Search Results

The VERITAS(TM) Vision System is a modular ophthalmic microsurgical system that facilitates anterior segment (i.e., cataract) ophthalmic surgery. The modular design allows the user to configure the system to meet their surgical requirements.

The VERITAS(TM) Advanced Infusion Pack or VERITAS(TM) Advanced Fluidics Pack contains the manifold (cassette) and Tubing Assembly and is intended to perform irrigation during anterior segment cataract surgery. It is used with the VERITAS(TM) Vision System. The VERITAS(TM) Pack is sterilized using ethylene oxide and is designed for single use only.

The VERITAS™ Vision System is a modular ophthalmic microsurgical system that is intended for use in anterior segment (cataract) ophthalmic surgery. The device uses ultrasonic energy via finely modulated pulses of energy, interrupted by brief cooling periods, to emulsify and extractous lens. This allows the system to achieve full ultrasound cutting efficiency while introducing less energy to the eye, which reduces risk of thermal damage. The VERITAS™ System performs phacoemulsification, diathermy, irrigation/aspiration, and vitrectomy functions, and is a peristaltic system with a graphic user interface that has updated technology and hardware to meet current electrical and material safety standards.

The VERITAS™ Vision System consists of components that are used to perform cataract surgery, which include the 1) System Console, 2) Wireless Remote Control, 3) Advanced Foot Pedal and 4) Single-Use Fluidics Pack or Single-Use Infusion Pack 5) Swivel Handpiece 6) Hardware 7) Software.

The VERITAS™ Advanced Infusion Pack or VERITAS™ Advanced Fluidics Pack contains the manifold (cassette) and Tubing Assembly and is intended to perform irrigation and aspiration during anterior segment cataract surgery. It is used with the VERITAS™ Vision System. The VERITAS™ Pack is sterilized using ethylene oxide and is designed for single use only.

This report describes the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria for the VERITAS™ Vision System.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided documentation does not present a formal table detailing specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria and directly corresponding reported device performance metrics in a side-by-side format. Instead, it states that the device "passed the acceptance criteria" and "all tests passed and all acceptance criteria were met" for various functional aspects.

The performance testing primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices (WHITESTAR SIGNATURE® PRO Phacoemulsification System and OPO73 Dual Pump Fluidics Pack) rather than meeting predefined numerical acceptance thresholds for novel performance claims.

Based on the text, the acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to the performance and safety profiles of the predicate devices and compliance with relevant standards.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria and Reported Performance (derived from text):

The overall reported performance is that all required acceptance criteria were met, and the device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices.

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

The document indicates that "bench testing" was performed for design verification and validation. However, it does not specify the sample size (e.g., number of devices, number of tests, volume of data) used in these tests. The provenance of this test data is implied to be internal testing conducted by Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. The document does not specify a country of origin for the data or whether the tests were retrospective or prospective, though design verification and validation testing are typically prospective.

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

The document makes no mention of experts being used to establish ground truth for a test set. The validation relies on meeting technical specifications, safety standards, and functional equivalence to predicate devices, rather than expert interpretation of medical images or diagnostic outputs. Human factors studies were conducted, but these are for usability and risk, not for establishing diagnostic ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

No adjudication method is described, as the testing performed does not involve subjective assessments requiring adjudication. The device validation relies on objective physical measurements, functional tests, and compliance with standards.

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 comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is a phacoemulsification system and not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging device, so such a study would not be applicable. The document explicitly states: "No animal or clinical studies were performed as there is no change to the indications for use or the fundamental scientific technology when compared to the primary and secondary predicate devices."

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

The device is a medical system for surgical procedures, not an algorithm, so a "standalone" algorithm-only performance assessment as typical for AI/ML devices is not applicable. Its performance is assessed through its mechanical and electrical functionality, and its interaction with a surgeon (human-in-the-loop) is the inherent design.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for the device's performance is established by:

• Compliance with recognized international standards (e.g., IEC 60601 for electrical safety, ISO 11135 and 11137 for sterilization, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 14971 for risk management).
• Demonstrating functional equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through bench testing.
• Meeting design specifications and requirements for each component and the system as a whole.

This is a form of technical and regulatory compliance ground truth, rather than a clinical ground truth like pathology or outcomes data.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not mention a training set. This device is a hardware/software medical system, not a machine learning or AI model that typically requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as no training set is mentioned or relevant for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OP085 is used with the COMPACT INTUITIV System. The OP085 is sterilized using Ethylene Oxide and is designed for use up to 20 times. Following the first use, the user then follows cleaning and sterilization instructions specified below for up to 19 additional cleaning/sterilization cycles for a total of 20 uses when used according to the Instructions for Use.

The Multiple-Use Pack, Model OPO85 is a reusable phacoemulsification pack that is an optional accessory for use with the COMPACT INTUITIV Phacoemulsification System (K133115), which is used to facilitate the emulsification and removal of a cataractous lens. The primary predicate device, the Single-Use Fluidics Pack, Model OPO80, is cleared for use with the COMPACT INTUITIV System and the secondary predicate device, the Sovereign Reusable Pack, Model OPO55, is cleared for use with the Sovereign Phacoemulsification System. Both the predicates share the same technology, intended use, and performance specifications as the subject device. The Multiple-Use Pack, Model OPO85, consists of a housing manifold, irrigation and aspiration tubing, irrigation inlet tubing connector, and a drain pump tubing connection. Like the secondary predicate device, Model OPO55, the OPO85 Pack is designed for reuse up to 19 times, for a total of 20 uses.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the COMPACT INTUITIV Multiple-Use Pack, Model OP085. It primarily details the device's substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based only on the provided text:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of detailed acceptance criteria for each performance parameter with corresponding reported device performance values. Instead, it makes a general statement:

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 explicitly state the sample sizes for the test sets used in the parametric measurements, irrigation, aspiration, biocompatibility, or sterilization testing. It also does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective.

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 applicable as the studies described are non-clinical performance and engineering tests (parametric measurements, irrigation/aspiration, biocompatibility, sterilization, reprocessing) rather than studies requiring expert interpretation of clinical data to establish ground truth.

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

Not applicable, as this refers to adjudication of expert interpretations in clinical studies, which were not performed. The testing procedures mentioned (parametric measurements, irrigation/aspiration, etc.) would have pass/fail criteria based on engineering specifications rather than expert adjudication.

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 such study was done. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were deemed necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of the Multiple-Use Pack - OPO85." This device is a fluidics pack for a phacoemulsification system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

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

This question is not applicable to a physical medical device like a phacoemulsification fluidics pack. The "standalone performance" concept typically refers to the performance of an algorithm or AI system without human intervention. The testing performed was on the device itself.

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

As the studies were non-clinical performance tests, "ground truth" was established by engineering specifications, regulatory standards, and pre-defined pass/fail criteria for various physical and functional parameters (e.g., flow rates, pressure, material integrity after sterilization, biocompatibility according to ISO standards). It was not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device