Search Results

The use of the SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control Package is to allow for voice control and remote control of medical device settings by surgeons or operating room personnel, thereby eliminating the need to manually operate those devices compatible with the SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control Package or to rely on verbal communication between the surgeon and other operating room personnel in order to adjust the surgical equipment. It also has additional digital documentation functionality capture, transfer, store and display medical device data (non-medical device function), which is independent of the functions or parameters of any attached Stryker device.

The SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control Package is a network compatible hardware platform that carries out Medical Device Data System (MDDS) functionalities and allows the user to control the state, selection, and settings of compatible connected endoscopic and general surgery devices both wired and wirelessly.

The SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control Package consists of the following components:

• 1. SDC4K Console which includes:
  • a) Class I Medical Device Data System (MDDS) functionality
  • b) Optional Device Control feature
  • c) Optional Voice Control feature
• 2. Device Control Package (software activation USB dongle and a handheld Infrared (IR) remote control)
• 3. Voice Control Package (software activation USB dongle and a wireless headset and base station)
• 4. Connected OR Spoke (Class I MDDS)

The SDC4K console carries out the Medical Device Data System (MDDS) functionalities (i.e. Class I device function or Non-medical function) and can be marketed as a standalone device. When upgraded with the Device Control and/or Voice Control package, the SDC4K Console extends its functionality to control compatible devices from its touchscreen graphical user interface (GUI), spoken commands via headset (voice control input), and an IR remote control or directional keypad from a camera head (device control input). The received user commands are then processed and communicated with the connected controllable devices, allowing the user to control the state, selection, and settings of those devices. In addition, the SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control Package also provides compatibility with the Connected OR Spoke (also referred to as "Spoke") which is a standalone Class I Medical Device Data System. Once the SDC4K is connected to the Spoke, Device Control can be extended to compatible devices connected to the Spoke.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control Package outlines its performance data through various tests. However, it does not include a detailed table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for specific functional metrics, nor does it describe a study design that would prove the device meets such criteria in terms of accuracy or clinical effectiveness.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Connected OR Hub with Device and Voice Control, K212055) by verifying compliance with recognized standards.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based only on the provided text, highlighting what is included and what is explicitly not included:

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

The document provides a table of tests conducted and their outcomes, indicating "Pass" for each. These are related to safety, EMC, software validation, usability, and bench performance based on specifications and intended use. Specific quantitative performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, latency, success rate for voice control commands) against defined acceptance criteria are not provided.

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

The document does not specify sample sizes for any test sets mentioned (e.g., for usability or bench performance). It also does not mention data provenance, as the tests are primarily engineering and compliance-based rather than involving patient data or clinical studies. The document explicitly states: "the subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence."

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 in the document. The tests described are largely against technical standards and internal specifications, rather than requiring expert consensus on a "ground truth" derived from clinical data.

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

Adjudication methods are not described, as the type of studies conducted (compliance and engineering tests) typically do not involve such processes.

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not mentioned and is not applicable to this device, as it is an information management and control system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative tool. The document states "the subject device does not require clinical studies to support the determination of substantial equivalence."

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

The device itself (SDC4K Information Management System with Device and Voice Control Package) includes human interaction (remote control, voice control, GUI). Therefore, a "standalone algorithm only" performance without human-in-the-loop is not directly relevant or described. The performance bench tests would assess the functionality of the system components and their integration, but not in a purely algorithmic, non-interactive context.

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

The concept of "ground truth" as typically understood in the context of diagnostic or AI performance evaluation (e.g., against pathology reports or clinical outcomes) is not applicable to the type of testing described. The "ground truth" in this context would be the successful execution of device commands, adherence to electrical safety, EMC, software, and usability standards, and meeting internal device input specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not provided. The device is an information management and control system, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that relies on a "training set" for its core function (beyond potentially voice recognition models, which are likely integrated commercial solutions and their training data is not discussed here).

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

This information is not applicable and not provided for the reasons stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Stryker AIM Light Source and SafeLight Cable are indicated for use to provide real-time endoscopic visible and near-infrared fluorescence imaging. The Stryker AIM Light Source and SafeLight Cable enable surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgery using standard endoscope visible light as well as visual assessment of vessels, blood flow and related tissue perfusion, and at least one of the major extra-hepatic bile ducts (cystic duct, common bile duct and common hepatic duct), using near infrared imaging.

