Search Results

The CONMED PlumeSafe® X5™ Smoke Management System is designed to remove and filter smoke and aerosols from a surgical site produced during electrosurgical and laser procedures.

The PlumeSafe® X5™ Smoke Management System is a portable, stand-alone, capital unit, that when paired with a reusable filter and disposable accessories makes up a Smoke Management System. The smoke unit is accompanied by a reusable filter and is available in two different configurations, a 22mm or 25mm size. Each filter is designed to capture components of surgical smoke and return clean air to the environment and can connect to different accessories which include pencils, adapters, fluid traps, and tube sets. Each filter is a seff-contained device that is completely enclosed to protect health care personnels from potential contamination during filter changes. Each filter is comprised of filtration (gross particulate pre-filter, Ultra-Low Penetration Air (ULPA), coconutbased carbon, impregnated alumina, and carbon dust capture media) that produce capture efficiency ratings equal to or better than 99.999% for particles ranging in size from 0.01μm to 0.2μm.

PlumeSafe® X5™ is comprised of a vacuum motor, aluminum, steel, and plastic components combined with sound reducing insulation. The vacuum motor is used to draw the surgical site, through an accessory, and into the PlumeSafe® X5™ filter. The PlumeSafe® X5™ Smoke Management System provides multiple modes (open, laparoscopic, and pencil) and settings to adjust the flow to the clinical need.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the CONMED PlumeSafe® X5™ Smoke Management System, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• The document describes "benchtop testing" and "non-clinical performance testing." These are physical device tests, not tests on a clinical dataset.
• Therefore, there is no "test set" in the sense of a collection of patient data or images. The "samples" would be the physical devices, filters, and components themselves, tested under specific laboratory conditions.
• The provenance of data is not applicable in the context of clinical data, as this is solely benchtop testing.

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

• This question is not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of expert review typically refers to a clinical diagnosis or labeling of medical images/data. Since this is benchtop device testing, there is no "ground truth" established by clinical experts for a test set. The acceptance criteria are based on engineering specifications and international standards, and the "ground truth" is measured by laboratory equipment and procedures.

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

• This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods are used for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of clinical data. For benchtop testing, results are typically objective measurements against predefined thresholds, not subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is a smoke management system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The testing performed is related to the physical performance and safety of the device in filtering smoke and aerosols.

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

• This question is not applicable. The device is a physical smoke management system, not an algorithm or software that operates standalone for diagnostic or interpretive purposes. Its performance is measured independently of human interaction in terms of its ability to filter air, maintain flow, etc., but this is inherent to the device's function, not "standalone algorithm performance."

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

• For the benchtop tests, the "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, IEC, ASTM) and engineering specifications. The performance metrics (e.g., efficiency, flow rates, sound levels, motor lifetime) are objectively measured using calibrated laboratory equipment. There is no clinical "ground truth" in the form of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data for this type of device testing.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This question is not applicable. The device is a hardware product, not a machine learning model; therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of artificial intelligence.

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

• This question is not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Surnic Surclear Smoke Plume Evacuation System with accessories is intended to remove smoke created in surgical procedures at the surgical site.

The Surclear 8010 have been designed with a high suction, high flow rate vacuum motor. The ultra-quiet motor is used to draw the surgical smoke from the surgical site through the vacuum tubing and into the Surclear 8010 filter 8QF1 where the surgical smoke is processed by a series of filters. A single disposable filter is used to simplify the installation and removal during filter changes. The filter is completely enclosed to protect the healthcare personnel from potential contamination during filter changes. One 8QF1 filter contains four different stages within to capture the smoke plume.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and the results of non-clinical tests for the 8Q10 Surclear Smoke Plume Evacuation System. It does not contain information about a study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/human-in-the-loop performance evaluation, which is typically found in submissions for AI-powered devices.

The information provided pertains to the safety and functional performance of a medical device (a smoke plume evacuation system), not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). Therefore, many of the requested criteria (like sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, MRMC studies, etc.) are not applicable or not provided in this document.

However, I can extract and present the information that is available:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance for the 8Q10 Surclear Smoke Plume Evacuation System

This document describes the non-clinical testing conducted to demonstrate the safety and functionality of the 8Q10 Surclear Smoke Plume Evacuation System.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Further Technological Characteristics and Comparison to Predicate Device:

Information Not Found in the Provided Text:

The following specific requested information is not available in the given document, as it pertains to AI/SaMD performance studies, which is not the subject of this 510(k) submission:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable/not provided for a hardware device's functional testing. The tests are against specific engineering and safety standards.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a smoke evacuator's performance is based on physical measurements and compliance with engineering standards.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: For this device, ground truth is based on established international (IEC, ISO) and industry standards for electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, software validation, flow rates, and plume evacuation.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (not an AI/ML device).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable (not an AI/ML device).

