Search Results

The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System (da Vinci Xi Surgical System, Model IS4000 and 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, 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.

The modifications to the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems adds a hardware component called the Advanced Processor (AP4000) as well software components, both on the Advanced Processor and a separate iOS app, to the surgical system.

These modifications enable the following functionality: Video recording/Image capture, WiFi pairing of iOS devices with the Advanced Processor, an iOS app to view live endoscopic video once the iOS device has been paired and data logging on the AP4000 hard disk (stereo endoscopic video, kinematics and real time events). This allows surgeons to initiate and control video recordings as well as capture endoscopic images. These modifications also allow OR staff and others present in the OR to pair their iOS mobile devices with the Advanced Processor in order to view the live endoscopic video.

This FDA 510(k) summary describes modifications to the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems, not a new AI/ML medical device. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI/ML device studies and acceptance criteria is not applicable to this document. The document focuses on regulatory clearance for hardware and software modifications that enhance existing functionalities of a robotic surgical system, rather than an AI-driven diagnostic or treatment recommendation system requiring clinical performance studies against a ground truth.

Specifically, the modifications enable:

• Video recording/Image capture.
• WiFi pairing of iOS devices with an Advanced Processor.
• An iOS app to view live endoscopic video.
• Data logging (stereo endoscopic video, kinematics, real-time events).

The submission asserts that these modifications do not affect the substantial equivalence of the device to its predicate because "verification and validation testing have established there are no new issues of safety or effectiveness."

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the provided document, highlighting what is not applicable due to the nature of the submission:

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

Since this is a submission for modifications to an existing device, and not a new diagnostic or prognostic AI/ML device, there are no specific clinical performance acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) reported in this document. The "acceptance criteria" for these modifications appear to be successful completion of verification and validation testing, and compliance with relevant standards.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes verification and validation testing of software and hardware modifications for a robotic surgical system, not a clinical study involving a test set of patient data for an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic algorithm. The testing would involve engineering and software validation tests, not clinical data sets in the typical sense.

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)

This information is not applicable. Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant for AI/ML algorithms performing tasks like diagnosis or detection. The current submission focuses on verifying the functionality and safety of video recording, streaming, and data logging features.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as #3.

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 information is not applicable. The device provides tools for surgeons (video recording, streaming), but it is not an AI assistant meant to improve human reader performance in interpreting medical images or data.

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

This information is not applicable. The modifications are for a human-controlled surgical system, enhancing its capabilities rather than introducing a standalone AI algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the verification and validation of these modifications would be the functional specifications and safety requirements met through engineering and software testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. This document does not pertain to the development or validation of an AI/ML algorithm that would require a training set.

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

This information is not applicable. As no AI/ML training set is mentioned or implied, the method for establishing its ground truth is irrelevant to this submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

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, 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.

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. 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.

The subject of this 510(k) submission are software modifications to the da Vinci Xi Surgical System (Model IS4000) and da Vinci X Surgical System (Model IS4200). These modifications allow Intuitive Surgical to offer cloud-based features to the IS4000 and IS4200 systems such as Surgeon Cloud Accounts, Procedure List, and Central Configuration.

• . Surgeon Cloud Accounts – Enable surgeons to log in to multiple IS4000 systems and access their personal IS4000 system settings (vision, ergonomic, motion scaling, and energy) by storing user preferences in a cloud-based central Intuitive data server.
• . Procedure List – Enable surgeons/OR staff to select a surgical procedure they intend to perform from the surgeon console touchscreen before the start of surgery.
• . Central Configuration – Enable authorized Intuitive Surgical employees to remotely configure features of one or more IS4000 systems simultaneously.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for software modifications to the da Vinci Xi Surgical System and da Vinci X Surgical System. The modifications allow for cloud-based features such as Surgeon Cloud Accounts, Procedure List, and Central Configuration.

However, the document does not contain any information regarding clinical performance studies, acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test or training sets, expert review processes for ground truth establishment, or multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) studies.

The "Performance Data" section explicitly states:

"Using an ISO 14971 compliant risk management process, a comprehensive hazard analysis of the software was performed, and impacted risks assessed, mitigations were evaluated and tested to be acceptable through verification and validation testing. The software development process based on ISO 62304 ensured that the software changes were appropriately documented, risk assessed and tested. Design verification tests were performed to verify the proposed software modifications performed as intended. The testing also verified the modifications to the da Vinci system software and server infrastructure did not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. In addition, the pre and postmarket FDA guidance documents regarding cybersecurity were followed to document, risk assess and verify that the cybersecurity controls performed as expected in the event of an exploitation of a cybersecurity vulnerability. Performance test data demonstrate that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the design output meets the design input requirements. None of the software modifications impact the intended use or indications for use of the da Vinci X/Xi Systems."

