Search Results

The Single-use Ureteral Access Sheath is used to establish a conduit during endoscopic urological procedures, facilitating the passage of endoscopes and other instruments into the urinary tract.

The Single-use Ureteral Access Sheath is a prescription device intended to provide physicians with access to the urinary tract and the capability to serve as a pathway for device exchanges. Similar to all ureteral access sheath sets, this device also safeguards the ureter during device exchanges, thus helping to minimize tissue trauma. The Single-use Ureteral Access Sheath consists of two components: the inner semi-rigid dilator assembly and the outer semi-rigid sheath assembly, both of which have a hydrophilic coating to allow for smooth and easy deployment into the upper tracts over a preplaced ureteral guidewire. The sheath has a locking mechanism that attaches to the luer lock hub of the inner dilator, allowing the sheath and dilator to move as a single unit. To ease the insertion of the Single-use Ureteral Access Sheath into the body orifice, the dilator is advanced over a 0.038 inch guidewire. Since both the sheath and dilator are radiopaque, they can be monitored using X-ray (fluoroscopy) to ensure their accurate positioning during the placement process. The Single-use Ureteral Access Sheath is designed to accommodate endoscopes and other urological instruments with an outer diameter (OD) that is compatible with the sheath's inner diameter (ID) of 10Fr, 11Fr, 13Fr, and 14Fr. The inner layer of the sheath is made of stainless steel to provide radial rigidity that remains patent and intact after the dilator is removed, allowing endoscopes and other urological instruments to pass easily along the lumen of the Access Sheath. The Single-use Ureteral Access Sheath is offered in five French size combinations: 10Fr/12Fr, 11Fr/13Fr, 12Fr/14Fr, 13Fr/15Fr, and 14Fr/16Fr, and two lengths: 35cm and 45cm. The device is constructed using biologically safe materials and is provided in a sterile condition, intended for single use only.

The device in question is the Single-use Ureteral Access Sheath (K240167). The provided document is a 510(k) summary, which outlines the device's characteristics and the studies performed to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document details performance testing for various attributes. While it states "All evaluation acceptance criteria were met" for specific categories (e.g., Biocompatibility), it does not explicitly list numerical or qualitative acceptance criteria for each functional/mechanical test in a table form, nor does it provide the exact reported performance values. It only lists the tests conducted.

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 the sample sizes used for any of the non-clinical performance tests (biocompatibility, sterility, functional/mechanical testing).
The data provenance is not explicitly stated as retrospective or prospective, nor is the country of origin of the data mentioned for the performance testing. However, the applicant is Hunan Vathin Medical Instrument Co., Ltd., located in China, suggesting the testing was likely conducted by or for the manufacturer.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This device is a physical medical instrument (Ureteral Access Sheath), not an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) that requires expert consensus for ground truth establishment. Therefore, this information is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device is based on objective measurements and compliance with recognized standards.

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

As this is not a clinical study involving human interpretation or subjective assessment necessitating adjudication, this information is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for establishing ground truth in clinical imaging or diagnostic studies.

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 study was conducted. This device is a physical medical instrument and does not involve AI assistance or human reader interpretation in its intended use.

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

This refers to AI/software performance. This device is a physical medical instrument, so this concept is not applicable.

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

The "ground truth" used for this device's performance evaluation is based on objective measurements and tests against established engineering, material, and biocompatibility standards. For example:

• Biocompatibility: In vitro and in vivo tests according to ISO 10993-1, measured against scientific criteria (e.g., cell viability for cytotoxicity, skin reaction for irritation).
• Sterility: Measured by sterility assurance level (SAL) achieved through validated sterilization processes per ISO 11135.
• Functional/Mechanical: Measured by physical properties (e.g., dimensions, force resistance, patency, leakage) against pre-defined specifications derived from engineering principles and comparison to the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

This device does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. It is a physical medical device.

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

As there is no training set for this physical device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device