Ask a specific question about this device

Medline's Smoke Evacuation Shroud is a single use, sterile product. Its intended use is as an electrosurgical accessory to attach to a standard cautery pencil. The shroud removes surgical procedures. The product is used inside the sterile field.

Medline's Smoke Evacuation Shroud is a single use, sterile product.

I apologize, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "Medline Smoke Evacuation Shroud" does not contain the information necessary to answer your request about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as it relates to AI/machine learning devices.

The document is a standard FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a Class II medical device (a smoke evacuation shroud, which is a physical accessory for electrosurgical pencils) and primarily addresses regulatory compliance and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It does not discuss:

• Acceptance criteria for an AI/ML algorithm.
• Performance studies involving AI/ML.
• Sample sizes for test or training sets.
• Expert involvement in establishing ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• MRMC studies or effect sizes for human readers.
• Stand-alone algorithm performance.
• Types of ground truth.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or provide any of the requested details based on the given input. This document is not relevant to the kind of AI/ML device performance study you are asking about.

Ask a specific question about this device

To remove airborne particles generated by tissue combustion during laparoscopic surgery, via filtration of gaseous media contained within the distended pneumoperitoneum in order to improve visualization. NEBULAE® SRS may be used in any laparoscopic surgery, as appropriate.

This 510(k) submission for the NEBULAE® SRS Laparoscopic Surgical Smoke Removal System (henceforth referred to as NEBULAE® SRS) covers the following product codes:
• NEBULAE® SRS Pump (7-700-00)
• NEBULAE® SRS CO₂ Gas Filtration Tubing Sets (7-510-57)
The NEBULAE® SRS is intended to recirculate CO2 gas in the pneumoperitoneum whilst removing surgical smoke during laparoscopic procedures. The system consists of two parts: a Pump and dedicated singleuse, sterile Tubing Sets.
The NEBULAE® SRS Pump is a microprocessor driven, mains-powered device containing a DC motor. The single-use, disposable Tubing Set consists of an integrated cartridge, containing a diaphragm pump, an in-line ultra-low particulate air (ULPA) with activated carbon filter, fluid trap(s), 10 feet of DEHP-free PVC tubing and two connectors for connecting the tubing to the trocars. The NEBULAE® SRS Pump's DC motor drives the pump head in the Tubing Set's cartridge to create the flow of CO2 gas from the patient's pneumoperitoneum, through the fluid trap(s) and filter before re-entering the patient.
The NEBULAE® SRS Pump can be positioned on a level surface (e.g. a surgical trolley in the operating room) or fixed to a vertical IV pole using a dedicated bracket, which is available as an accessory (See VOLUME 011 for further information).
The re-circulating CO2 gas can also be warmed by the addition of an in-line gas warmer, also available as an optional accessory.

The provided text describes the NEBULAE® SRS Laparoscopic Surgical Smoke Removal System. It primarily focuses on the device's design, intended use, and non-clinical testing to demonstrate its performance and substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document is a 510(k) summary, which is a premarket notification to the FDA. As such, it details non-clinical testing, not necessarily clinical studies involving human performance or diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, many of the requested details, particularly those related to human-in-the-loop performance, ground truth establishment for a test set, expert consensus, and multi-reader multi-case studies, are not applicable or available in this document, as it concerns a physical medical device for smoke removal, not a diagnostic AI/CADe/CADx system.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document describes non-clinical performance and usability testing in simulated environments.

• Performance/Functionality Tests: The sample size for device functionality tests (flow rate, occlusion detection, in-line warmer) is not explicitly stated as a number of distinct units tested, but the results indicate successful verification against stated criteria. These are engineering/device performance tests, not data sets for an algorithm.
• Usability Study: The acceptance criteria mentions "subjects (clinicians)," implying human participants. The specific number of subjects is not provided.
• Device Performance (Visual Clarity) Study: The acceptance criteria mentions "subjects (surgeons)," implying human participants. The specific number of subjects is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The studies are described as "simulated environments" and "non-clinical testing." No information is provided regarding country of origin or whether it's retrospective or prospective, as these are device performance tests, not clinical data collection.

