Search Results

The Intuitive Surgical Endoscopic Instrument Control System (da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems, 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.

Intended Use: To assist in the accurate control of endoscopic instruments in minimally invasive surgery.

The da Vinci Xi/X Surgical Systems, Models IS4000/IS4200, are software-controlled, electro-mechanical systems designed to enable complex surgery using a minimally invasive approach. The systems consist of a Surgeon Console, a Patient Side Cart (PSC), and a Vision Side Cart (VSC) and are used with an endoscope, instruments, and accessories.

The basis for this submission is the modification of the da Vinci Xi/X Surgical Systems, Models IS4000/IS4200, cleared in K240723. The device software is being modified to include a new feature called "Networked Central Configuration Management" which enables Intuitive technical support to remotely push configuration data to a system connected to the network, including customer site preference settings and system feature enabling or disabling. The modification also includes changes to the device labeling.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to the da Vinci Xi/X Surgical Systems (IS4000/IS4200). This document primarily focuses on a software modification, specifically the "Networked Central Configuration Management" feature, and does not describe a clinical study comparing device performance against specific acceptance criteria in the manner typically seen for diagnostic or AI-driven devices.

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

Key Takeaway: The submission is for a software modification to an already cleared device, not a new device requiring extensive clinical performance studies against defined acceptance criteria. Therefore, many of the requested data points (like sample size for test sets, expert consensus, MRMC studies, standalone performance with ground truth) are not applicable in this context.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not directly applicable as described for clinical performance. This submission is for a software modification to an existing, already cleared device. The "performance data" discussed relates to software and cybersecurity testing, not clinical outcomes against specific performance metrics for diagnosis or treatment efficacy in patients compared to a predicate or ground truth.

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

Not applicable. The document describes software and cybersecurity testing, not a clinical test set with patient data for performance evaluation. Therefore, there is no mention of a sample size for a test set or data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

Not applicable. Ground truth in the context of clinical performance is not relevant for a software update related to configuration management and cybersecurity. Software testing would involve software engineers and cybersecurity experts, but their roles are not defined as "establishing ground truth" in the clinical sense.

4. Adjudication Method

Not applicable. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are used in clinical studies, particularly for diagnostic devices, to resolve disagreements among experts in establishing ground truth. This is not mentioned as it's a software modification submission.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No, an MRMC study was not done. The document does not mention any clinical studies, and therefore no MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed to evaluate human reader improvement with or without AI assistance. The da Vinci system is a surgical robot, not an AI diagnostic tool for image interpretation or similar tasks that would typically involve MRMC studies.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

Not applicable. The da Vinci Xi/X Surgical Systems are surgical robots intended to be used with human surgeons (human-in-the-loop). A standalone performance evaluation in the absence of human involvement would not be relevant for this device. The software update is for configuration management, not an autonomous function.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Not applicable in the clinical sense. The "ground truth" for software testing would be the predefined functional requirements and specifications, and for cybersecurity, it would be adherence to security protocols and protection against identified threats. This is different from clinical ground truth such as pathology, expert consensus on imaging, or patient outcomes data.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. The document refers to software modifications and testing for an existing device. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI model development which would require such a set. The "training" implied is for the system's internal functions, not for a learning algorithm.

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

Not applicable. As there is no mention of a training set for an AI/machine learning model, the method for establishing its ground truth is not discussed.

Ask a specific question about this device

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 revasoularization. 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 premarket notification is for a labeling modification only, to revise the Precaution for Representative Uses statement so that it does not apply to radical prostatectomy performed using the subject devices. This labeling change is supported by real-world evidence (RWE). There are no changes to the technological characteristics or the indications for use 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 to the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems. The modification aims to remove a precaution statement regarding outcomes related to cancer treatment, specifically radical prostatectomy (RP), since this procedure was evaluated for overall survival. The submission relies on Real-World Evidence (RWE) from a retrospective cohort study to demonstrate the non-inferiority of robotic-assisted surgical device (RASD) radical prostatectomy compared to non-RASD RP concerning overall survival.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

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, 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 of "Appendectomy" under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indications for Use of 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.

