Search Results

The Skylark Uro Probe is indicated for pelvic floor stimulation use in the treatment of urinary incontinence and allows assessment of EMG activity of the pelvic floor muscles.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "Skylark Uro Probe." This document primarily focuses on regulatory approval and does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria for device performance, the results of a study proving those criteria were met, or details regarding the methodologies of such a study (sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, etc.).

The letter confirms:

• Trade/Device Name: Skylark Uro Probe
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR §876.5320
• Regulation Name: Nonimplanted electrical continence device
• Regulatory Class: II
• Product Code: KPI
• Indications for Use: The Skylark Uro Probe is indicated for pelvic floor stimulation use in the treatment of urinary incontinence and allows assessment of EMG activity of the pelvic floor muscles.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given document as it does not contain the details about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance.

To answer your request, I would need a different type of document, such as a summary of safety and effectiveness data (SSED) or a clinical study report that explicitly details the device's performance testing and the criteria it needed to meet.

Ask a specific question about this device

The URO Pro is an irrigation roller pump intended for the infusion of sterile solutions into the ureter and upper urinary tract during diagnostic and/or therapeutic endoscopic urologic procedures. It is indicated for the infusion of sterile solutions through an endoscope into the urogenital tract to irrigate the ureter and upper urinary tract in a controlled manner and to improve visibility of the surgical field during urologic procedures.

The URO Pro is a microprocessor controlled pump which functions according to the peristaltic principle and incorporates the following major components and features: a power supply, a main cable, a roller wheel, a pump head, various setting keys and display elements. The pump head is designed with two pressure sensors to perform redundant pressure measurement. A software controlled active sensor monitoring ensures the conformity of the preset nominal pressure value with the actual measured pressure. In addition, the URO Pro is designed with several alarms to inform the operator in case of an overpressure.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the URO Pro device, which is an irrigation roller pump. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards. It does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria related to device performance in a clinical or simulated clinical setting, nor does it describe a study that proves the device meets such criteria in terms of efficacy or diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, many of the requested sections about acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth cannot be answered from the provided document.

However, I can extract the information that is present:

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

The following information is NOT available in the provided text:

• 2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): No information about a test set or its provenance is given. The "Performance Data" section refers to compliance with safety standards, not clinical performance.
• 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): No information about experts or ground truth establishment for a test set is provided.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable as no test set performance is described.
• 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: This device is an irrigation pump, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, so an MRMC study is not relevant and not mentioned.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable as no clinical performance study requiring ground truth is described.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as no training set for an algorithm is mentioned.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device