Search Results

The SPY Cystoscopes/Hysteroscopes are intended to provide visualization in general urological and gynecological surgery through the minimally invasive approach, by utilizing natural orifices to access the surgical site.

The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is part of Stryker's rigid endoscope product portfolio. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is an optical instrument used to visualize or image a patient's anatomy during minimally invasive, endoscopic procedures for examination, diagnosis or therapy. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope transmits light in the visible spectrum to illuminate the anatomy, then forms and relays the image of the surgical site to a camera system for image processing and display.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope (K252012), here's a description of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

Important Note: The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter, which summarizes the information submitted by the manufacturer. It does not contain the full details of the testing performed. Therefore, some of the requested information (especially regarding specific test methodologies, exact sample sizes for training/test sets, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment details) is not explicitly stated in this summary. I will highlight what is present and what is inferred based on standard regulatory practices for this type of device.

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

The study performed to demonstrate the device meets acceptance criteria was a non-clinical performance and safety evaluation, primarily involving bench testing. This approach is common for optical, non-diagnostic devices like endoscopes, where functionality can be objectively measured. The submission explicitly states, "The subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence."

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The letter outlines the types of non-clinical tests performed, implying these are the areas for which performance criteria were established. While the letter doesn't provide specific numerical acceptance thresholds or the exact measured values, it states that the testing "demonstrates the device conforms with design input requirements, user needs and intended uses."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of devices tested) for the non-clinical bench tests. For most bench testing, typically a representative sample or a statistically significant number of production units are tested to ensure consistency and meet specifications.
• Data Provenance: This was non-clinical bench testing, not human data. Therefore, concepts like "country of origin of the data" or "retrospective/prospective" do not directly apply to the primary performance testing.

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

• Not Applicable: Since this device is an optical instrument for visualization (not an AI/diagnostic algorithm interpreting images), and the testing was non-clinical bench testing, "experts" in the sense of clinical reviewers establishing ground truth for a test set (e.g., radiologists reading images) were not involved in the direct performance evaluation of the device's optical properties. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the established engineering and optical performance specifications.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable: Given that the performance evaluation was based on objective, quantitative bench testing (e.g., measuring MTF, FOV, transmission), there was no need for human adjudication of test results in the way one would adjudicate case labels for diagnostic AI. The results are based on instrumental measurements compared against specifications.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No: The document explicitly states: "The subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence." An MRMC study is a clinical study involving human readers. Therefore, no MRMC study was performed or required for this 510(k) clearance.
• Effect Size: Not applicable as no MRMC study was conducted.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Not Applicable: This device is a physical optical instrument (cystoscope/hysteroscope), not an AI algorithm. Therefore, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" does not apply. Its performance is its ability to transmit light and form an image according to specifications, which was evaluated via bench testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering/Optical Specifications: The ground truth for this device's performance evaluation was established through pre-defined engineering and optical specifications (design input requirements) that the device must meet (e.g., a specific MTF value, a defined FOV range, acceptable levels of distortion, etc.). These specifications are typically derived from industry standards, predicate device performance, and user needs.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable: This is a hardware device; thus, it does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The design and manufacturing processes are refined through engineering, prototyping, and iterative testing, not through training on data.

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

• Not Applicable: As there is no "training set," this question is not relevant for this device. Ground truth for hardware development is established through engineering design principles, materials science, and manufacturing tolerances.

Summary of Approach:

The clearance for the SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope relied on a "Comparison to Predicate" approach, underpinned by extensive non-clinical bench testing to demonstrate that the new device's different technological characteristics (specifically smaller outer diameter and increased field-of-view) "do not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness" compared to the predicate devices. The safety and effectiveness were established by confirming the device met its design specifications for various optical and mechanical parameters.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SPY Cystoscopes/Hysteroscopes are intended to provide visualization in general urological and gynecological surgery through the minimally invasive approach, by utilizing natural orifices to access the surgical site.

The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is part of Stryker's rigid endoscope product portfolio. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope is an optical instrument used to visualize or image a patient's anatomy during minimally invasive, endoscopic procedures for examination, diagnosis or therapy. The SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope transmits light in the visible spectrum to illuminate the anatomy, then forms and relays the image of the surgical site to a camera system for image processing and display.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Stryker Endoscopy SPY Cystoscope/Hysteroscope. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a standalone study proving specific clinical performance metrics with a test set, ground truth, or human reader involvement for an AI/ML device.

Therefore, the requested information regarding "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of an AI/ML device with details like sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, is not applicable to this document.

This document details:

• Device Type: A traditional medical device (optical instrument for visualization in surgery), not explicitly an AI/ML powered device.
• Regulatory Pathway: 510(k) Pre-market Notification, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed predicate device.
• Performance Testing: Primarily non-clinical bench testing and compliance with recognized voluntary consensus standards.

Here's a breakdown of what is provided, framed as closely as possible to your request, but highlighting the absence of AI/ML specific criteria:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document lists various performance tests and their "Pass" results, indicating that the device met the criteria set by the respective standards or comparative testing. The acceptance criteria themselves are implicitly defined by compliance with these standards (e.g., "In accordance with FDA-recognized voluntary consensus standard IEC 60601-1:2020").

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This document describes non-clinical testing of a physical medical device, not a performance study on a test set of data (e.g., images for an AI algorithm).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for an AI/ML algorithm is not relevant to the described testing.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.

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 device is a direct visualization tool, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative system for human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. The "ground truth" here is compliance with established engineering and safety standards, and equivalence to a predicate device's performance.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. The device does not involve a training set as it's not an AI/ML product.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device