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

This section is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device for smoke removal, not a diagnostic AI/CADe/CADx system that would typically require expert-established ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for these tests is based on objective measurements of device performance, adherence to standards, and qualitative user feedback in simulated settings.

For the "Usability" and "Device Performance" (visual clarity) qualitative assessments, the "ground truth" is based on the subjects' (clinicians/surgeons) direct experience and agreement/disagreement with the device's performance in the simulated environment. The number and qualifications of these subjects (clinicians/surgeons) are not specified beyond their professional titles.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This section is not applicable as the testing described focuses on device functionality and usability in simulated environments, not a diagnostic task requiring adjudication of expert opinions.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for diagnostic imaging devices or AI algorithms where human readers' performance is evaluated with and without AI assistance across multiple cases. The NEBULAE® SRS is a smoke removal system, not a diagnostic imaging device.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This section is not applicable in the context of an AI algorithm. The device itself (NEBULAE® SRS pump and tubing set) has standalone performance characteristics (e.g., flow rate, occlusion detection, in-line warmer function) that were tested. These are device-specific functions, not an "algorithm" in the typical sense of AI/machine learning.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the tests is derived from:

• Objective device performance measurements: E.g., maintaining a minimum flow rate, correctly detecting occlusions, maintaining set temperature for the warmer.
• Adherence to recognized industry standards: Such as IEC 60601 series for electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, and ISO 11137 for sterilization.
• Qualitative user feedback: For usability (successful task completion) and perceived visual clarity improvement by clinicians/surgeons in simulated settings.

There is no "pathology" or "outcomes data" ground truth as this is a non-diagnostic device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable. The NEBULAE® SRS is a physical medical device. It is not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set."

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

This section is not applicable as there is no training set for an AI/machine learning algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Megadyne Smoke Evacuator with accessories is intended to remove smoke created in surgical procedures at the surgical site.

The Megadyne Smoke Evacuator is designed to provide smoke evacuation in open and Laparoscopic procedures for the removal of surgical smoke. Using a scroll pump and 4 stages of filtration, the Megadyne Smoke Evacuator is designed to evacuate surgical smoke both quietly and effectively. An intuitive front panel design allows users to customize both the rate of suction FLOW and the length of RUN TIME after the active electrode is deactivated. Push button selections for OPEN, LAP (laparoscopic), and MANUAL modes are also clearly marked and easily accessible. The Megadyne smoke evacuator provides evacuation of smoke plume via a smoke evacuation device and tubing (e.g. E-Z Clear Smoke Evacuation Electrosurgical Pencil under K141587 on February 18, 2015) connected to the face of the Filter.

The Megadyne Smoke Evacuator has undergone non-clinical testing to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness. The acceptance criteria and reported device performance are summarized below:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document provided does not specify the sample sizes used for each individual test set. The data provenance is also not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective. The tests listed are non-clinical, implying laboratory-based testing rather than patient data.

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

For the non-clinical tests described, the concept of "ground truth" established by human experts, as typically seen in AI/ML performance studies for medical image analysis, does not directly apply. The acceptance criteria for these tests are based on established engineering standards (e.g., IEC standards) and design requirements. Therefore, the "ground truth" is defined by these objective measures rather than expert consensus on medical diagnoses.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable in the context of these non-clinical engineering and performance tests. The results are adjudicated against predefined, objective technical criteria.

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. This is a medical device (smoke evacuator), not a diagnostic AI device that assists human readers.

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

The device described is a physical medical device (smoke evacuator) with embedded software for control and monitoring. The "software validation" test evaluates the performance of this embedded software, which would be considered a standalone assessment of the algorithm's functionality within the device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Electrical Safety, Electromagnetic Compatibility, Mechanical Safety, Thermal Safety: Ground truth is established by the requirements of international standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2).
• Software Validation: Ground truth is established by the functional design specifications and expected behavior of the software, with test cases designed to verify these.
• Flow Rate Testing, Filter Life Testing: Ground truth is established by internal design requirements and specifications for these performance metrics.
• Design Validation: Ground truth involves meeting user needs and avoiding use errors, likely assessed through usability testing and adherence to design specifications.
• Tissue Effects in Laparoscopic procedures: Ground truth would be based on scientific and medical understanding of minimal tissue effects during surgical procedures, likely observed and documented in a controlled setting.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, and the testing described is not for an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The "software validation" refers to verifying the embedded software, not training a machine learning model.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for an AI/ML model in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

To remove and filter smoke and aerosols from a surgical site produced during electrosurgical and laser procedures.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance for an AI/ML medical device.

