Search Results

1. The PK Needle is indicated for resection of soft tissue in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures.
2. The PK Spatula is indicated for resection and coagulation of soft tissue and blood vessels in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures.
3. The PK J-Hook is indicated for resection and coagulation of soft tissue and blood vessels in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures.

The Olympus PK Electrosurgical Instruments: PK Needle, PK Spatula, and PK J-Hook are bipolar electrosurgical instruments with the capability to resect, cut, and coagulate soft tissue and blood vessels in laparoscopic and general surgical procedures. They pass through a 5mm cannula or operating laparoscope working channel of 5mm or larger diameter. The devices are activated via buttons on the handle or by a foot pedal and plug into compatible Olympus generators (ESG-400 and ESG-410). The generator and device make up a medical electrical system.

This FDA 510(k) summary (K213831) describes the Olympus PK Electrosurgical Instruments (PK Needle, PK Spatula, PK J-Hook). The submission is a modification to the device labeling to add compatibility with an Olympus generator, ESG-410 cleared under K203277. The document states that the devices themselves are unchanged from their original clearances in terms of intended use, design, performance, and technological characteristics.

Therefore, the study information requested is based on the original clearances of these devices (K142154 for PK Needle, K142289 for PK Spatula, and K142350 for PK J-Hook) and the specific testing performed for the current submission to confirm compatibility with the new generator.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information provided in the document:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria with reported numerical device performance as typically expected for software or diagnostic device studies. Instead, it refers to compliance with recognized consensus safety standards and successful completion of non-clinical testing.

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 relates to electrosurgical instruments and their compatibility with a new generator. The testing described is primarily non-clinical (electrical, mechanical, functional). Therefore, the concept of a "test set sample size" as applied to patient data or images (common in AI/ML devices) is not directly applicable here. The document mentions "testing was conducted" on the subject device. Details on the specific number of devices tested for each non-clinical performance category are not provided within this summary.

Data provenance: Not applicable as this submission primarily concerns non-clinical hardware compatibility performance rather than patient data analysis.

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)

Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of expert review for medical imaging or diagnostic devices, is not relevant for this type of electrosurgical instrument compatibility submission. The "ground truth" for electrosurgical instruments is their ability to perform cutting and coagulation safely and effectively, and this is assessed through engineering testing against established standards.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used for expert consensus on clinical findings in diagnostic studies. This is a non-clinical performance and compatibility submission.

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. This is not an AI/ML device or a diagnostic device. It is an electrosurgical instrument.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm. The performance of the device is described as "algorithm only" in the sense that its electrosurgical function is inherent to its design and energy delivery, rather than requiring human interpretation of an output. However, it is an instrument used by a human surgeon.

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

Not applicable in the typical sense. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering specifications, recognized international safety and performance standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ISO 14971), and the original performance characteristics of the predicate devices. Performance is measured against these technical benchmarks.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning device that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The POWERSEAL Sealer and Divider is a bipolar electrosurgical device intended for use in laparoscopic/minimally invasive or open surgical procedures where ligation of vessels, tissue bundles, and lymphatics is desired. POWERSEAL devices can be used on vessels (arteries and veins, pulmonary veins) up to and including 7 mm, lymphatics, and tissue bundles. POWERSEAL devices are indicated for use in general surgery and such surgical specialties as urologic, colorectal, bariatic, and gynecologic. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, Nissen fundoplication, colectomy, adhesiolysis, sleeve gastrectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy.

The POWERSEAL Sealer and Divider has not been shown to be effective for tubal sterilization or tubal coagulation for sterilization procedures. Do not use the POWERSEAL devices for these procedures.

The POWERSEAL 5mm laparoscopic curved jaw sealer divider is an electrosurgical bipolar device with an integral extending cutting blade. It features a pistol grip handle and will be provided in shaft lengths of 23, 37, and 44 cm.

The subject POWERSEAL devices will be provided as sterile, single-use, hand-held bipolar electrosurgical instruments designed for use with Olympus electrosurgical generators to ligate (seal) and divide (cut) vessels, tissue bundles, and lymphatics.

