Search Results

The Xenoscope™ is intended to be used in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the thoracic and peritoneal cavities including the female reproductive organs.

The Xenoscope™ System contains two separate functioning components. First, the Xenoscope™ Laparoscope Device is a 0° or 30°, 30 Fr (10mm), 10 - 36 cm long, singleuse, high-definition video image. For certain procedures the shorter 10 cm laparoscope is preferred. Likewise, for other procedures, the longer 36 cm laparoscope is preferred. Except for the length difference, the scientific principles, materials of construction and design are otherwise identical. Second, the Xenoscope™ Dongle (now termed as the Xenobox™), which converts the camera image onto the video display screen for the surgeon to use, is provided with the Xenoscope™. Together, the Xenoscope™ and the Xenobox™ comprise the Xenoscope™ Laparoscopic System and work synergistically together.

This looks like a 510(k) summary for the Xenocor Xenoscope Laparoscopic System, which is a medical device. Based on the provided text, it's difficult to extract the type of detailed information requested about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them because this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a detailed clinical study with specific performance metrics.

However, I can extract the information that is present and note where specific requested details are not provided.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based only on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Xenocor Xenoscope Laparoscopic System

The provided document describes a premarket notification (510(k)) for the Xenocor Xenoscope Laparoscopic System. The primary goal of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to present a de novo clinical study with detailed performance metrics and acceptance criteria as one might see for a novel device or a PMA application.

Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" discussed are largely related to functional and safety testing designed to show that the new device performs comparably to the predicate and meets its own design specifications, rather than clinical performance against a specific disease state.

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

Missing Information: The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "imaging resolution must be X lines per mm" or "light output must be Y lumens") or the specific numerical results of these tests. It only states that "All data met pre-determined acceptance criteria."

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for any of the tests mentioned (Biocompatibility, Software Verification, Shaft Bending Inspection, or Comparative Analysis). It's likely these were engineering or bench tests rather than patient studies with a "test set" in the clinical sense.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. Given the nature of a 510(k) for an endoscope, these are typically laboratory-based engineering and functional tests conducted by the manufacturer (Xenocor, Inc., USA). The document does not mention any clinical data, patient studies, or geographical origin of data.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not applicable to the type of testing described. These were likely pre-market verification tests.

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/Not specified. The "test set" described consists of functional/safety tests performed on the device itself, not a clinical set requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

• Not applicable/None. This type of adjudication is relevant for clinical studies with subjective interpretations, which are not described here.

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 device is a laparoscopic system (endoscope), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The document describes functional and safety testing, and a comparison to a predicate device's intended use and fundamental technology, not a study comparing human performance with or without AI assistance.

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

• No. This is not an algorithm-only device. It's a physical medical instrument (laparoscope), and the "software verification" relates to an image rotation feature, not a standalone AI algorithm.

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

• Not explicitly defined in the context of a clinical "ground truth." For the functional and safety tests, the "ground truth" would be established by engineering specifications, relevant ISO standards (like ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility), and design requirements.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device does not use a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The software verification mentioned refers to modifications for an image rotation feature, not a trainable AI model.

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

• Not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device