The document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device named EvaQMax Smoke Evacuation System, product code FYD. This is a physical device used to remove and filter smoke and aerosols from a surgical site, not an AI/ML-driven device.

Therefore, I cannot provide details on:

• Acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML device.
• Sample sizes, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies related to AI/ML device validation.

The document discusses regulatory information for a non-AI/ML medical device, including its classification, regulations, and reporting requirements.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Megadyne Foot Switch is an accessory that is interface with compatible smoke evacuation systems to control on/off inputs for manual operation.

The Megadyne Foot Switch is used with a compatible smoke evaluation system to control on/off inputs for manual operation.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Megadyne Foot Switch." This type of submission is for demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria through a comprehensive clinical study as one might see for an AI/ML device.

Therefore, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study elements you've asked for (e.g., sample size for test sets, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, training set details) are not applicable to this specific submission. This is a hardware device (a foot switch), not an AI/ML diagnostic or therapeutic device.

Here's how to interpret the provided document in the context of your questions:

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

For a hardware device seeking 510(k) clearance, the "acceptance criteria" are typically demonstrating compliance with relevant industry standards and showing that the new device is as safe and effective as a predicate device. Performance is shown through non-clinical testing.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of a "test set" for a clinical study. The device itself (Megadyne Foot Switch) was tested. The "sample size" would refer to the number of units tested during the engineering validation and verification processes (e.g., how many foot switches were subjected to durability testing), but this detail isn't provided in the summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. This involves non-clinical engineering and laboratory testing, not human patient data.

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

• Not applicable. There's no "ground truth" established by experts in the sense of clinical annotations (e.g., for images or patient outcomes). Ground truth for a foot switch relates to its functional performance (e.g., does it turn on/off when pressed, does it resist water intrusion as specified). This is verified through engineering tests against predefined specifications.

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

• Not applicable. This is a method used for reconciling discrepant expert opinions in clinical studies; it is not relevant for hardware performance testing.

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. An MRMC study is relevant for evaluating the impact of a diagnostic tool (often AI) on human reader performance. This is a simple hardware accessory (a foot switch for a smoke evacuation system).

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

• Not applicable. This is a hardware device; there is no algorithm or AI component to evaluate in a standalone manner. Its "standalone performance" would be its ability to pass the electrical, mechanical, and durability tests, which was summarized as "compliant with" relevant standards.

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

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is objective engineering and electrical/mechanical standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60529). The device's performance is measured directly against these quantifiable standards (e.g., Does it meet the IPX8 rating? Does it pass defined electrical safety tests?).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a hardware device, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. No training set for an AI/ML model was used.

Ask a specific question about this device

SafeAir Smoke Evacuator compact is designed to remove and filter smoke generated during electrosurgical and laser procedures.

SafeAir Smoke Evacuator compact is a device with a vacuum pump that aspirates the surgical smoke produced during cauterization. The main purpose of smoke evacuation systems is to remove surgical smoke plume as close as possible to the surgical site. The component of the system ensuring that this is achieved is a diathermy pencil with integrated smoke evacuation function or a click-on tubing set connected to a surgical smoke evacuator. SafeAir Smoke Evacuator compact is designed for use in the hospital/clinic environment. It is built around a vacuum pump with a replaceable filter at the entry point. A specially designed pump control is centrally placed in the machine. The SafeAir Smoke Evacuator compact is designed with a pump with different activation functions; manual activation on the front panel, footswitch activation through diathermy pencil with smoke evacuation tubing. Synchronization is possible with most of the electrosurgical units.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the SafeAir Smoke Evacuator compact, a device designed to remove and filter smoke generated during electrosurgical and laser procedures. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not on proving device performance using AI or clinical studies. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI-specific studies, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment is not present in this regulatory submission.

However, I can extract information related to the device's functional performance and comparisons to the predicate device.

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

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as separate acceptance criteria in the sense of predefined thresholds for clinical performance. Instead, the document demonstrates substantial equivalence by comparing technological characteristics and performance test results with the predicate device (Visiclear Smoke Evacuation System - K131402). The "acceptance" is implied by the similarity in performance to the predicate and compliance with relevant safety standards.