Fluorescence imaging of biliary ducts with the Stryker AIM Light Source and SafeLight Cable are intended for use with standard of care white light and, when indicated, intraoperative cholangiography. The devices are not intended for standalone use for biliary duct visualization.

This is a Special 510(k) submission for a proposed labeling change that impacts the Stryker® IRF Light Source and SafeLight Cable (referred to as Stryker AIM Light Source hereafter) which was cleared under K142310.

The Stryker AIM Light Source is part of the Stryker® Infrared Fluorescence (IRF) Imaging System, which is an endoscopic illumination and imaging system for real-time high definition (HD) visible light and near-infrared dye fluorescence imaging of indocvanine green (ICG) during minimally invasive surgery. The Stryker® Infrared Fluorescence (IRF) Imaging System consists of the following main components:

• A light source console and a light cable for outputting light within a visible light spectrum as well as near-infrared light spectrum (focus of this submission).
• A camera control unit for processing near-infrared and visible light images, and a coupler that is attached to the laparoscope and a camera head (cleared under K132785).
• A laparoscope for visible light and near-infrared light illumination and imaging (cleared under K142310)
• An imaging agent kit containing ICG (Kit containing IC-Green® drug and Aqueous Solvents, manufactured by Akorn (NDA 011525), cleared under K142310)

There are no proposed changes to any other components of the Stryker® Infrared Fluorescence (IRF) system.

The Stryker AIM Light Source uses an illuminator with a laser light source to illuminate the area of surgery. The ICG is administered intravenously prior to image obtainment. A laser light is illuminated to the site of the surgery using a laparoscope. Upon the absorption of laser light, the ICG in the vessels is excited and emits infrared light at a different wave length. The camera system captures the infrared emission, processes the image and displays it on a surgical display.

The proposed labeling change is to allow the Stryker AIM Light Source to work with two additional kit configurations of the same imaging agent (ICG). Specifically, both device user manual and ICG kit Instruction for Use are updated to adequately cross-label and cross-reference the compatible device/ICG kit(s) per FDA guidance. It is to be noted that Stryker Endoscopy is not the manufacturer of the Imaging agent kits or the ICG drug; the proposed change in labeling does not necessitate any change in the imaging drug formulation, dosage, rate, or route of administration,

This 510(k) premarket notification describes a labeling change for the Stryker AIM Light Source and SafeLight Cable (originally cleared under K142310) to confirm its compatibility with two additional Indocyanine Green (ICG) kits. Therefore, the information provided primarily focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of the modified device (with updated labeling) to its predicate device, rather than presenting a new study for the core performance of the device itself.

Based on the provided text, a detailed answer to your request is limited:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document states that the modification is primarily a labeling change to allow compatibility with two additional ICG kits. It explicitly mentions: "The modification proposed within this submission for the Stryker AIM Light source does not impact the performance characteristics that were cleared in the previous submissions." Therefore, no new acceptance criteria or device performance metrics for the current submission are detailed, as the core performance of the device was accepted under K142310.

However, the document does state that "Bench testing was conducted to demonstrate the compatibility of the Stryker AIM Light Source with the PINPOINT PAQ® AIM." The specific acceptance criteria for this compatibility testing are not explicitly described in the provided text. It can be inferred that the acceptance criteria would involve successful functional operation of the light source with the new ICG kits without adverse effects or changes in imaging quality, consistent with the performance previously established.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated. The "bench testing" mentioned for compatibility generally doesn't involve a "test set" in the sense of patient data. It would likely involve a limited number of physical devices and the specified ICG kits.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable for this specific modification as it involves bench testing for compatibility rather than clinical data. Previous clinical studies for the original device (K142310) are mentioned but not detailed here.

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

Not applicable. This submission focuses on a labeling change and bench testing for compatibility, not on establishing ground truth for a clinical test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable.

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. The device is a light source and cable for fluorescence imaging, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. The device is hardware (light source and cable), not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

Not applicable for this submission. The "ground truth" for the compatibility testing would be the successful functional output of the integrated system.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This is a hardware device with a labeling change, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device