Search Results

The Sonicision Cordless Ultrasonic Dissection Device is indicated for soft tissue incisions when bleeding control and minimal thermal injury are desired. The device can be used as an adjunct to or substitute for electrosurgery, lasers, and steel scalpels in general, plastic, gynecologic, urologic, exposure to orthopedic structures (such as spine and joint space) and other open and endoscopic procedures. The Sonicision Cordless Ultrasonic Dissection Device can be used to coagulate isolated vessels up to 5 mm in diameter.

The Sonicision 13 cm device is also indicated for use in otorhinolaryngologic (ENT) procedures.

The Sonicision Ultrasonic Dissection Device that is the subject of this 510(k) is a hand-held batterypowered device used to dissect through tissues and to coagulate vessels up to 5 mm in diameter. An assembled Sonicision device includes three components: (1) The Sonicision Dissector, 13 cm; (2) the Sonicision Battery; and (3) the Sonicision Generator. The dissector is a single-use item that is provided to the user in sterile form. The generator and battery are reusable components that are sterilized by the user. The clinical intended use is achieved by the surgeon when pressure is applied to tissue placed between the clamping jaw and the exposed portion of the probe while activating ultrasonic energy with a button on the handpiece.

The provided text does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them in the format of a clinical study or performance goals with specific metrics for a new AI/software device. Instead, the document is a 510(k) summary for a physical medical device – the Sonicision Cordless Ultrasonic Dissection Device – seeking clearance based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

The "performance" section describes comparative ex vivo and in vivo testing to demonstrate that the new device performs similarly to predicate devices, particularly for its proposed use in Otorhinolaryngology (ENT) procedures.

Here's a breakdown of the available information, adapted to the requested format where possible, but highlighting that this is not a study proving an AI/software device meets acceptance criteria:

Study Type: Substantial Equivalence Evaluation for a Physical Surgical Device

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Vessel Burst Testing: Not specified, but involved "blood vessels."
• Ex vivo Tissue Testing (Temperatures): Not specified, but involved "mesentery."
• Acute In vivo Testing (Hemostasis): Not specified.
• Usability/Human Factors Validation: Not specified, but used a "human cadaver model."

The data provenance is from ex vivo (tissue from outside a living organism, likely animal or human cadaveric) and in vivo (within a living organism, likely animal) studies, along with human cadaver model studies. The country of origin is not specified but implicitly within the context of FDA submission, suggesting studies conducted under applicable US regulations or international standards.

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

• Usability/Human Factors Validation: Involved "practicing surgeons" who were "predominantly users of the FOCUS+ device for ENT surgeries." The exact number is not specified, nor are specific years of experience. For the other performance tests (burst strength, temperatures, hemostasis), the ground truth is objective measurement, not expert consensus.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable as the performance tests primarily involved objective measurements rather than subjective assessments requiring adjudication. For the usability study, the "ground truth" was the surgeon's subjective assessment of clinical acceptability, not a formally adjudicated outcome.

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 document pertains to a physical surgical device, not an AI/software device. The usability study involved human operators using the device, but it was not an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

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

• Not applicable. This relates to a physical surgical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Vessel Burst Strength: Objective measurement (burst pressure).
• Max Active Blade Temperature: Objective measurement (temperature readings).
• Max Distal Shaft Temperature: Objective measurement (temperature readings).
• Hemostasis Rates: Objective observation of bleeding control.
• Clinical Acceptability (Usability/Human Factors): Expert subjective assessment/opinion from practicing surgeons.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, and the described studies are for performance validation, not for training an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8)

Ask a specific question about this device