Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    da Vinci X Surgical System (IS4200); da Vinci Xi Surgical System (IS4000)

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

    The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System (da Vinci Surgical System, Models: IS4000 and IS4200) is intended to assist in the accurate control of Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instruments including rigid endoscopes, blunt and sharp endoscopic dissectors, scissors, scalpels, forceps/pick-ups, needle holders, endoscopic retractors, electrocautery and accessories for endoscopic manipulation of tissue, including grasping, cutting, blunt and sharp dissection, approximation, ligation, electrocautery, suturing, and delivery and placement of microwave and cryogenic ablation probes and accessories, during urologic surgical procedures, general laparoscopic surgical procedures, gynecologic laparoscopic surgical procedures, general thoracoscopic surgical procedures and thoracoscopically-assisted cardiotomy procedures. The system can also be employed with adjunctive mediastinotomy to perform coronary anastomosis during cardiac revascularization. The system is indicated for adult and pediatric use. It is intended to be used by trained physicians in an operating room environment in accordance with the representative, specific procedures set forth in the Professional Instructions for Use.

    Device Description

    This 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, to include "tracheobronchoplasty for symptomatic, severe tracheobronchomalacia" as an additional representative, specific procedure under the previously cleared "General Thoracoscopic Surgical Procedures and Thoracoscopically-Assisted Cardiotomy Procedures" Indications for Use for the da Vinci Xi Surgical System, Model IS4000 (K131861) and the da Vinci X Surgical System, Model IS4200 (K171294).

    There are no changes to the technological characteristics of the cleared da Vinci Xi or X Surgical Systems (Models IS4000 and IS4200) proposed in this submission. The da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems, Models IS4000 and IS4200, are software-controlled, electro-mechanical systems designed for surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgery. The Model IS4000 and Model IS4200 Surgical Systems consist of a Surgeon Console, a Patient Side Cart (PSC), and a Vision Side Cart (VSC) and are used with an Endoscope, EndoWrist Instruments, and Accessories.

    AI/ML Overview

    This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a labeling modification for the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems, adding "tracheobronchoplasty for symptomatic, severe tracheobronchomalacia" as a specific procedure under the existing General Thoracoscopic Surgical Procedures and Thoracoscopically-Assisted Cardiotomy Indications for Use. Since this is a labeling modification and not a change to the technological characteristics of the device, the traditional acceptance criteria and study data typical for a new device clearance are not provided in the same way. The primary evidence presented is Real World Evidence (RWE) demonstrating substantial equivalence for this new indication.

    Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

    Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

    The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of pre-defined numerical thresholds for a new device's performance. Instead, the study aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence for the robotic new indication (Robotic-assisted Tracheobronchoplasty, R-TBP) compared to the currently accepted method (Open Tracheobronchoplasty, O-TBP) based on a comparison of safety and effectiveness outcomes. The "reported device performance" are the R-TBP outcomes from the Premier Health Database (PHD) compared against O-TBP outcomes from a systematic literature review (SLR).

    Table of Performance Outcomes (Implicit Acceptance Criteria and Reported Performance)

    The implicit acceptance criteria are that the robotic-assisted procedure's outcomes should be comparable to or better than the open procedure's outcomes, without introducing new safety or effectiveness issues.