This indicates that the performance data for this 510(k) submission primarily consists of design verification and validation testing, hazard analysis, and cybersecurity assessment, rather than a clinical study measuring diagnostic or treatment outcome performance against specific acceptance criteria. The claim of "substantial equivalence" is based on these engineering and software system evaluations, and the fact that the modifications do not alter the intended use of the device.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer most of the questions regarding acceptance criteria, study design, and ground truth, as this information is not present in the provided text.

However, I can extract the following relevant non-clinical information:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Based on the text, the acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to the successful completion of design verification and validation testing, hazard analysis per ISO 14971, and cybersecurity control verification per FDA guidance. The overall goal is to demonstrate that the software modifications perform as intended and do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness, thus maintaining substantial equivalence to the predicate device.
• Reported Device Performance:
  • Software modifications performed as intended.
  • Modifications did not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.
  • Cybersecurity controls performed as expected.
  • Design output meets design input requirements.
  • No impact on the intended use or indications for use.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Not applicable/Not provided. The "test set" here refers to engineering and software validation, not a clinical data set.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable/Not provided. Ground truth in a clinical sense (e.g., diagnosis, pathology) was not established for this type of submission.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided.

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:

• No MRMC study was done. This submission is for software modifications that add cloud-based functionality, not for AI assistance in diagnosis or treatment.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. The device is a surgical system requiring human operation. The software modifications are infrastructure and user preference-related, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this submission would be defined by engineering specifications and functional requirements, against which the software was verified and validated.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not provided. No machine learning training set is mentioned in the context of this 510(k) for software modifications.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

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. 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.

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. 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.

This 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, to include the following additional representative, specific procedure under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indication for Use of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System, Model IS4000 (K131861) and the da Vinci X Surgical System, Model IS4200 (K171294) and the associated labeling claims: Gastrectomy. 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 softwarecontrolled, 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.

The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for a labeling modification of the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems (Models IS4000 and IS4200) to include "Gastrectomy" as a recognized procedure under the existing "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" indication for use. This is explicitly stated as a labeling modification only, with no changes to the technological characteristics of the cleared devices. As such, the "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" in a traditional sense (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for a novel device or AI algorithm are not applicable here.

Instead, the study aims to demonstrate that adding "Gastrectomy" to the labeling does not introduce new safety or effectiveness concerns compared to the already cleared general laparoscopic indications, and that the da Vinci systems are substantially equivalent for this new labeled use.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this is a labeling modification and not a new device or AI algorithm with specific performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity, there are no predefined numerical acceptance criteria or typical "device performance" values.

Instead, the "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as demonstration of comparable safety and effectiveness outcomes for Gastrectomy procedures performed with the da Vinci system when compared to laparoscopic and/or open procedures, based on literature review.

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

• Sample Size for the Test Set:
  The study is a literature review, not a primary clinical trial with a "test set" in the traditional sense of a prospectively collected cohort. The sample sizes are derived from the N values reported in the individual studies included in the meta-analysis/systematic review. For example, some studies reviewed had sample sizes for Robotic Gastrectomy ranging from 53 to 1830 patients, for Laparoscopic Gastrectomy from 61 to 4123 patients, and for Open Gastrectomy from 145 to 8585 patients.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance is stated as "Published clinical data from literature." The document extensively cites 16 publications. No specific countries of origin are mentioned, but based on typical medical literature, these would likely be international. The studies cited include:
  • Two (2) randomized controlled trials (level 1b evidence)
  • Ten (10) systematic reviews/meta-analysis (level 2a evidence)
  • Four (4) database studies (level 2c evidence)
    The nature of these studies (e.g., retrospective database analyses, prospective RCTs within the included literature) would vary.

