Search Results

For use as a stereotactic system accessory to aid in auto-registration and localization of rigid patient anatomical structures in either open or percutaneous image guided surgery. It is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of sterotactic surgery may be considered to be safe and effective, and where a reference to a rigid anatomical structure can be identified relative to a CT or MR-based model of the anatomy.

Not Found

This 510(k) summary does not contain the detailed study information required to fill out the table and answer all questions. It primarily focuses on the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence for the Spherz™ stereotaxic instrument based on its indications for use and comparison to a predicate device.

Specifically, the document does not provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Information about sample sizes for test sets or training sets.
• Details on ground truth establishment (number/qualifications of experts, adjudication method, type of ground truth).
• Whether a standalone or MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done, or any associated effect sizes.
• Data provenance.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Based on the information given, here's what can be inferred or stated:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in this document. Substantial equivalence for 510(k) usually implies performance similar to a predicate device, but specific quantitative criteria are not provided here.
   • Reported Device Performance: Not detailed in this document. The FDA's letter only states that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

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

   • Not provided in the document.

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 provided in the document.

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

   • 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:

   • Not provided in the document. This device (Spherz™) is described as a "stereotactic system accessory to aid in auto-registration and localization of rigid patient anatomical structures." It's not an AI-driven diagnostic reader, so an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is unlikely to be relevant to this product.

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

   • Not provided in the document. Given it's an "accessory to aid in auto-registration and localization," it functions with human intervention as part of an image-guided surgery system.

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

   • Not provided in the document.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not provided in the document.

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

   • Not provided in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device