Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(104 days)
SURGIQUEST ANCHORPORT SIL KIT
The AnchorPort® SIL Kit has applications in abdominal minimally invasive surgical procedures to include single skin incision applications and specifically where the surgeon anticipates using at least three 5mm cannula ports to establish a path of entry for operating endoscopic instruments.
The subject is a surgical trocar and cannula kit is composed of biosafe materials. The device incorporates an expandable elastomer sheath, which serves to hold the cannula vertically in place during endoscopic surgery. The device is used to create and maintain a port of entry during endoscopic surgery. It is fully disposable and is intended for single use only.
The information provided does not contain traditional "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" in the context of AI/ML device studies (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC, F1-score). This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device that is a surgical trocar and cannula kit, not an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML specific aspects like sample size for test sets, data provenance, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance are not applicable.
Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through nonclinical (bench top) and in vivo animal studies. The acceptance criteria here are implicitly met by demonstrating that the device performs "at least as safely and effectively as the predicate(s)" across various performance attributes.
Here's a breakdown based on the provided text, adapted to the context of a non-AI/ML device submission:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Performance Metric / Acceptance Criterion (Implicit) | Reported Device Performance (as demonstrated by testing) |
|---|---|
| Bench Data (In Vitro): | |
| Leak rate (without trocars, after multiple trocars, after vigorous manipulation) | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent in all manner of operation to the predicate devices" and "at least as safe and effective as the predicate" in maintaining pneumoperitoneum during ordinary use and severe manipulation. |
| Device insertion and removal evaluation | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent" and "at least as safe and effective as the predicate" regarding insertion and removal forces. |
| Minimum size of skin incision | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent". |
| Device fixation | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent" and "at least as safe and effective as the predicate" regarding fixation. |
| Rigidity / Flexibility | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent". |
| Size / Dimension | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent". |
| Sealing Instrument for maintaining insufflation | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent" and "at least as safe and effective as the predicate" in maintaining pneumoperitoneum. |
| Deployment method | Confirmed that the device is "substantially equivalent" regarding the method of deployment. |
| Animal Data (In Vivo - Porcine Cholecystectomy): | |
| Ease of port insertion, suturing, and time to insert | "AnchorPort® performed as well as or better than the predicate(s)" in aspects of insertion. "The clinical outcome... was a success with no adverse effects or complications." |
| Ease of insertion and withdrawal | "AnchorPort® performed as well as or better than the predicate(s)" in aspects of insertion and removal forces. |
| Ability to maintain pneumoperitoneum | "AnchorPort® performed as well as or better than the predicate(s)" in aspects of maintenance of pneumoperitoneum. |
| Ability to manipulate instruments for laparoscopic surgery | Demonstrated "conclusively that the device is substantially equivalent." "Performed at least as safely and effectively as the legally marketed devices." |
| Ability to conduct a typical laparoscopic procedure: cholecystectomy | "The clinical outcome of the porcine cholecysectomy was a success with no adverse effects or complications." Demonstrated "conclusively that the device is substantially equivalent." "Performed at least as safely and effectively as the legally marketed devices." |
| Ability of anchoring plate to hold the ports in position | "AnchorPort® performed as well as or better than the predicate(s)" in aspects of anchoring and fixation. Demonstrated "conclusively that the device is substantially equivalent." "Performed at least as safely and effectively as the legally marketed devices." |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Test Set (Bench Data): Not explicitly stated how many devices were tested for each bench test, but it is implied that a sufficient number was used to confirm substantial equivalence. No country of origin is mentioned for the bench data itself, but the submission is from SurgiQuest, Inc. in Orange, CT (USA). This is retrospective for the submission, as the tests were performed to support the 510(k).
- Test Set (Animal Data): The document mentions "in vivo animal studies were performed, including a porcine cholecysectomy." The exact number of animals or procedures is not specified, but it refers to "studies" (plural). No country of origin for the animals is specified, but the submission is from a US company. This is retrospective for the submission.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- For the in vivo animal studies, it states: "by surgeons familiar with the predicate device(s)." The exact number and specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience) are not provided. For bench testing, "robust engineering test methods" were used, implying engineers or technical experts established the ground truth (e.g., measurements, performance against specifications), but details are absent.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- Not applicable/Not specified in the provided text. The evaluation appears to be direct performance assessment (bench tests) and expert observation/assessment (animal studies), rather than an adjudicated review for ground truth establishment.
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. This is not an AI/ML device, and no MRMC study was performed.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
7. The type of ground truth used
- Bench Data: Objective measurements against engineering specifications and comparison to predicate device performance.
- Animal Data: Direct observation and assessment of device performance by "surgeons familiar with the predicate device(s)" during a surgical procedure (porcine cholecystectomy), with the "clinical outcome" being a success. This can be considered expert observation/assessment and outcome data (no adverse effects).
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1