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

This type of study does not involve "experts establishing ground truth" for individual cases in a test set. The "ground truth" here is the aggregated clinical outcomes reported in published studies, which are considered evidence-based medical conclusions. The experts involved would be the authors of the 16 published clinical studies (surgeons, statisticians, researchers, etc.) who conducted the original research and established their findings. Their specific qualifications are not detailed in this 510(k) summary, but are implicitly assumed based on the peer-reviewed nature of the published literature.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is applicable here as this is a review of published literature, not a study involving individual case assessments by reviewers. The "adjudication" is inherent in the peer-review process of the published articles and the methodology of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This submission is for a surgical system, not an AI diagnostic/interpretive tool requiring human reader performance evaluation.

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

No standalone algorithm performance study was done. The da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems are electro-mechanical systems intended to assist surgeons (human-in-the-loop), not standalone algorithms. The submission explicitly states "The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System...is intended to assist in the accurate control of Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instruments...It is intended to be used by trained physicians in an operating room environment..."

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is clinical outcomes data (e.g., mortality, EBL, LOS, complication rates, reoperation rates, etc.) collected and analyzed in previously published clinical studies (Randomized Controlled Trials, Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses, and Database Studies).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This submission does not involve a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. The "training data" for making the determination about substantial equivalence for the new indication are the 16 published clinical studies. The sum of patients across all studies' da Vinci cohorts, laparoscopic cohorts, and open cohorts constitutes the entirety of the evidence base reviewed. These numbers are substantial, with individual studies reporting hundreds to thousands of patients (e.g., Robotic 1830, Lap 4123, Open 8585 in some studies).

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

Since there is no "training set" in the AI/ML sense, the question refers to how the evidence for the labeling modification was established. The "ground truth" (i.e., the clinical outcomes and conclusions) in the selected 16 publications was established through:

• Clinical Research Methodologies: Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and database studies.
• Data Collection: Gathering patient data on various clinical outcomes (e.g., EBL, LOS, complications, mortality) from surgical procedures.
• Statistical Analysis: Rigorous statistical methods applied by the authors of the original publications to analyze and interpret the collected data, leading to the reported conclusions regarding comparability or differences in outcomes between da Vinci, laparoscopic, and open surgical approaches.
• Peer Review: The scientific rigor of these publications being accepted into peer-reviewed journals.

Ask a specific question about this device

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. 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.

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. 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.

This 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, to include "Ventral Hernia Repair" (VHR) procedures under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indication for Use of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System, Model IS4000 and the da Vinci X Surgical System, Model IS4200. 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.

The provided document, K173585, describes the a 510(k) premarket notification for a labeling modification to include "Ventral Hernia Repair" (VHR) procedures under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indication for Use of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System (Model IS4000) and the da Vinci X Surgical System (Model IS4200). The document does not describe the acceptance criteria and study proving a device's performance against acceptance criteria in the manner typically seen for AI/ML-enabled devices. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of adding VHR procedures to the existing robotic surgical systems by comparing the outcomes of robotic-assisted VHR to traditional open and laparoscopic VHR.

Therefore, many of the specific questions about acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device's performance, sample sizes for test sets, establishment of ground truth by experts, MRMC studies, and standalone algorithm performance, as requested in the prompt, are not applicable or directly addressed by this document. This document is about a surgical system, not an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic tool.

However, I can extract information related to the clinical study data used to support the labeling modification, which serves a similar purpose to a performance study for a new indication.

Here's the information as it relates to the provided document:

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

The document doesn't define explicit numerical "acceptance criteria" in the way one would for an AI/ML device (e.g., "sensitivity must be >X%"). Instead, it demonstrates comparability and, in some cases, superiority of the robotic-assisted VHR to existing surgical methods across several clinical outcomes and measures. The "acceptance" for this 510(k) is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence and safety and effectiveness for the new indication compared to existing methods.

The tables provided (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4a) present the "reported device performance" in terms of clinical outcomes for robotic-assisted VHR procedures compared to open and laparoscopic VHR. Below is a summary of the key findings, which serve as the "performance" data used to support the new indication.

Summary of Device Performance (Robotic-Assisted VHR vs. Comparators)

Ask a specific question about this device

The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System Model IS4000) 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 thoracoscopical 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.

The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control 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. 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.

This 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, to include the following additional representative, specific procedures under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indication for Use of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System, Model IS4000 (K131861) and the da Vinci X Surgical System, Model IS4200 (K171294): Gastric Bypass (Roux-en-Y) and Gastric Sleeve. 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 softwarecontrolled, 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.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a labeling modification of the Intuitive Surgical da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems (Models IS4000 and IS4200). It focuses on adding specific gastric procedures (Gastric Bypass and Gastric Sleeve) to the "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" indication for use. Therefore, the acceptance criteria and supporting studies are related to the safety and effectiveness of the device for these additional procedures, primarily against existing surgical methods (open and laparoscopic).

