Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K211269
    Date Cleared
    2022-01-07

    (255 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.4810
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    Visualase MRI-Guided Laser Ablation System (SW 3.4)

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Visualase MRI-Guided Laser Ablation System is a neurosurgical tool and is indicated for use to ablate, necrotize, or coagulate intracranial soft tissue including brain structures (for example, brain tumor, radiation necrosis and epileptic foci as identified by non-invasive and invasive neurodiagnostic testing, including imaging) through interstitial irradiation or thermal therapy in medicine and surgery in the discipline of neurosurgery with 800nm through 1064mm lasers.

    Device Description

    The Visualase MRI-Guided Laser Ablation System comprises hardware and software components used in combination with three MR-compatible (conditional), sterile, single-use, saline-cooled laser applicators with proprietary diffusing tips that deliver controlled energy to the tissue of interest. The system consists of: a diode laser (energy source) a coolant pump to circulate saline through the laser application Visualase workstation which interfaces with MRI scanner's host computer Visualase software which provides the system's ability to visualize and monitor relative changes in tissue temperature during ablation procedures, set temperature limits and control the laser output; two monitors to display all system imaging and laser ablation via a graphical user interface and peripherals for interconnections Remote Presence software provides a non-clinical utility application for use by Medtronic only and is not accessible by the user

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes specific details about the Visualase MRI-Guided Laser Ablation System (SW 3.4) and its comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain a table of acceptance criteria or a detailed study description with performance metrics in the format requested.

    The "Testing Summary" section mentions in vivo testing to demonstrate accuracy and performance of MR Thermometry and Thermal Damage Estimate, as well as software and system verification and validation. However, it does not provide:

    • Specific acceptance criteria values (e.g., "accuracy must be within X degrees Celsius").
    • Reported device performance values against these criteria.
    • Sample sizes for the test set.
    • Data provenance.
    • Details about expert involvement or adjudication.
    • Information on MRMC studies or standalone AI performance.
    • Details about the training set.

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

    Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing based on your request:

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

    • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated with numeric values in the document. The general statement is "Testing demonstrated the accuracy and precision of the Visualase MRI-Guided Ablation System's Thermal Damage Estimate and MR Thermometry for its intended use."
    • Reported Device Performance: Not provided (e.g., no specific accuracy values, precision values, or success rates are given).

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

    • Sample Size: Not specified.
    • Data Provenance: The testing was "In vivo testing conducted 1.5T and 3.0T (in accordance with 21 CFR 58)". 21 CFR Part 58 refers to Good Laboratory Practice for nonclinical laboratory studies, which implies prospective in vivo studies, but does not specify the origin of the data (e.g., country).

    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 specified.

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

    • Not specified.

    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

    • The document implies the device is a tool used by a neurosurgeon. It does not describe a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with or without AI assistance, or any effect size for such a study.

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

    • The document states the system "provides the system's ability to visualize and monitor relative changes in tissue temperature during ablation procedures, set temperature limits and control the laser output." It is an MRI-guided system implying human-in-the-loop operation. No standalone algorithm-only performance is described.

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

    • Given it's "in vivo testing" for "Thermal Damage Estimate" and "MR Thermometry," the ground truth likely involved a direct measurement method for temperature or thermal damage in the tissue, possibly through implanted probes or post-ablation pathological assessment, but the specific method is not detailed.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    • Not applicable as this document describes performance of a medical device (laser ablation system with software), not a machine learning model explicitly detailing training data. The software components are verified and validated, but no "training set" in the context of AI/ML is mentioned.

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

    • Not applicable for the reasons stated above.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1