This document, a 510(k) summary, details a labeling modification for the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems to include "Appendectomy" under their cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" indications for use. It is not a study demonstrating device performance or meeting acceptance criteria in the typical sense of a new device or a new algorithmic feature.

Therefore, many of the requested fields are not applicable in this context. This submission is for a procedural labeling change based on the existing safety and effectiveness of the device for similar procedures.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted, and where the requested information is not applicable:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This document does not present acceptance criteria or reported device performance in the form of metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, precision) because it's a labeling modification for an existing device. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" here relate to demonstrating that appendectomy is equivalent in safety and effectiveness to already cleared procedures for the device.

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

Not applicable. No new test set or data was used because this submission is for a labeling modification based on the substantial equivalence of the procedure to already cleared procedures. The submission argues that appendectomy is covered under existing cleared procedures (LAR/TME and Colectomy) for which the device has already demonstrated safety and effectiveness.

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 applicable. No new ground truth was established for a test set. The claim is based on the inherent surgical similarities between procedures already approved for the device.

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

Not applicable. No adjudication method was used as there was no new test set requiring expert review.

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. No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is a surgical system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative tool for human readers.

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

Not applicable. This device is a surgical system that assists in controlling instruments. It is not an algorithm performing a task without human intervention. The submission focuses on the human surgeon using the device for a new procedure within its established capabilities.

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

The "ground truth," in a conceptual sense for this submission, is the established surgical knowledge and practice regarding the equivalence of appendectomy to other laparoscopic procedures (LAR/TME and Colectomy) already cleared for the da Vinci systems. This is implicitly based on expert surgical opinion on procedural steps, required instruments, anatomical structures, and associated risks. No formal new "ground truth" for a study was established for this submission.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. There is no training set in the context of this submission. The device itself has undergone extensive training (development and testing) prior to its initial clearance. This submission solely re-evaluates the scope of its cleared indications.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for this labeling modification, there is no ground truth established for it. The original "ground truth" for the device's development would have been established through a rigorous process of engineering, preclinical testing, and clinical trials for its initial clearance and prior modifications.

Ask a specific question about this device

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.

This 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, to include the following additional representative, specific procedure of "Hepatectomy/Liver Resection" under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indications for Use of 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 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 text describes a 510(k) submission for a labeling modification to the da Vinci Xi Surgical System (Model IS4000) and the da Vinci X Surgical System (Model IS4200) to include "Hepatectomy/Liver Resection" as a representative specific procedure under the existing Indications for Use. The submission argues for substantial equivalence based on clinical data from published literature.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

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

The submission does not explicitly define "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner (e.g., "mortality rate must be less than X%"). Instead, it presents a comparative effectiveness study showing that the da Vinci-assisted procedures for Hepatectomy/Liver Resection are "substantially equivalent" to minimally invasive/laparoscopic procedures based on several clinical endpoints. The acceptance criterion is implicitly that the robotic-assisted procedure's performance on these endpoints isnot worse than the comparator procedures.

The reported device performance is presented in Tables 1A and 1B: da Vinci vs. Minimally Invasive/Laparoscopic Hepatectomy/Liver Resection Procedures. These tables detail various clinical outcomes from 32 retrospective studies, 5 database studies, and 1 prospective study comparing robotic-assisted and laparoscopic/minimally invasive approaches for hepatectomy/liver resection.

Table of Performance Comparison (Derived from Tables 1A and 1B and supporting text):

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The "test set" in this context refers to the published clinical studies analyzed.

• Sample size: The study identified 38 publications. Within these publications, individual study sizes (N) for both Robotic and Laparoscopic cohorts vary widely, as shown in Tables 1A and 1B. For example, some studies have N as low as 9 (Berber 2010 Robotic) or 10, while others are significantly larger, such as Lap 6186 (Stewart 2019) or Robotic 354 (Stewart 2019). The total number of patients across all 38 studies is not aggregated but is certainly substantial.
• Data provenance: The data is retrospective and prospective clinical data from published literature.
  • One (1) prospective study (LOE 2b)
  • Five (5) database studies (LOE 2c)
  • Thirty-two (32) retrospective studies (LOE 3b)
    The country of origin is not specified in the provided text, but it's international clinical literature.

