Search Results

The Voyant Open Fusion Device is a bipolar, electrosurgical device indicated for use with the Voyant electrosurgical generator in open procedures where the ligation and division of vessels and tissue bundles is desired. The device can seal and divide vessels up to and including 7mm in diameter and tissue bundles that can be captured in the jaws of the device. The device has not been shown to be effective for tubal coagulation for sterilization for sterilization procedures, and should not be used for these procedures.

The Voyant 5mm Fusion device is a bipolar, electrosurgical device indicated for use with the Voyant electrosurgical generator in open and laparoscopic procedures where the ligation and division of vessels and tissue bundles is desired. The device can seal and divide vessels up to and including 7mm in diameter and tissue bundles that can be captured in the jaws of the device. The device has not been shown to be effective for tubal coagulation for sterilization for sterilization procedures, and should not be used for these procedures.

The Voyant Open Fusion and Voyant 5mm Fusion devices are advanced bipolar instruments that use RF energy, provided by the Voyant Electrosurgical Generator (K182244), to seal vessels up to and including 7mm in diameter. The devices may also be used to seal tissue bundles that can be captured in the devices' jaws. Each device features a mechanical, user-actuated blade for the division of sealed tissue.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the Voyant Open Fusion Device and Voyant 5mm Fusion Device.

It's important to note that the provided documents (FDA 510(k) summaries) typically focus on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed, comprehensive reports on a device's standalone performance or comparative effectiveness studies with human readers. Therefore, some of the requested information may not be explicitly present or might be inferred from the context of a 510(k) submission.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The documents state that both devices "met all acceptance criteria" and "met the predetermined acceptance criteria" for various tests. However, the specific quantitative acceptance criteria and the precise performance metrics achieved are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The submission focuses on stating that the criteria were met, implying satisfactory performance relative to either internal company standards, recognized industry standards, or performance established by the predicate devices.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Inferred)

Study Details

1. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set (Clinical/Animal):

  • Animal Testing: "large porcine animal models" were used. The exact number of animals or vessels tested is not specified.
  • Burst Pressure Testing: Used "vessels representative of the devices' indications." The number of vessels is not specified.
  • Data Provenance: The studies were conducted by Applied Medical Resources Corp. (presumably within the US, as they are a US-based company submitting to the FDA). The studies appear to be prospective in nature, designed specifically to test the devices.

• Training Set (for Software/AI, if applicable): Not applicable. This device is an electrosurgical tool, not an AI/software-based diagnostic or imaging device in the sense that would require a large training dataset for pattern recognition. The software verification mentioned refers to the control software embedded within the device, not a machine learning algorithm trained on data. Therefore, questions 8 and 9 are not directly relevant in this context.

2. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Animal Testing: The evaluation of "hemostasis and signs of hematoma" would likely involve veterinary professionals or researchers with expertise in animal pathology and surgical outcomes. However, the number and specific qualifications of experts establishing ground truth are not provided in this summary.

• Other Testing: For burst pressure, thermal spread, electrical safety, and mechanical testing, the ground truth is established by objective physical measurements and engineering standards, not typically by expert consensus in the same way as a diagnostic medical image.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Given the nature of the studies (engineering performance, animal model outcomes), formal adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" (common in clinical trial assessments for subjective endpoints or equivocal findings) are not mentioned and generally not applicable to these types of objective performance tests. The results would be based on direct measurements and observations, typically verified by technical experts.

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

• No: An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for diagnostic devices (e.g., imaging AI) to assess how AI assistance impacts human reader performance in interpreting images or data. The Voyant devices are surgical tools, and their effectiveness is measured by their physical performance (sealing vessels, minimizing thermal spread), not by human interpretation of their output.

5. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

• Yes (Implied for the device system): The performance testing described (burst pressure, thermal spread, animal studies, EMC, electrical safety, mechanical testing) assesses the device's inherent functionality and capabilities. While the software is a component, the "standalone" performance here refers to the device system itself without direct human "in-the-loop" decision-making augmentation, but rather as an operated tool. The software verification specifically assesses the algorithm/software components in a standalone context.

6. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Objective Measurements and Observation/Pathology in Animal Models:
  • Burst pressure: Objective physical measurements.
  • Thermal spread: Objective physical measurements/histology (implied).
  • EMC/Electrical Safety: Compliance with objective engineering standards.
  • Mechanical Testing: Objective performance metrics.
  • Animal testing: Direct observation of hemostasis and absence of hematoma, potentially supported by pathology or histological evaluation of tissue.

7. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable: As discussed above, this device does not utilize machine learning in a way that requires a "training set" of data for algorithm development. The "software" refers to control logic, not AI models.

8. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established

• Not applicable: (See point 7).

Summary of Gaps in Information (from the perspective of the original prompt):

The provided 510(k) summary is designed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not to provide a full scientific publication with detailed methodologies and results for each test. Key quantitative details like exact sample sizes for animal/vessel testing, specific numerical acceptance thresholds (e.g., minimum burst pressure in mmHg, maximum thermal spread in mm), and the precise qualifications of evaluators are not included in this high-level summary. This is typical for a 510(k) submission, where the focus is on the conclusion that acceptance criteria were met and substantial equivalence was achieved.

Ask a specific question about this device