Here's a table based on the provided "Technological Characteristic Comparison Table" (Table 3), interpreted as performance demonstration against the predicate. The "Acceptance Criteria" column is derived from the predicate device's reported performance or general safety standards.

*All values obtained from simulated use testing.

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

The document mentions "simulated use testing" for flow rates. It does not specify a "test set" in terms of a dataset for AI evaluation, nor does it provide a sample size (number of tests or cases) for these simulated use tests. There is no information on data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) as this is a physical device performance test rather than an AI data study.

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

This information is not provided. The performance testing described is engineering/validation testing against physical parameters and standards, not clinical ground truth established by experts.

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

No adjudication method is described, as the testing involves objective measurements against engineering specifications and comparison with a predicate device, not subjective expert reviews.

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 study was conducted or is relevant to this device. This is a smoke evacuator, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

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

This refers to AI algorithm performance. No such study was conducted as the device is not an AI algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is compliance with recognized electrical, mechanical, thermal, and chemical safety standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2) and demonstrated functional performance (e.g., filtration efficiency, flow rates) that is "as safe, as effective and performs as well as or better than" the predicate device. This is primarily engineering and performance verification, not clinical ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve an AI algorithm with a training set.

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

Not applicable. No AI training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Smoklean is a passive smoke evacuation system which removes particles from surgical smoke generated in laparoscopic procedures while maintaining a clear field of vision.

During the laparoscopic surgery, the smoke generated by the electrocautery dims the surgeon's vision, affecting the operation and causing the smoke to have a negative effect on the surgeon. It is used in connection with a laparoscopic trocar body or a single port used to expand the surgical site during laparoscopic surgery. This product filters smoke generated when the tissue is cauterized through the laparoscopic trocar body and a single port. The connecting part of the Trocar body or single port is 4.25 * 5.04mm in diameter. The device is consisted of 35cm tubing, a body with filters and an adaptor.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "Smoklean," a passive smoke evacuation system for laparoscopic procedures. The document details the device's intended use, comparison to a predicate device, and performance data from various tests. However, it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria for these tests or a detailed study report that proves the device meets those criteria with specific performance metrics (e.g., specific filtration efficiency percentages, or quantitative measures of visual clarity).

Therefore, based on the provided text, I cannot complete all sections of your request. I will extract the information that is present and indicate where information is missing.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Particle filtration efficiency > 99.9% for 0.3 micron particles
• Ammonia removal efficiency > 90%
• Formaldehyde removal efficiency > 90%
• Maintain clear field of vision (qualitative assessment) | Example Performance (hypothetical, as not provided in text):
• Achieved 99.99% filtration efficiency for 0.3 micron particles
• Achieved 95% ammonia removal
• Achieved 92% formaldehyde removal
• Surgeons consistently reported a clear field of vision during simulated procedures. |

Missing Information: The document lists types of performance tests (e.g., "Smoke particulate filtration verification test," "Deodorization: Ammonia," "Deodorization: Formaldehyde") but does not provide the specific quantitative acceptance criteria or the numerical results achieved by the device against those criteria.

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

Missing Information: The document lists "Performance Tests" but does not specify the sample size used for these tests. Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not detailed for the performance tests.

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

Not Applicable for this type of device and performance testing. The "ground truth" for a smoke evacuation system generally refers to measurable physical properties (like filtration efficiency, odor reduction) rather than expert interpretation of medical images or conditions.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not Applicable for this type of device and performance testing, as it doesn't involve subjective interpretation that would require adjudication.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, as this is a smoke evacuation device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop) performance was done. The "Performance Data" section lists various tests performed directly on the device, such as "Smoke particulate filtration verification test," "Deodorization: Ammonia," and "Deodorization: Formaldehyde." These are objective, standalone tests of the device's physical capabilities.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance tests would be based on objective, measurable physical and chemical standards, such as:

• Pre-defined concentrations of particles or gases (e.g., ammonia, formaldehyde) for filtration/deodorization tests.
• Standardized methods for measuring particle counts, gas concentrations, tensile strength, sterility, etc.
• Industry standards (e.g., ISO) for sterilization and biocompatibility.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not Applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "training set" concept is relevant for machine learning models.

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

Not Applicable. As above, this device does not use an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories is intended to remove smoke created in surgical procedures.

The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories is designed to remove smoke created in surgical procedures. The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories can be used to remove smoke produced by lasers, electrosurgical devices, argon beam coagulators, LEEP devices, and other devices that create smoke during surgical procedures.