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" with specific numerical thresholds for performance metrics. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices and established surgical practices (open and laparoscopic) by showing comparable or improved outcomes in various metrics. The acceptance is implicitly based on these comparisons showing non-inferiority or superiority in critical safety and effectiveness parameters.

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

• Test Set Description: The "test set" in this context refers to the published clinical data analyzed for Gastric Bypass (Roux-en-Y), which served as the "umbrella procedure" to support both Gastric Bypass and Gastric Sleeve.
• Sample Size (for Gastric Bypass umbrella procedure): The clinical data summarized in Table 1A involved 10 publications. The total number of patients included across these studies is:
  • da Vinci (Robotic) Cohort: 172 + 61 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 125 + 100 + 65 + 388 + 143 = 1,354 patients
  • Laparoscopic (Lap) Cohort: 173 + 46 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 121 + 100 + 54 + 389 + 323 = 1,506 patients
  • Open Cohort: 95 + 524 = 619 patients
• Data Provenance: The data are from published clinical studies. The specific countries of origin are not mentioned, but clinical literature is generally international. The studies include both non-randomized, controlled, prospective studies (2 studies) and retrospective cohort studies (8 studies).

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

• This information is not provided in the given text. The "ground truth" for these clinical outcome studies is inherent in the reported patient outcomes and surgical metrics gathered and published by the original study authors. There is no mention of independent experts establishing a ground truth for a test set for the purpose of this 510(k) submission. The FDA's review process inherently involves medical experts, but they are assessing the submitted evidence, not establishing a new ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This information is not provided. The text describes a review of published clinical data. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus) are typically associated with image-based diagnostic studies or clinical trials where expert review of individual cases is part of the study design. For a meta-analysis or review of published literature on surgical outcomes, the "adjudication" is primarily how each original study defined and reported its outcomes.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. MRMC studies are typically used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a device (often imaging-based AI) by comparing how multiple readers perform with and without the device. This submission is for a surgical system and its labeled indications, and the performance evaluation relies on real-world surgical outcomes and peer-reviewed literature, not diagnostic reader performance.
• Effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as it's not an MRMC study.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study was not done. The da Vinci system is a surgical assistance system, inherently involving a human surgeon (human-in-the-loop). Its "performance" is evaluated by the outcomes of surgeries performed with the system assisting the surgeon, compared to traditional methods.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for the clinical performance evaluation is based on patient outcomes and surgical metrics reported in peer-reviewed clinical literature (e.g., mortality, complication rates, length of stay, operative time, reoperation rate, etc.). This is essentially outcomes data collected and documented in clinical studies.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• This information is not applicable in the conventional sense for this type of submission. The da Vinci system is an electro-mechanical surgical system, not an AI/ML algorithm that undergoes a distinct "training" phase on a dataset of cases to learn to perform a task. The "experience" or "learning" of the system happens through engineering design, software development, preclinical testing, and extensive clinical validation over many years.
• However, if one were to consider the continuous development and refinement of the system's design and software, it would be based on an enormous "dataset" of engineering principles, surgical knowledge, user feedback, and prior clinical experience.

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

• As explained above, a "training set" with established ground truth in the context of machine learning is not directly applicable here. The development of the surgical system relies on established surgical practices, engineering standards, and medical knowledge. Pre-clinical animal studies (mentioned as 6 evaluations in 24 animals) contribute to the developmental understanding and validation of the system's design, but this isn't a "training set" in the AI sense.
• The "ground truth" for surgical device development is rooted in the safety and effectiveness principles derived from surgical anatomy, physiology, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes, primarily established by expert surgeons and medical researchers over decades.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System, Model 184000) 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 laparosopic 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.

The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System (da Vinci Surgical System, Model 184200) 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 laparosopic 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.

This 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, to include the following additional representative, specific procedures under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indication for Use of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System, Model IS4000 (K131861) and the da Vinci X Surgical System, Model IS4200 (K171294): Pancreatectomy (partial, distal, segmental), Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple Procedure), Splenectomy and Cholecystectomy. 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.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a labeling modification of the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems, Models IS4000 and IS4200. This modification adds specific representative procedures (Pancreatectomy, Pancreaticoduodenectomy, Splenectomy, and Cholecystectomy) under the existing "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" indication for use.

