Search Results

The Aaron ESU Foot-Controll Adapter will allow a single pin foot controlled pencil or suction / coagulator to be used with the Aaron 1200 Electrosurgical Generator for cutting or coagulating procedures.

Device Description

The Aaron ESU Foot Control Adapter is a non-sterile, reusable device. It utilizes an insert-molded body that allows a foot-controlled pencil or suction/coagulation tube. The foot control adapter plug allows activation of the Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator cleared under K980366 dated January 29, 1998. It is an accessory to the Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator.

AI/ML Overview

This document describes the pre-market notification (510(k)) for the Aaron ESU Foot Control Adapter #A1205A. The submission demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device, as confirmed by the FDA.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criterion	Reported Device Performance	Comments
Safety: Device presents no new hazards.	Hazard analysis evaluations performed; test results indicated no new hazards with the use of the adapter.	This is crucial for medical devices. The assessment confirmed the adapter doesn't compromise the safety profile established for the existing Aaron 1200 Electrosurgical Generator.
Performance: Device does not change the operation of the Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator or the foot-controlled devices.	"Testing which has been performed on the Aaron ESU Foot Control Adapter indicates that the use of the Adapter does not change the operation of either the Aaron 1200 or the foot controlled devices."	The primary function of the adapter is to enable compatibility without altering the core functionality of connected devices. The testing explicitly states this.
Intended Use: Device allows a single pin foot-controlled pencil or suction/coagulator to be used with the Aaron 1200 Electrosurgical Generator for cutting or coagulating procedures.	"The adapter will allow the use of a disposable foot-controlled pencil or suction irrigator with a single pin connector with the Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator."
"The Aaron ESU Foot-Control Adapter will allow a single pin foot controlled pencil or suction / coagulator to be used with the Aaron 1200 Electrosurgical Generator for cutting or coagulating procedures."	This acceptance criterion directly addresses the device's stated purpose and functionality. The product description and indications for use confirm this.
Substantial Equivalence: The device remains substantially equivalent in performance and method of operation to the predicate device (Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator, K980366) and other legally marketed devices when used with the adapter.	"Consequently, the devices remain substantially equivalent in their performance and method of operation."	This is the overarching regulatory principle for 510(k) clearances. The conducted testing supports this claim by demonstrating no change in operation or new hazards.
Design/Materials: The adapter does not change the design, materials, or components of the Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator.	"The Aaron ESU Foot Control Adapter while allowing the use of single pin foot controlled pencils, does not change the design, operation, intended use, materials, components and performance claims of the Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator cleared under K980366 dated January 29, 1998."	This ensures that the adapter acts solely as an interface and does not necessitate re-evaluation of the core generator itself.

Study Information:

This submission is a 510(k) Pre-market Notification for an accessory (adapter plug). The regulatory pathway for such devices primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than requiring extensive clinical trials or complex performance studies typical for novel, high-risk devices or AI/CAD systems.

Therefore, many of the typical data points requested (like sample size for test/training sets, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance for AI) are not applicable to this type of device and submission.

Here's what can be inferred or explicitly stated from the provided text:

Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
- Not applicable / Not specified in the provided text. The testing described is functional and safety testing on the device itself, rather than testing on a dataset of patient images or clinical cases. The "test set" would refer to the actual adapter prototypes and the electrosurgical units it's designed to connect to. There is no indication of patient data or clinical data being used for this specific assessment.
- The testing would have been conducted by the manufacturer, Aaron Medical Industries, Inc., likely within the USA, as they are a US-based company and applying to the US FDA.
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 specified. Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant for diagnostic or AI-driven devices where human assessment is the reference standard. For an electrosurgical adapter, the "ground truth" would be established through engineering specifications, electrical safety standards, and functional verification. The "experts" would be engineering and quality control professionals.
Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable / Not specified. Adjudication is relevant for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations, typically in diagnostic imaging studies. This is not pertinent to the functional and safety testing of an adapter.
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. MRMC studies are specific to diagnostic imaging devices, particularly those involving AI/CAD systems, to assess the impact on human reader performance. This device is an electrosurgical accessory.
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
- Not applicable. This question pertains to AI/CAD system performance, which is not relevant for an electrosurgical adapter.
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- For this device, the "ground truth" for the testing would be based on engineering specifications, electrical safety standards (e.g., IEC standards for electromedical equipment), and functional performance criteria. The tests would verify that the adapter maintains electrical integrity, does not introduce signal interference, and allows proper activation and function of the connected devices as designed.
The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this device. Training sets are used for machine learning algorithms.
How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

In summary, the "study" proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is the series of safety evaluations and functional performance tests conducted by the manufacturer. These tests demonstrated that the Aaron ESU Foot Control Adapter #A1205A maintains the safety and operational characteristics of the connected devices (Aaron 1200 electrosurgical generator and foot-controlled pencils/suction coagulators) and introduces no new hazards. This evidence was sufficient to establish substantial equivalence for regulatory clearance.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1