Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K213194
    Date Cleared
    2022-06-23

    (267 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    874.4720
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K935279, K143640, K202272

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The HD Mediastinoscope is intended to aid the surgeon in viewing the mediastinum and facilitate the introduction and removal of surgical instruments during ENT endoscopic surgical procedures.

    Device Description

    The HD Mediastinoscope is a reusable videoendoscope intended to be used in conjunction with the X-link module of the Image1 S Camera Control Unit. The HD Mediastinoscope is comprised of four main components: CMOS sensor at the distal end of the endoscope, an oval insertion portion (spatula), handle, and internal LED light source. The spatula can accommodate up to 2 x 5 mm instruments.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the HD Mediastinoscope:

    Due to the nature of the device (a physical surgical instrument rather than an AI/software device), the provided document does not contain information typically found in acceptance criteria and studies for AI/ML devices, such as sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.

    Based on the provided text, the "acceptance criteria" appear to be related to the device's technical specifications and safety/effectiveness in comparison to predicate devices, rather than specific performance metrics like those for an AI algorithm.

    Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The "acceptance criteria" are implied through the comparison with existing predicate and reference devices and compliance with recognized standards. The "performance" is demonstrated through non-clinical testing, particularly a cadaver test study.

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    Substantial equivalence to predicate device (K954910)Demonstrated through technical characteristics, intended use, indications for use.
    Compliance with electrical safety and EMC standardsANSI/AAMI ES:60601-1:2005+A1:2012, IEC 60601-1-2:2014, IEC 62471:2006
    Compliance with biocompatibility standardsISO 10993-10:2010, ISO 10993-11:2006/(R) 2010
    Compliance with reprocessing validation standardsAAMI TIR 12:2010, AAMI TIR 30:2011, AAMI/ANSI/ISO 11737-1:2006/(R)2011, ASTM E1837-96:2014
    Change in spatula design does not raise new questions of safety and effectivenessDemonstrated through a cadaver test study.

    Details of the Study (Non-AI/ML Device)

    Since this is a traditional medical device (mediastinoscope) and not an AI/ML device, many of the requested points related to AI/ML studies (sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set size, ground truth for training set) are not applicable or not specified in this 510(k) summary.

    However, based on the information provided:

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

      • The primary non-clinical performance test mentioned is a cadaver test study.
      • The sample size (number of cadavers or tests performed) is not specified in the document.
      • The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not specified.
    2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

      • The document mentions "a cadaver test study was conducted to demonstrate that the change in spatula design...". It does not specify the use of "experts" to establish a "ground truth" in the way an AI/ML study would (e.g., radiologists labeling images). Instead, the study likely involved technical assessment and observation by qualified personnel (e.g., surgeons, engineers).
      • Not explicitly stated in terms of "ground truth experts" for an AI/ML context.
    3. Adjudication method for the test set:

      • Not applicable / Not specified for this type of device and study.
    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:

      • No, an MRMC study was not conducted. This is not an AI-assisted device.
    5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

      • Not applicable. This is a physical surgical instrument, not an algorithm.
    6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

      • For the cadaver study, the "ground truth" would likely be the direct observation and technical assessment of the device's performance in a cadaveric model (e.g., ease of introduction, visualization, ability to facilitate instrument use, assessment of tissue damage, etc.) by the study investigators. This is not a "ground truth" in the sense of a diagnostic label for an AI.
    7. The sample size for the training set:

      • Not applicable. This device does not use a training set as it is not an AI/ML product.
    8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

      • Not applicable.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1