Crucially, the submission states that there are no changes to the technological characteristics of the device. Therefore, the "device" in question (the da Vinci surgical system itself) is already cleared, and the performance data presented is to establish substantial equivalence for the expanded indications for use, not to prove the fundamental performance of the surgical robot. The acceptance criteria and "device performance" in this context refer to the clinical outcomes of procedures performed using the da Vinci system compared to traditional open or laparoscopic methods, demonstrating that the new indications are safe and effective.

Here's an analysis of the provided information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as numerical targets in the document. Instead, the study aims to demonstrate that da Vinci Xi/X-assisted procedures for the newly added indications are comparable or superior to existing open or laparoscopic surgical procedures across a range of clinical outcomes.

The "reported device performance" is derived from the clinical literature review for the "umbrella procedures" (Pancreatectomy and Pancreaticoduodenectomy), which are considered representative of the more complex/higher-risk operations. The less complex/lower-risk "covered procedures" (Splenectomy and Cholecystectomy) were supported by inference from the umbrella procedures.

Below is a summary of the findings, which implicitly serve as the "acceptance criteria" and "reported performance" through comparative equivalence:

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Studies (Test Set):

  • Pancreatectomy (Umbrella Procedure #1): Eleven (11) publications were identified. The sample sizes within these publications varied significantly. For example, in Table 1A, individual study cohorts ranged from 22 to 3743 patients for da Vinci, laparoscopic, and open procedures. The largest single cohort for da Vinci was 258 (Zureikat, 2017) and for open was 3743 (Zureikat, 2017).
  • Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Umbrella Procedure #2): Eight (8) publications were identified. Individual study cohorts ranged from 102 to 3743 patients. The largest single cohort for da Vinci was 476 (Pedziwiatr, 2017) and for open was 3743 (Zureikat, 2017).
  • Covered Procedures (Splenectomy and Cholecystectomy): No specific clinical studies were provided for these procedures; their clearance was supported by the data from the umbrella procedures.

• Data Provenance: The data are derived from published clinical literature, including:

  • Prospective randomized controlled trials
  • Meta-analyses
  • Systematic reviews
  • Large database comparative studies

  The specific countries of origin are not specified, but peer-reviewed medical literature typically encompasses international data. The studies are retrospective and prospective, depending on the nature of the individual publications included in the literature review.

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

This is not applicable in the traditional sense for this submission. The "ground truth" for the clinical effectiveness and safety of the da Vinci system for these procedures is established by the peer-reviewed published clinical literature, which is generated by numerous clinical researchers and practicing surgeons. The FDA review process itself involves experts (e.g., "Director, Division of Surgical Devices, Office of Device Evaluation") who evaluate the scientific rigor and conclusions of the submitted literature review.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not directly applicable in the terms of human reader adjudication of images. The "adjudication" in this context is the consensus reached through the scientific and statistical analysis presented in the peer-reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and comparative studies. The FDA then adjudicates the strength of this evidence for the purpose of granting substantial equivalence.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The submission relies on a literature review comparing clinical outcomes of different surgical approaches (da Vinci, laparoscopic, open).

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

This question is not applicable. The da Vinci Surgical System is a human-in-the-loop device; it is controlled by a surgeon. The "performance" being evaluated is the outcome of surgical procedures when performed using the da Vinci system (with a human surgeon operating it), compared to other surgical methods. This is not an AI algorithm performing a task autonomously.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the clinical performance claims is based on patient outcomes data reported in published clinical trials and studies. These outcomes include:

• Mortality rates
• Estimated blood loss
• Length of hospital stay
• Postoperative complication rates
• Spleen preservation rates (for pancreatectomy)
• Gastric emptying rates
• Reoperation rates
• Readmission rates
• Pancreatic fistula rates
• Operative time
• Conversion rates
• R0/R1 resection rates
• Lymph node yield

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

No explicit "training set" for an AI algorithm is mentioned as this device is not presented as an AI-driven autonomous system in this submission. The performance data is for the surgical system itself. The publications reviewed in the submission can be considered the evidence base that informs the regulatory decision, rather than a training set for an AI model.

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

As no training set for an AI algorithm is mentioned, this question is not applicable. The clinical "ground truth" for the effectiveness of the surgical system is established through the standard methodologies of clinical research (e.g., prospective trials, retrospective analyses, meta-analyses) that generated the published literature.

Ask a specific question about this device