    Outcome CategorySpecific OutcomeRobotic-assisted Tracheobronchoplasty (R-TBP) from PHD (N=124)Open Tracheobronchoplasty (O-TBP) from SLR (N= varies)Implicit Substantial Equivalence Evaluation (Based on data presented)
    EffectivenessSurgical Time (minutes)329.1 (61.7)388.2 (60.2)R-TBP appears to have slightly shorter surgical time.
    Hospital Length of Stay (days)4.4 (3.9)8.1 (3.7)R-TBP appears to have significantly shorter hospital LOS.
    ICU Length of Stay (days)1.8 (2.3)3.7 (1.2)R-TBP appears to have significantly shorter ICU LOS.
    Conversion to Open Surgery1 (0.8%)Not Applicable (This is the comparator)Very low conversion rate for R-TBP.
    Discharge Disposition: Home or Self Care70.2%37.3%R-TBP has a significantly higher rate of discharge to home/self care.
    Discharge Disposition: Home with Assistance28.2%31.1%Comparable/slightly lower for R-TBP.
    Discharge Disposition: Rehabilitation Facility1.6%30.4%Significantly lower for R-TBP.
    SafetyRespiratory Failure7.3%17.4%R-TBP appears to have lower rate of respiratory failure.
    Mechanical Ventilation with Intubation0.0%17.6%R-TBP appears to have significantly lower rate.
    Prolonged Air Leak2.4%0.6%R-TBP appears to have slightly higher rate (CI overlap).
    Pneumothorax with Chest Tube6.5%2.3%R-TBP appears to have higher rate (CI overlap may be present).
    Pleural Effusion1.6%3.0%R-TBP appears to have lower rate.
    Chest Tube After Surgery3.2%Not Reported-
    Hemothorax0.8%Not Reported-
    Intraoperative Bleeding**0.0% (as identified by codes)200 (111.1) mL (reported as mL)Difficult to directly compare due to different metrics. Robotic data used codes, open data used mL blood loss.
    Postprocedural Bleeding0.8%1.1%R-TBP appears comparable/slightly lower.
    Venous Thromboembolism0.0%2.7%R-TBP appears to have lower rate.
    Surgical Site Infection0.0%3.4%R-TBP appears to have lower rate.
    Bronchitis4.0%1.9%R-TBP appears to have higher rate (CI overlap).
    Pneumonia1.6%14.0%R-TBP appears to have significantly lower rate.
    Atrial Arrhythmia3.2%6.4%R-TBP appears to have lower rate.
    Acute Renal Failure2.4%11.4%R-TBP appears to have significantly lower rate.
    Injury to Adjacent Organs0.8%Not Reported-
    Mortality Rate0.0%0.7%R-TBP appears comparable/slightly lower.
    30-Day Readmission Rate8.9%11.8%R-TBP appears to have lower rate.
    30-Day Reoperation Rate1.6%2.5%R-TBP appears to have lower rate.

    Conclusion from Data: The presented data suggests that robotic-assisted tracheobronchoplasty generally shows comparable or improved safety and effectiveness outcomes across most metrics when compared to open tracheobronchoplasty, supporting the claim of substantial equivalence.


    Study Details

    1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

      • Robotic-assisted Tracheobronchoplasty (R-TBP): 124 patients identified in the Premier Health Database (PHD) that underwent tracheobronchoplasty procedures.
      • Open Tracheobronchoplasty (O-TBP): Approximately 278 patients, derived from a systematic literature review of 3 publications.
      • Data Provenance (R-TBP): Retrospective, from the Premier Health Database (PHD) in the USA, covering data from 2013 to 2023, across 6 hospitals.
      • Data Provenance (O-TBP): Retrospective, from published literature covering Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in the USA, from 2000 to 2023.
    2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

      • This is not applicable in the context of this RWE study. The "ground truth" (i.e., patient outcomes) is derived directly from medical records (PHD) and published study data (SLR). There wasn't an independent panel of experts establishing ground truth for individual cases.
    3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

      • Not described, as the data collection relies on existing medical records and published literature. No explicit adjudication method for the test set is mentioned.
    4. 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:

      • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is not an AI/software diagnostic device that involves human "readers." The device is a surgical system; the study compares surgical outcomes with and without the device's assistance in a specific procedure (R-TBP vs O-TBP). The comparison is between the robotic approach (device-assisted human surgeon) and the open approach (human surgeon without robotic assistance).
    5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

      • No. The da Vinci Surgical System is a tool used by a human surgeon ("human-in-the-loop"). The performance inherently involves the human surgeon's skill in operating the system.
    6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

      • Outcomes data derived from retrospective medical records (for R-TBP) and published literature (for O-TBP). The outcomes reported include: operative time, length of stay, complication rates, mortality rates, readmission rates, reoperation rates, and discharge disposition.
    7. The sample size for the training set:

      • Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI algorithm in the context of needing a "training set" for model development. The robotic surgical system itself is a mature technology; this submission is for a labeling expansion based on existing clinical use (RWE).
    8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

      • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm development.

