Search Results

The Storz DP4210 Venturi Economy Anterior Pack and DP5000 ASC Daypack are intended to be used as accessory devices with the Storz DAISY® (K854508), PREMIERE® (K894278, K921460 and K946227), Protege® (K921758 and K950114), and Millennium™ (K961310) Ophthalmic Microsurgical Systems. Both accessory packs facilitate use of Storz phaco handpieces (K935926) and Storz I/A handpieces (K951463) with the above referenced microsurgical systems in various anterior segment ophthalmic surgical procedures, e.g., phacoemulsification and residual cortical material removal following a planned Extracapsular Cataract Extraction.

The Storz DP4210 Venturi Economy Anterior Pack and DP5000 ASC Daypack are intended to be used as accessory devices with the Storz DAISY® (K854508), PREMIERE® (K894278, K921460 and K946227), Protege® (K921758 and K950114), and Millennium™ (K961310) Ophthalmic Microsurgical Systems. Both accessory packs facilitate use of Storz phaco handpieces (K935926) and Storz I/A handpieces (K951463) with the above referenced microsurgical systems in various anterior segment ophthalmic surgical procedures, e.g., phacoemulsification and residual cortical material removal following a planned Extracapsular Cataract Extraction.

The Storz DP4210 Venturi Economy Anterior Pack is provided non-sterile and contains reusable components consisting of an anterior collection cassette, I/A tubing set, and I/A test chambers. The Storz DP5000 ASC Daypack is provided sterile and contains both reusable and single use components. The DP5000 reusable items include an anterior collection cassette, I/A test chambers, needle wrench, and infusion sleeve. The DP5000 single use items include an I/A tube assembly and a BSS administration tube assembly.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for two ophthalmic accessory packs, the Storz DP4210 Venturi Economy Anterior Pack and the Storz DP5000 ASC Daypack. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a study with performance metrics.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment cannot be found in the provided text because this type of 510(k) submission generally relies on demonstrating similarity to legally marketed devices, not on new clinical performance studies with defined acceptance criteria and statistical analysis as would be required for a novel device or a Premarket Approval (PMA) application.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing based on the provided text:

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

• Not explicitly stated in the document. The document's purpose is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not to present performance metrics against predefined acceptance criteria. The "performance" is implicitly deemed equivalent to the predicate devices if substantial equivalence is established.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. This is a 510(k) premarket notification for accessory packs, which typically does not involve a "test set" and performance data in the way a clinical study for a drug or novel device would. The assessment is based on comparing device characteristics and intended use to predicate devices. There is no mention of a clinical study or data provenance.

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/Not provided. No "ground truth" establishment by experts for a test set is mentioned, as this is not a performance study.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. No adjudication method is mentioned.

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/Not provided. MRMC studies are not relevant to this type of device and submission. There is no AI component mentioned.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. This device does not involve algorithms or AI.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. No ground truth determination is described.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. This device does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithms.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. No training set or ground truth establishment relevant to this context is described.

Summary of what the document does provide in relation to regulatory acceptance:

The document outlines a process of demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices, which is the "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) submission.

• Predicate Devices:
  • Storz DP4210 Venturi Economy Anterior Pack: Substantially equivalent to Storz DP4210 Universal I/A and Phaco Pack (K882240).
  • Storz DP5000 ASC Daypack: Substantially equivalent to Storz DP4210 Universal I/A and Phaco Pack (K882240) and Storz DP4310 Deluxe Phaco Pack (K955901).
• Method of "Proof": Device comparison charts (Pages 2-3) are used to highlight similarities in:
  • 510(k) reference (i.e., previous clearance)
  • Pack Name
  • Intended Use
  • Individual Pack Components
  • Anterior Collection Cassette design (for DP4210 comparison)
  • Reusable Components
  • Limited Reuse (number of times)
  • Pack Provided Sterile (Yes/No)
  • Pack Sterilization method (for DP5000 comparison)
• Result of "Study" (FDA Outcome): The FDA reviewed the 510(k) notification and determined the device (both packs) to be substantially equivalent for its stated indications for use (Page 4). This determination allows the device to be marketed.

This document serves as an example of a 510(k) submission where "acceptance criteria" and "study" are framed by the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence, rather than a clinical trial with specific performance endpoints.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Storz D7120 Phaco Handpiece Maintenance Kit and the Storz D7125 Needle Wrench are intended to be used as accessories to Storz DAISY® (K854508). Storz Protegé® (K921758 and K950114). and PREMIERE® (K894278, K921460, and K946227) Microsurgical Systems for use in performing phacoemulsification. The D7120 contains an assortment of tools useful in cleaning and maintaining the Phacoemulsification Hndpiece (K935926) and the D7125 is an individual tool used in the assembly and disassembly of the handpiece.

