMC studies are not applicable.

However, I can extract the information that is relevant to the device validation as described.

Device: GeniCon Trocar/Cannula System
Predicate Devices: LifeQuest Point Gard and Dexide trocars

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details (Applicable to a Mechanical Device)

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated as a numerical sample size. The text mentions "Engineering testing" that incorporated "a simulated human abdominal cavity" and observed "the method of insertion of the device and use with various common laparoscopic instruments." No information on data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. The testing was engineering-based, not involving human expert assessment for "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense.
3. Adjudication method: Not applicable. The testing was engineering-based performance comparison.
4. 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 is a mechanical surgical device, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device with human readers.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a mechanical surgical device.
6. The type of ground truth used: Performance comparison against predicate devices in a simulated environment using engineering metrics (e.g., pressure, ease of use/insertion observations).
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, so there is no "training set" in the context of AI/machine learning.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device