Search Results

The Re-Trace Ureteral Access Sheath is used to establish a continuous conduit during urological endoscopic procedures facilitating the passage of endoscopes and other instruments into the urinary tract.

The Re-Trace Ureteral Access Sheath is comprised of the following components: Reinforced tube/sheath, Introducer/dilator, Connector, Clip. The reinforced introducer sheath is composed of a polyether block amide (PEBA) outer surface with a hydrophilic coating. The inner surface of the sheath is polytetralluoroethylene (PTFF). The sheath is reinforced with a stainless steel coil between the PEBA and PTFE materials. The distal tip of the sheath is fitted with a radiopaque ring. A white connector and orange clip is fitted on the proximal end of the sheath. The introducer/dilator is a radiopaque polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The introducer is fitted with a luer connector on the proximal end and has a hydrophilic coating on the distal end. A guidewire entry and exit eye and three exit holes for fluid delivery are located at the distal end of the introducer. A 4cm length Nitinol tube is inserted in the injection channel of the introducer to stiffen the guide wire exit eye section of this introducer.

The request concerns a 510(k) submission for the "Re-Trace Ureteral Access Sheath," focusing on modifications made to a previously cleared device. The provided text, however, details nonclinical (bench) testing and biocompatibility assessments, not a study evaluating device performance with human interaction or AI assistance. Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, human study design, and AI elements are not present in the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted or inferred, and what cannot:

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

The document states that biocompatibility and performance testing were conducted, and the conclusions state that the modified device "is as safe and effective and performs as well as the predicate device." However, specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported performance values for each test are not provided in the given text. The tests performed are listed as:

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

This information is not provided in the document, as the tests described are nonclinical (bench testing) and biocompatibility studies, not human clinical trials.

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)

This information is not applicable as the document describes nonclinical testing, not studies requiring expert interpretation or ground truth establishment.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes nonclinical 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

This information is not applicable. The device is a ureteral access sheath, a physical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool or system that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is not an algorithm.

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

For the nonclinical tests described, the "ground truth" would be established by objective physical and chemical measurements and standard protocols for biocompatibility testing, rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data typically associated with clinical studies of diagnostic or prognostic devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as the device is not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

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

This information is not applicable as the device is not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

In summary, the provided document details a 510(k) submission for a modified physical medical device (Ureteral Access Sheath). The "study" referenced is a series of nonclinical bench tests and biocompatibility tests designed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It does not involve human subjects, AI, or expert adjudication in the context of the requested questions.

Ask a specific question about this device