Search Results

The VERITAS(TM) Vision System is a modular ophthalmic microsurgical system that facilitates anterior segment (i.e., cataract) ophthalmic surgery. The modular design allows the user to configure the system to meet their surgical requirements.

The VERITAS(TM) Advanced Infusion Pack or VERITAS(TM) Advanced Fluidics Pack contains the manifold (cassette) and Tubing Assembly and is intended to perform irrigation during anterior segment cataract surgery. It is used with the VERITAS(TM) Vision System. The VERITAS(TM) Pack is sterilized using ethylene oxide and is designed for single use only.

The VERITAS™ Vision System is a modular ophthalmic microsurgical system that is intended for use in anterior segment (cataract) ophthalmic surgery. The device uses ultrasonic energy via finely modulated pulses of energy, interrupted by brief cooling periods, to emulsify and extractous lens. This allows the system to achieve full ultrasound cutting efficiency while introducing less energy to the eye, which reduces risk of thermal damage. The VERITAS™ System performs phacoemulsification, diathermy, irrigation/aspiration, and vitrectomy functions, and is a peristaltic system with a graphic user interface that has updated technology and hardware to meet current electrical and material safety standards.

The VERITAS™ Vision System consists of components that are used to perform cataract surgery, which include the 1) System Console, 2) Wireless Remote Control, 3) Advanced Foot Pedal and 4) Single-Use Fluidics Pack or Single-Use Infusion Pack 5) Swivel Handpiece 6) Hardware 7) Software.

The VERITAS™ Advanced Infusion Pack or VERITAS™ Advanced Fluidics Pack contains the manifold (cassette) and Tubing Assembly and is intended to perform irrigation and aspiration during anterior segment cataract surgery. It is used with the VERITAS™ Vision System. The VERITAS™ Pack is sterilized using ethylene oxide and is designed for single use only.

This report describes the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria for the VERITAS™ Vision System.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided documentation does not present a formal table detailing specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria and directly corresponding reported device performance metrics in a side-by-side format. Instead, it states that the device "passed the acceptance criteria" and "all tests passed and all acceptance criteria were met" for various functional aspects.

The performance testing primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices (WHITESTAR SIGNATURE® PRO Phacoemulsification System and OPO73 Dual Pump Fluidics Pack) rather than meeting predefined numerical acceptance thresholds for novel performance claims.

Based on the text, the acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to the performance and safety profiles of the predicate devices and compliance with relevant standards.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria and Reported Performance (derived from text):

The overall reported performance is that all required acceptance criteria were met, and the device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices.

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

The document indicates that "bench testing" was performed for design verification and validation. However, it does not specify the sample size (e.g., number of devices, number of tests, volume of data) used in these tests. The provenance of this test data is implied to be internal testing conducted by Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. The document does not specify a country of origin for the data or whether the tests were retrospective or prospective, though design verification and validation testing are typically prospective.

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

The document makes no mention of experts being used to establish ground truth for a test set. The validation relies on meeting technical specifications, safety standards, and functional equivalence to predicate devices, rather than expert interpretation of medical images or diagnostic outputs. Human factors studies were conducted, but these are for usability and risk, not for establishing diagnostic ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

No adjudication method is described, as the testing performed does not involve subjective assessments requiring adjudication. The device validation relies on objective physical measurements, functional tests, and compliance with standards.

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 device is a phacoemulsification system and not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging device, so such a study would not be applicable. The document explicitly states: "No animal or clinical studies were performed as there is no change to the indications for use or the fundamental scientific technology when compared to the primary and secondary predicate devices."

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

The device is a medical system for surgical procedures, not an algorithm, so a "standalone" algorithm-only performance assessment as typical for AI/ML devices is not applicable. Its performance is assessed through its mechanical and electrical functionality, and its interaction with a surgeon (human-in-the-loop) is the inherent design.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for the device's performance is established by:

• Compliance with recognized international standards (e.g., IEC 60601 for electrical safety, ISO 11135 and 11137 for sterilization, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 14971 for risk management).
• Demonstrating functional equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through bench testing.
• Meeting design specifications and requirements for each component and the system as a whole.

This is a form of technical and regulatory compliance ground truth, rather than a clinical ground truth like pathology or outcomes data.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not mention a training set. This device is a hardware/software medical system, not a machine learning or AI model that typically requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as no training set is mentioned or relevant for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device