The Storz D7120 Phaco Handpiece Maintenance Kit and the Storz D7125 Needle Wrench are intended to be used as accessories to Storz DAISY® (K854508). Storz Protegé® (K921758 and K950114). and PREMIERE® (K894278, K921460, and K946227) Microsurgical Systems for use in performing phacoemulsification. The D7120 contains an assortment of tools useful in cleaning and maintaining the Phacoemulsification Hndpiece (K935926) and the D7125 is an individual tool used in the assembly and disassembly of the handpiece.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for ophthalmic microsurgical system accessories (Storz D7120 Phaco Handpiece Maintenance Kit and Storz D7125 Needle Wrench). This is a submission for medical devices, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance in the context of diagnostic accuracy, a common scenario for AI/ML devices.

The document's purpose is to demonstrate substantial equivalence of these accessories to predicate devices, not to present performance data against specific acceptance criteria for diagnostic output. It's a comparison of features and intended use, not a performance study as typically understood for AI-enabled diagnostic tools.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the provided text for the following reasons:

• No Acceptance Criteria or Performance Metrics: The document does not define specific acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC, accuracy thresholds) that the device needs to meet. It focuses on comparing device characteristics.
• No Performance Study: There is no mention of a study designed to evaluate the diagnostic or treatment performance of the device against a ground truth. The comparison chart focuses on "Intended Use," "Tools Recommended/Included," "Instrument Type," "Tools Provided Sterile?", and "Tools Commonly Available Or Available From Supplier?".
• Device Type: The devices described are maintenance tools (handpiece maintenance kit, needle wrench), which are accessories for ophthalmic microsurgical systems. They are not AI/ML-enabled diagnostic tools that would typically undergo studies with performance metrics like those requested.

In summary, the provided text is a 510(k) summary for accessories based on substantial equivalence, not a performance study for an AI/ML device that requires acceptance criteria and an evaluation of its diagnostic or predictive capabilities.

Ask a specific question about this device

The STORZ DP4310 surgical accessory pack contains an auxiliary drape (K934445), a Mayo arm drape, an irrigation administration tube assembly, a collection cassette (K953078), and an irrigation/aspiration (I/A) tube assembly. Other components included are a pair of IIA test chambers, a pair of infusion sleeves, a tube stopper, a male Luer cap, and a needle wrench. These components are to be used in conjunction with the STORZ Protegé (K921758 and K950114), PREMIERE® (K894278, K921460, and K946227) or DAISY® (K854508) Microsurgical Systems in the performance of phacoemulsification.

Phacoemulsification involves the ultrasonic disintegration of the opacified crystalline lens (cataract) from the eye. This process is accomplished by means of an electronically driven ultrasonic handpiece which 1) emulsifies the lens; 2) facilitates the irrigation of the anterior chamber; and 3) facilitates the aspiration of the emulsified lens material and irrigant from the eye. The Storz DP4310 Pack provides the accessories necessary to enable use of the Storz Phacoemulsification Handpieces (K935926) with the above Storz microsurgical systems.

The STORZ DP4310 surgical accessory pack contains an auxiliary drape (K934445), a Mayo arm drape, an irrigation administration tube assembly, a collection cassette (K953078), and an irrigation/aspiration (I/A) tube assembly. Other components included are a pair of IIA test chambers, a pair of infusion sleeves, a tube stopper, a male Luer cap, and a needle wrench. These components are to be used in conjunction with the STORZ Protegé (K921758 and K950114), PREMIERE® (K894278, K921460, and K946227) or DAISY® (K854508) Microsurgical Systems in the performance of phacoemulsification.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device accessory pack and does not include information about acceptance criteria, device performance, or a study demonstrating the device meets such criteria in the way a clinical trial or algorithm validation would.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the specific information points you've outlined. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which is a regulatory pathway for low-risk devices.

Here's a breakdown of why I cannot extract the requested information based on the provided text:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: This document does not describe specific performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for the device itself or any acceptance criteria related to these. It's an accessory pack for a surgical system, and its "performance" is implicitly tied to its ability to facilitate the function of the main phacoemulsification systems. The comparison chart focuses on design and labeling rather than performance data.
• Study Details (Sample Size, Ground Truth, Experts, Adjudication, MRMC, Standalone): The document does not describe a study in the context of evaluating the performance or diagnostic capabilities of the device in a clinical or analytical setting. It's a regulatory submission for substantial equivalence based on comparing design and intended use with a previously cleared device. There's no mention of a test set, training set, ground truth, experts, or any of the other study-related metrics you requested.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary, which is a regulatory document to demonstrate that a new medical device is at least as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This is achieved by comparing the new device to the predicate device, focusing on similarities in intended use, technology, and performance, rather than conducting a full-scale clinical performance study in the way AI or diagnostic devices might be evaluated.

Ask a specific question about this device