    Summary of Key Takeaways from the document relevant to the request:

    • Device Type: Surgical Robotic System (da Vinci Xi/X)
    • Submission Type: Labeling modification for an additional procedure (tracheobronchoplasty).
    • Proof: Real-world evidence (RWE) from a database (Premier Health Database) for robotic procedures compared to a systematic literature review for open procedures.
    • Primary Goal: Demonstrate substantial equivalence of the robotic-assisted procedure's outcomes to the established open procedure.
    • Test Set (Robotic): 124 patients from US hospitals (retrospective, 2013-2023).
    • Test Set (Open Comparator): ~278 patients from US hospitals (retrospective, 2000-2023) via literature review.
    • Ground Truth: Patient outcomes data (safety and effectiveness metrics) extracted from clinical records/literature.
    • No ML/AI Algorithm Validation: The study does not involve evaluating an AI model; thus, concepts like training sets, experts for ground truth, or MRMC studies for reader improvement with AI assistance are not applicable.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    da Vinci X Surgical System (IS4200), da Vinci Xi Surgical System (IS4000)

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

    The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System (da Vinci X Surgical System Model IS4200) is intended to assist in the accurate control of Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instruments including rigid endoscopes, blunt and sharp endoscopic dissectors, scalpels, forceps/pick-ups, needle holders, endoscopic retractors, electrocautery and accessories for endoscopic manipulation of tissue, including grasping, cutting, blunt and sharp dissection, approximation, ligation, electrocautery, suturing, and delivery and placement of microwave and cryogenic ablation probes and accessories, during urologic surgical procedures, general laparoscopic surgical procedures, gynecologic laparoscopic surgical procedures, general thoracoscopic surgical procedures and thoracoscopically-assisted cardiotomy procedures. The system can also be employed with adjunctive mediastinotomy to perform coronary anastomosis during cardiac revascularization. The system is indicated for adult and pediatric use. Itis intended to be used by trained physicians in an operating room environment in accordance with the representative, specific procedures set forth in the Professional Instructions for Use.

    The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System (da Vinci Xi Surgical System Model IS4000) is intended to assist in the accurate control of Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instruments including rigid endoscopes, blunt and sharp endoscopic dissectors, scalpels, forceps/pick-ups, needle holders, endoscopic retractors, electrocautery and accessories for endoscopic manipulation of tissue, including grasping, cutting, blunt and sharp dissection, approximation, ligation, electrocautery, suturing, and delivery and placement of microwave and cryogenic ablation probes and accessories, during urologic surgical procedures, general laparoscopic surgical procedures, gynecologic laparoscopic surgical procedures, general thoracoscopic surgical procedures and thoracoscopically-assisted cardiotomy procedures. The system can also be employed with adjunctive mediastinotomy to perform coronary anastomosis during cardiac revascularization. The system is indicated for adult and pediatric use. Itis intended to be used by trained physicians in an operating room environment in accordance with the representative, specific procedures set forth in the Professional Instructions for Use.

    Device Description

    The da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems, Models IS4000 and IS4200, are software-controlled, electro-mechanical systems designed for surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgery. The Model IS4000 and Model IS4200 Surgical Systems consist of a Surgeon Console, a Patient Side Cart (PSC), and a Vision Side Cart (VSC) and are used with an Endoscope, EndoWrist Instruments, and Accessories.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a labeling modification to the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems, not a study to prove a device meets acceptance criteria regarding active performance metrics. The submission asserts substantial equivalence based on the current device's performance being equivalent to predicate devices for new labeled uses.

    Here's an analysis of the provided information, focusing on how the request's points relate to the document:

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

    The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in the typical sense of numerical thresholds for device performance. Instead, it aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence for new labeled uses by comparing the real-world performance of the da Vinci systems (robotic-assisted, "R") with traditional laparoscopic procedures ("L") for duodenal switch bariatric surgeries. This comparison functions as the "performance" data.

    Table of Device Performance (from the document, Table 1):

    OutcomesL (Unmatched)R (Unmatched)p-value (Unmatched)L (PS Matched)R (PS Matched)p-value (PS Matched)
    1. Operative Time (min), median (IQR)180 (150, 240)284 (240, 345)
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1