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

The ground truth for the outcomes reported in the individual studies (e.g., mortality, complications, EBL) would have been established by the clinical teams involved in those primary studies. This submission is a literature review, not a primary clinical study establishing new ground truth. Therefore, the "ground truth" here is derived from the aggregated findings of numerous published studies conducted by various clinical experts worldwide. The submission itself doesn't mention specific experts establishing a ground truth for its own analysis, but rather synthesizes existing expert-derived clinical data.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable in the conventional sense. This is a review of published literature. The outcomes of the individual studies would have been adjudicated according to the methods of those respective studies. The selection of the studies for this submission was based on specific search criteria and filters as outlined in Figure A, implying a systematic review process rather than expert adjudication of individual cases for ground truth.

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. This is not an AI/imaging device. It's a surgical system where human surgeons directly control the robotic instruments. The comparative effectiveness study referenced is between human surgeons using the da Vinci system versus human surgeons using traditional minimally invasive/laparoscopic techniques. There is no mention of "human readers" or "AI assistance" in the context of improving diagnostic/interpretive tasks.

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

No. The da Vinci system is a robotically-assisted surgical tool that requires a human surgeon in the loop. It is not an autonomous algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" in this context is the clinical outcome data (e.g., mortality, complications, blood loss, length of stay, resection margins) reported in published peer-reviewed clinical studies. These outcomes are established through standard clinical practice, surgical records, patient follow-up, and, where applicable, pathology reports for resection margins.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a surgical system, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "training" for this device is the training of surgeons to use the system, which is mentioned in the Indications for Use: "It is intended to be used by trained physicians."

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

Not applicable. As above, there is no "training set" in the context of an AI algorithm. The training of surgeons involves established surgical curricula, proctoring, and credentialing processes within medical institutions, based on clinical experience and outcomes.

Ask a specific question about this device

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 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.

This 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, to include the following additional representative, specific foregut procedures under the cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indications for Use of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System, Model IS4000 (K131861) and the da Vinci X Surgical System, Model IS4200 (K171294): Heller Myotomy, Hiatal/Paraesophageal/Sliding Hernia Repair, Dor Fundoplication and Toupet Fundoplication. 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 document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a labeling modification to the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems (Models IS4000 and IS4200). The modification seeks to include additional "foregut" procedures (Heller Myotomy, Hiatal/Paraesophageal/Sliding Hernia Repair, Dor Fundoplication, and Toupet Fundoplication) under the already cleared "general laparoscopic surgical procedures" Indications for Use. The submission states that there are no changes to the technological characteristics of the device, implying that the device itself is not being changed, only its listed indications for use. Therefore, standard acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., accuracy, precision, safety) in a new or modified device submission are not applicable here in the typical sense. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are related to demonstrating substantial equivalence for the expanded indications.

The study that proves the device meets the "acceptance criteria" (i.e., demonstrating substantial equivalence for the new indications) is a clinical literature review comparing the da Vinci-assisted procedures to minimally invasive/laparoscopic procedures for the "foregut" procedures.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that this 510(k) is for a labeling modification only, with no technological changes to the device, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly tied to demonstrating substantial equivalence for the expanded indications through clinical outcomes. The device performance is reported by comparing outcomes of da Vinci-assisted procedures to standard minimally invasive/laparoscopic procedures.

