Search Results

The reprocessed endoscopic trocars are designed to provide a pathway for entry of minimally invasive instruments to a body organ or cavity during general, abdominal, thoracic, gynecologic or other minimally invasive surgical procedures.

The reprocessed endoscopic trocar is a sterile instrument consisting of a sleeve and obturator that is available in varying lengths and diameters. The obturator may be blunt, bladed, or shielded-bladed (blade covered by a retractable shield). Reprocessed endoscopic trocars are devices that provide a pathway for entry of minimally invasive instruments to a body organ or cavity during abdominal, thoracic or gynecologic surgical procedures.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for SterilMed, Inc.'s reprocessed endoscopic trocars. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study to prove device performance in the context of an AI/ML device.

Therefore, the information required for the requested output (acceptance criteria table, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, etc.) is not present in the provided document. The document describes a traditional medical device reprocessing and its approval process, not an AI/ML device study.

Here's a breakdown of what is available vs. what is not:

What is present:

• Device Description: Reprocessed endoscopic trocar, consisting of a sleeve and obturator.
• Intended Use: To provide a pathway for entry of minimally invasive instruments to a body organ or cavity during various surgical procedures.
• Functional and Safety Testing mentioned: Cleaning validation, sterilization validation (ISO 11135, USP <71>), biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993), ethylene oxide residual testing (ISO 10993-7), packaging validation (ASTM D4169, ASTM F88, ASTM F2096), shelf life validation (ASTM 1980-07), and functional performance validated using bench and laboratory testing.
• Conclusion: Substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on similarities in functional design, materials, indications for use, and methods of construction.

What is NOT present (and is required for your requested output, indicating this is not an AI/ML study report):

• Specific Acceptance Criteria (quantitative metrics like sensitivity, specificity, AUC, etc. for an AI model). The document mentions "appropriate functional characteristics" but doesn't quantify them.
• Reported Device Performance against specific quantitative criteria.
• Sample Size for a test set (in terms of cases/images for an AI model). The document mentions "representative samples" for functional testing but not a quantified test set for AI evaluation.
• Data Provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective for AI data).
• Number of experts and their qualifications for establishing ground truth. This typically applies to AI model evaluation where human experts label data.
• Adjudication method (2+1, 3+1, none) for a test set.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, including effect size. This is specific to human-AI collaboration studies.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance data.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data). While "functional performance was validated" and "cleaning validation," etc., are mentioned, these are for a reprocessing procedure, not for establishing ground truth for an AI model's output.
• Sample size for the training set (for an AI model).
• How the ground truth for the training set was established (for an AI model).

In summary, the provided text describes the regulatory approval of a reprocessed physical medical device (endoscopic trocar) through a 510(k) submission, not the evaluation of an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested in your bullet points, which are tailored for AI/ML device studies.

Ask a specific question about this device