The jaws of the POWERSEAL are designed to seal vessels, and grasp and dissect tissue during open and minimally invasive general surgical procedures using high frequency (HF) energy. A hand actuated mechanism allows the user to open and close the instrument jaws. When the instrument jaws are correctly placed over tissue or vessel to be sealed, the user operates a second control to initiate delivery of bipolar energy, which seals the tissue. When the sealing is complete, the user operates a third control to activate a blade, which divides the tissue along the seal line.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the Olympus POWERSEAL Curved Jaw Sealer and Divider, Double Action (K212643). It states that this submission is a modification to a previously cleared device (K203682) to add compatibility with an additional Olympus generator (ESG-410).

Crucially, the document explicitly states: "The POWERSEAL Curved Jaw Sealer and Divider, Double Action (PS-0523CJDA, PS-0537CJDA, and PS-0544CJDA) is unchanged from the predicate device as cleared under K203682 in terms of intended use, design, performance, and technological characteristics. The only difference is in the labeling that identifies an additional compatible Olympus generator."

Therefore, the study described in this document is not a de novo study proving the initial performance of the device, but rather a bridge study to demonstrate that the device's performance, when connected to a new, compatible generator, remains equivalent to its previously cleared performance. The focus is on demonstrating that the modification (new generator compatibility) does not adversely affect the device's established safety and effectiveness.

Because of this, the document does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer all aspects of your request, particularly regarding clinical studies, human-in-the-loop performance, and the specifics of generating ground truth for a completely new device evaluation. The information provided heavily relies on the previous clearance (K203682) and focuses on non-clinical testing to confirm continued equivalence.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is available from the document regarding the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them for this specific modification.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text, addressing your points where information is available:

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

The document states: "Non-clinical testing was conducted as part of demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device and ensure that the performance criteria was met when used with the additional compatible generator. A risk analysis was completed to identify any new risks associated with the modification to the POWERSEAL Curved Jaw Sealer and Divider, Double Action. The following tests associated with the device modification were performed on the subject device according to the methods and acceptance criteria established in the original clearance K203682:

• Non-clinical (electrical, mechanical, functional)
• Preclinical (simulated use) evaluation and testing of tissue effects and thermal safety and vessel burst pressure testing and vessel thermal margin"

The specific acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum burst pressure, maximum thermal spread) and the reported quantitative performance data for these tests are not detailed in this 510(k) Summary. The document relies on the fact that these tests were "performed on the subject device according to the methods and acceptance criteria established in the original clearance K203682" and that the results "met" those criteria, implying the performance is equivalent to the predicate.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests. The tests mentioned are "non-clinical" and "preclinical (simulated use)", which would involve a certain number of devices or simulated tissue samples, but the exact quantities are not provided.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by the manufacturer, Gyrus ACMI, Inc., with some testing performed by Intertek (Fridely, MN, USA) and WuXi AppTec (St. Paul, MN, USA) for compliance to voluntary standards (e.g., biocompatibility). These are laboratory/bench tests, not clinical studies involving patient data.

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

• This question is not applicable to this type of submission. This document describes non-clinical and preclinical testing of a surgical device's physical and functional properties, not an AI or imaging device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

• This question is not applicable. Adjudication is typically associated with human-read studies or clinical trials involving subjective interpretation, which is not what this document describes. Test results for electrosurgical devices are typically quantitative measurements against defined engineering specifications.

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:

• This question is not applicable. This submission is for a electrosurgical sealing and cutting device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant.

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

• This question is not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm.

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

• For the non-clinical and preclinical tests, the "ground truth" would be established by the engineering specifications and scientific principles governing device performance. For example, for "vessel burst pressure testing," the ground truth is the actual measured burst pressure, and the acceptance criterion would be a predefined minimum required pressure. For "tissue effects and thermal safety," the ground truth is the measured extent of tissue damage or thermal spread, compared against a safe operating range. These are objective measures, not subjective interpretations.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This question is not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device requiring a training set.

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

• This question is not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

In summary, as per the provided text, the study proving the device meets acceptance criteria for this specific 510(k) (K212643) was primarily a non-clinical and preclinical validation that the addition of compatibility with a new generator did not alter the power seal device's performance characteristics established in its prior clearance (K203682). The detailed acceptance criteria and quantitative performance results for those tests are not provided in this summary, but the document states they were met.

Ask a specific question about this device