• Mortality Rates
• Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Volumes
• Lengths of Hospital Stay (LOS)
• Intraoperative Complication Rates
• Post/Peri-Operative Complication Rates
• Conversion Rates
• Readmission Rates
• Perforation Rates
• Operative Times

(See Table 1A for detailed study-specific data, e.g., Ali (2019): Robotic EBL Not Reported, Lap EBL Not Reported. Overall, across studies, these metrics were reported and determined to be comparable or equivalent.) |
| - Mortality Rates | |
| - Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Volumes | |
| - Lengths of Hospital Stay (LOS) | |
| - Intraoperative Complication Rates | |
| - Post/Peri-Operative Complication Rates | |
| - Conversion Rates | |
| - Readmission Rates | |
| - Perforation Rates | |
| - Operative Times | |
| For Hiatal/Paraesophageal/Sliding Hernia Repair ("Umbrella Procedure #2"): Substantially equivalent rates for: | Hiatal/Paraesophageal/Sliding Hernia Repair: Findings from publications demonstrate substantial equivalence based on:

• Mortality Rates
• Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Volumes
• Blood Transfusion Rates
• Lengths of Hospital Stay (LOS)
• Intraoperative Complication Rates
• Postoperative Complication Rates
• Conversion Rates
• Reoperation Rates
• Readmission Rates
• Operative Times

(See Table 1B for detailed study-specific data, e.g., Gehrig (2013): Robotic Op Time 172±31 min, Lap Op Time 168±42 min. Overall, across studies, these metrics were reported and determined to be comparable or equivalent.) |
| - Mortality Rates | |
| - Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Volumes | |
| - Blood Transfusion Rates | |
| - Lengths of Hospital Stay (LOS) | |
| - Intraoperative Complication Rates | |
| - Postoperative Complication Rates | |
| - Conversion Rates | |
| - Reoperation Rates | |
| - Readmission Rates | |
| - Operative Times | |

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): The sample sizes vary by study within the literature review. For Heller Myotomy, the combined robotic cases across the 8 studies in Table 1A total 1043 patients. The combined laparoscopic cases total 5787 patients. For Hiatal/Paraesophageal/Sliding Hernia Repair, the combined robotic cases across the 7 studies in Table 1B total 1878 patients. The combined laparoscopic cases total 7085 patients.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance is from published clinical literature. The document states that "Fifteen (15) publications were identified...used in three (3) databases: PubMed, Scopus and Embase." These studies would encompass various countries and healthcare systems depending on the authors' affiliations. The study types include two (2) systematic reviews/meta-analyses, one (1) prospective study, two (2) database studies, and ten (10) retrospective studies.

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

The ground truth for the test set (the clinical outcomes reported in the literature) was established by the physicians and researchers who conducted the original studies. The document does not specify the number or specific qualifications of these original researchers, but it can be inferred that they are medical professionals and researchers in the field of surgery, as their work was published in peer-reviewed journals and structured as systematic reviews, prospective, database, and retrospective studies.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal adjudication method for the test set in the context of the 510(k) submission. Instead, the "adjudication" of the clinical data comes from:

• The peer-review process of the scientific journals where the original 15 papers were published.
• The methodology of systematic reviews and meta-analyses included, which involve rigorous evaluation of study quality and results.
• The FDA's own review of these publications to determine if they support substantial equivalence.

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. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission is for a surgical system and its indications, not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool that would typically involve human "readers" or AI assistance in interpretation. The comparison is between different surgical approaches (da Vinci-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic), not between human performance with and without AI.

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

Given that the device is a surgical system (the da Vinci Xi and X Surgical Systems), which involves a human surgeon operating the robot, a "standalone algorithm only" performance study is not applicable or relevant to this device. This device is inherently "human-in-the-loop."

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is clinical outcomes data reported in published medical literature. These outcomes include objective measures such as mortality rates, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rates (intraoperative and postoperative), conversion rates, readmission rates, perforation rates, reoperation rates, and operative times. This data is the direct result of actual surgical procedures.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. The submission describes a labeling modification for an existing surgical system. As there are no changes to the technological characteristics of the device and no new algorithm is being deployed, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms. The system's "training" for surgeons occurs through professional instruction and practice, not through a data-driven training set in the AI sense.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set in the AI/ML context. If interpreted metaphorically, the "ground truth" for training surgeons on how to use the da Vinci system is established through medical education, surgical training programs, professional instructions for use, and clinical experience, guided by established surgical best practices and outcomes. However, this is not a ground truth for a machine learning training set as typically inquired.

Ask a specific question about this device