During internal surgical procedures such as laparoscopy. it helps to maintain the desired internal pressure (pneumoperitoneum). The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories removes up to 20 litersper-minute of smoke produced.

The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories automatically activates when active (smoke producing) devices that are coupled to the smoke evacuator, with special sensors, are turned on.

The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories automatically turns off, at a time predetermined by the operator, after the active device turns off and automatically activates when the high pressure limit is exceeded in the pneumoperitoneum and it remains running to remove smoke, vapors, and gases until the internal pressure returns to levels below the preset maximum.

The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories can be used to evacuate CO2 gas from the pneumoperitoneum at the end of laparoscopic procedures.

The Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories is intended to be used by trained professionals.

The subject device (Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories) operates under same technologies, same mechanism of actions as the predicate (Crystal Vision (Model 470) and Accessories) and will use same accessories as the predicate device.

The modifications are: increase dimension of the product chassis to partially enclose the Input ULPA filter and the Output Charcoal filter; replace mechanical controls with push buttons; eliminate Stand By switch; replace flow set display, from bargraph display to 3 digits display; expand flow reading from 2 to 3 digits.

Accessories description:

The ULPA Filter & Water Trap:

The ULPA Filter & Water Trap for the Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories, like the filters for the predicate device, is a replaceable filter that is completely enclosed to protect health care personnel from potential contamination during filter change. The ULPA Filter & Water Trap has a ULPA (Ultra Low Penetration Air) media.

Charcoal Output Filter:

The Charcoal Output Filter for the Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories, like the one for the predicate device, is a replaceable filter that is completely enclosed and installed on the back of the Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System. The filter contains Granular Activated Charcoal from coconut shell and its life is based on the ability of the charcoal to absorb odors.

Sensor:

The Sensor for the Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories, like the sensor for the predicate device, is an accessory which activates the Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator automatically, when a cutting, smoke producing device will activate.

Foot Pedal:

The foot pedal is used for end user convenience as to activate the smoke evacuator when needed. The foot pedal shall be connected through same input connector used by sensor(s).

Intra-Abdominal Tubing Set, Sterile and Non-Sterile:

The I/A tubing is used during laparoscopic procedures, to evacuate the smoke produced. It connects to the trocar at one end and to the smoke evacuator to the other end.

Smoke Tubing, Sterile and Non-Sterile:

The smoke tubing may be used during any surgical procedure where there are smoke producing devices that needs smoke evacuation.

Smoke Tubing with In-Line Filter, Non-Sterile:

The smoke tubing may be used during any surgical procedure where there is smoke producing devices that needs smoke evacuation. In addition, the smoke tubing has a HEPA filter

Wand, Sterile and Non-Sterile:

The wand is a hand held device that may be used during any surgical procedure where there is smoke producing devices that needs smoke evacuation.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (Crystal Vision Smoke Evacuator System with Accessories), not a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on diagnostic performance. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through modifications to the form and controls of an existing smoke evacuator system.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance, sample sizes for test sets, expert involvement, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment for a diagnostic AI/device cannot be extracted from this document, as it is not relevant to the type of device and submission described.

The document discusses performance bench testing against electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards (ANSI/AAMI/ES 60601-1 and IEC 60601-1-2), stating that the device met "Acceptance criteria on all applicable clauses of above mention standards." However, it does not provide a table of these specific acceptance criteria or the reported performance in measurable terms like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, as these are not relevant for a smoke evacuator's function. No clinical testing (which would involve human or real-world performance data typically associated with diagnostic or AI devices) was performed or required for this submission.

Summary of what can be inferred for this specific device/submission based on the provided text:

• Acceptance Criteria & Reported Performance: The document states the device met acceptance criteria for electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards (ANSI/AAMI/ES 60601-1 and IEC 60601-1-2). No specific numerical thresholds or results beyond "met" are provided. This is typical for predicate device submissions focused on substantial equivalence for physical devices, not diagnostic software.
• Sample Size for Test Set & Data Provenance: Not applicable, as no diagnostic "test set" in the AI sense was used. Performance was assessed via bench testing on the device itself.
• Number of Experts & Qualifications: Not applicable.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
• MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: No. The device is a physical smoke evacuator, not an AI or diagnostic tool where MRMC studies would be relevant.
• Standalone Performance: Not applicable.
• Type of Ground Truth: Not applicable.
• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device