Search Results

The Solo+ Tympanostomy Tube Device is intended to deliver a tympanostomy tube (also referred to as a ventilation tube) through the tympanic membrane of the patient and is indicated to be used in office settings for patients 6 months and older.

The Solo+ Tympanostomy Tube Device (Solo+ TTD) is a single use, sterile, "all-in-one" surgical instrument that rapidly places a tympanostomy tube across the tympanic membrane of a patient. It combines the traditionally separate functions of creating a myringotomy, and positioning and placing a tympanostomy tube across the tympanic membrane. Placement of the tube provides ventilation to the middle ear space through the tympanic membrane.

To use the device, the user creates a myringotomy with the device's myringotomy knife, which is located at its distal tip of the Cartridge. The user advances the device until the tympanostomy tube outer flange reaches the tympanic membrane. The user then actuates the device by pressing the activation (blue) button on the Handpiece. This retracts the myringotomy knife construct and deploys the tube across the tympanic membrane.

The provided text describes the 510(k) clearance for the Solo+ Tympanostomy Tube Device (TTD). While it details the device's characteristics, comparison to predicate devices, and general non-clinical testing, the clinical study information focuses on comparative effectiveness and patient safety/success, rather than specific acceptance criteria for performance metrics that would typically be seen in a study evaluating an AI device or a device with quantifiable performance outputs like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

The Solo+ TTD is a surgical instrument, and its "performance" in this context is primarily related to its ability to successfully place a tympanostomy tube and maintain patient safety. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" discussed here are related to the success rate of tube placement and the absence of serious adverse events.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

The provided document describes a clinical study to support the substantial equivalence of the Solo+ TTD for an expanded patient population (pediatric patients 6 months and older) compared to its primary predicate (K232702, which was indicated for patients 6-24 months) and a secondary predicate (K221254, which already covered patients 6 months and older). The "acceptance criteria" are implicitly derived from the successful outcomes observed in the study and their comparison to predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended Use
CORIOGRAPH Pre-Op Planning and Modeling Service is intended to provide pre-operative planning for surgical procedures based on patient imaging, provided that anatomic landmarks necessary for alignment and positioning of the implant are identifiable on patient imaging scans.

Indications for Use
The CORIOGRAPH Pre-op Planning and Modeling Service is indicated for use for the following procedures:

• unicondylar knee replacement (UKR)
• . total knee arthroplasty (TKA)

The subject CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plan is a medical function module within the CORIOGRAPH Pre-Op Planning and Modeling Service. This service is an additional offering being introduced by Smith & Nephew to allow for preoperative planning for surgical procedures based on patient imaging for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicondylar knee replacement (UKR). The CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plans will be generated for specific patients and anatomy by Smith and Nephew personnel using the CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plan Software System V1.0, which is the subject of this submission. The CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plans will output bone models of the patient anatomy and will generate patient-specific pre-operative plans which may be used on the REAL INTELLIGENCE CORI Surgical System.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plan. It discusses the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device and details non-clinical testing. However, it does not contain the specific information required to complete all sections of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria are met.

Here's a breakdown of what can be answered and what information is missing:

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

The document states, "Verification and validation testing demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the software applications used in the CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plan and demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the generated CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plan when used as an input to the CORI Surgical System. Summative usability testing demonstrated that participating surgeons were able use the subject device safely and effectively in a simulated use environment. Smith and Nephew, Inc. has concluded that all design inputs have been met and that the verification and validation testing performed did not raise any new questions of safety or effectiveness."

This is a general statement of compliance, not a detailed table of specific acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy metrics, specific tolerances) and their corresponding reported performance values. Therefore, a table cannot be fully constructed.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided in the text. The document refers to "verification and validation testing" and "summative usability testing" but does not specify the sample size for these tests or the origin/nature of the data used.

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 information is not provided in the text. The document mentions "participating surgeons" in the usability testing, but their number or specific qualifications (beyond being surgeons) are not detailed. It does not mention experts establishing ground truth for a test set in the context of performance metrics.

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

This information is not provided in the text.

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

The document does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study where human readers' performance with and without AI assistance was evaluated. The device is a "Knee Pre-Op Plan" which suggests it aids in surgical planning, not necessarily in interpretation tasks typically associated with MRMC studies with human readers.

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

The document states, "Verification and validation testing demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the software applications used in the CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plan and demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the generated CORIOGRAPH Knee Pre-Op Plan when used as an input to the CORI Surgical System." This implies standalone testing of the software's output, as well as its interaction as an input to another system. However, specific metrics of "algorithm-only" performance are not provided.

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

This information is not explicitly provided in the text. Given the device provides "pre-operative planning for surgical procedures based on patient imaging," the ground truth for evaluating its accuracy would likely be related to the accuracy of anatomical landmark identification, implant positioning, or surgical outcomes, but this is not specified.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the text. The document discusses "software applications" and "planning tools and processes" but does not detail any machine learning models or training sets.

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

This information is not provided in the text, as no training set details are given.

Ask a specific question about this device

The RI.KNEE Adjustable Tibia Cut Guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the CORI surgical system during total knee arthroplasty.

The subject RI.KNEE Adjustable Tibia Cut Guide is a set of surgical instrument components used during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to make the resections to the tibia by guiding a surgical saw through the saw slot. The cut guide is used with the Smith and Nephew (Blue Belt Technologies) CORI surgical system. The subject Tibia Cut Guide offers an alternative to the tibia cut guides currently available in the CORI system and provides direct attachment of the tibia tracker to reduce surgical steps for tibia tracker fixation.

The provided text does not contain any information about an AI/ML device or its performance. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a physical medical device, the "RI.KNEE Adjustable Tibia Cut Guide," which is a surgical instrument.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, human reader performance, or ground truth establishment for an AI/ML device, as there is no such device described in the input.

The document discusses:

• The device's intended use: a surgical instrument used during total knee arthroplasty.
• Its classification: Class II, Stereotaxic Instrument.
• Performance data from non-clinical testing: Summative Usability Evaluation, Function and Robustness Testing, Biocompatibility, Cleaning, and Sterilization. These are standard tests for physical surgical instruments, not AI/ML algorithms.
• Substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Real Intelligence Cori).

There is no mention of any AI or machine learning components in the RI.KNEE Adjustable Tibia Cut Guide, nor any studies that would involve human-in-the-loop performance with an AI, MRMC studies, or ground truth establishment relevant to AI/ML model training or testing.

Ask a specific question about this device