Search Results

The Electrosurgical Generator 8070 is indicated for monopolar or bipolar surgery to achieve cut or coagulation for the tissue. It is intended to be used with monopolar handpiece and dispersive electrode or bipolar handpiece and footswitches.

8070 is an Electrosurgical Generator with Monopolar Pure cut, Monopolar Bland Cut, Bipolar function. 8070 consists of HF generator and accessories. The device generates HF power, which is transmitted to the tissue through the output Pencil. Operator selects the output function and power with the front panel. The indicator is used to indicate the setup status and output status of the output is controlled by foot or hand switch.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for an Electrosurgical Generator and Accessories. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than fulfilling specific acceptance criteria for a novel device's performance in a clinical setting like an AI algorithm would.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria for an AI device, a study proving it meets those criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or specific ground truth establishment for AI.

Instead, the document details:

• Acceptance Criteria (for this device's type): Demonstrated safety and effectiveness through compliance with recognized standards for electromedical devices (IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-2-2) and FDA guidance for electrosurgical devices.
• Study Proving Acceptance: Non-clinical (bench) performance testing, electrical safety testing (IEC 60601-1), electromagnetic compatibility testing (IEC 60601-1-2), high-frequency safety testing (IEC 60601-2-2), and usability testing (IEC 60601-1-6). The document states these tests were "successfully completed."
• Performance Comparison: The subject device's technological characteristics (e.g., maximum power, voltage output, waveforms for different modes) are compared in a table to its predicate device (Medrange Corporation MB 8010). The differences are presented, and the conclusion is that these differences "do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness."

In summary, the information requested in your prompt (especially points 2-9) is typical for AI/ML device submissions, which often involve clinical performance studies. The provided document is for an electrosurgical generator, a hardware device, and thus the basis for its clearance is non-clinical testing and comparison to a predicate device, not in-depth clinical studies with human readers or AI ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device