Search Results

The Senhance® Surgical System is intended to assist in the accurate control of laparoscopic instruments for visualization and endoscopic manipulation of tissue including grasping, cutting, blunt and sharp dissection, approximation, ligation, electrocautery, suturing, mobilization and retraction. The Senhance Surgical System is intended for use in general laparoscopic surgical procedures and laparoscopic gynecological surgery. The system is indicated for adult use. It is intended for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment in accordance with the Instructions for Use.

The Senhance® Surgical System (Senhance system) is a multi-arm, console-based robotic system that allows a surgical team to perform laparoscopic surgery in the abdomen and pelvis in a manner similar to a manual laparoscopic approach. The capital equipment of the Senhance system is comprised of the following three main subsystems which are powered separately and connected by means of communications cables:

• Cockpit The station where the surgeon inputs information through hand and eye movements to direct the arms to move within the surgical field.
• Manipulator Arm(s) - Up to three mechanized instrument support arms that produce output movements based on the instruction from the cockpit or bedside assistant. Each robotic arm can hold either a laparoscopic surgical instrument or an endoscope to facilitate a surgeon remotely operating the instrument from the cockpit.
• Intelligent Surqical Unit (ISU) The ISU component, which is the communication hub that connects the cockpit inputs to the manipulator arms. The ISU contains a high-performance computer that enables the surgeon to control the endoscope using software features that apply image processing algorithms to the endoscope video signal.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Senhance Surgical System. While it details the device, its intended use, and various tests performed, it does not contain the specific information required to complete the table of acceptance criteria and the detailed study information as requested.

The document states that "Software testing and a comprehensive set of performance testing were conducted to demonstrate that the modified device is as safe and effective, and thus substantially equivalent, to the predicate," and that "Functional performance tests utilizing well-established test methodology verified that the ISU features and Senhance system performed as intended." However, it does not provide the acceptance criteria themselves, nor the quantitative results of these tests. It also lacks details on the sample sizes, expert involvement, ground truth establishment, or specific study designs (like MRMC) for proving the device meets performance criteria related to AI/image processing features.

Therefore, I cannot fill out the requested table and answer many of the questions based on the provided text. The text broadly states that tests were done and requirements were met, but it does not give the specifics of those tests or their quantitative outcomes.

Here's what I can extract and what's missing:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Table:

Study Details (Based on available information and what is missing):

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: NOT PROVIDED. The document mentions "Pre-Clinical Design Validation" was conducted in a "simulated patient model," but does not specify the sample size of "cases" or "simulated procedures."
   • Data Provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective): NOT PROVIDED. The study was a "single-center, un-blinded, observational, simulated use design validation evaluation." It doesn't specify if this involved retrospective data or prospective data collection from actual surgical procedures. The "simulated patient model" suggests synthetic or cadaveric data rather than clinical patient data.

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

   • Number of Experts: NOT PROVIDED. The evaluation was conducted "with users who represented the intended primary user population," implying surgeons, but the number and specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, subspecialty) are not mentioned.
   • Qualifications of Experts: Users "represented the intended primary user population," which for the Senhance system are "trained physicians." Specific qualifications or years of experience are NOT PROVIDED.

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

   • Adjudication Method: NOT PROVIDED. The study is described as "observational," but no details on how discrepancies (if any) in assessments were resolved are given.

4. 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:

   • MRMC Study: NOT PROVIDED/Unclear. The study describes a "single-center, un-blinded, observational, simulated use design validation evaluation." This does not suggest an MRMC comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance for specific diagnostic or performance metrics. The new features ("Follow Me," "Measurements," "Digital Tags," "Image Enhancement") are described as aids to the surgeon, but a comparative study on improved human performance is not detailed.
   • Effect Size: NOT PROVIDED. Since an MRMC study is not explicitly described, the effect size is also not given.

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

   • Standalone Performance: NOT PROVIDED. The document mentions "Functional performance tests utilizing well-established test methodology verified that the ISU features and Senhance system performed as intended." This might imply an evaluation of the algorithms' direct output (e.g., accuracy of 3D distance measurements), but it's not explicitly labeled as "standalone" and no quantitative results are provided. The "Image Characterization Verification" is a procedure for the system, which might have its own internal performance metrics.

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

   • Type of Ground Truth: NOT EXPLICITLY STATED for all features. For some features, like "Measurements," the ground truth would likely be precise physical measurements in the simulated environment. For others, like the efficacy of "Image Enhancement," it might be subjective user satisfaction or objective image quality metrics, but this is not detailed. The "Pre-Clinical Design Validation" assessed "all applicable user level requirements" in a "simulated patient model," implying that the "ground truth" was whatever the expected, correct performance was in that simulated environment.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Training Set Sample Size: NOT PROVIDED. The document describes software verification and validation, but provides no information on the training data for any machine learning components within the "new image processing features."

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

   • Training Set Ground Truth Establishment: NOT PROVIDED. As no training set details are given, how its ground truth was established is also not mentioned.

Summary of what the document does state:

• The device is a robotically-assisted surgical system (Senhance Surgical System) used for laparoscopic procedures.
• The 510(k) is for a modified device with new software features related to image processing and endoscope movement (Follow Me, Measurements, Digital Tags, Image Enhancement, Image Characterization).
• The software is considered a "major" level of concern.
• Performance testing, electrical safety/compatibility, and software verification/validation were conducted.
• A "Pre-Clinical Design Validation" was done at a single center, un-blinded, observational, in a simulated use environment with intended users.
• The conclusion is that the modified device is "as safe and effective" as the predicate and "does not raise any different questions of safety and effectiveness," supporting substantial equivalence.

Without access to the actual test reports or the full 510(k) submission, the detailed quantitative information for acceptance criteria and study results cannot be provided from this letter.

Ask a specific question about this device