Traus SSG10 Surgical System is an electrical appliance intended to cut, shave, bone & tissue resection, grinding, and drilling in the cranium and spine. Shaver handpiece is not intended for use in neurosurgical procedures.

Traus SSG10 Surgical System is composed of a control box, micro motor and a foot controller as an electric bone surgery machine. A signal for operating a foot controller, a handpiece, etc.., is transmitted when a power source is inputted to a control box (main body) to control functions such as rotational speed, torque and water injection amount.

It is a mechanism for puncturing, and cutting bones and human tissues through rotation and reciprocating motion by connecting handpieces and attachments to a micro motor. Three modes (Drill, Saw, Shaver) can be set, and the handpiece and attachment for each mode can be used in many surgical areas.

The provided text is a Premarket Notification (510(k)) from the FDA for the Traus SSG10 Surgical System. This type of document is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not typically a detailed study proving acceptance criteria for new or innovative device features.

Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information requested for acceptance criteria or a study proving those criteria, particularly in the context of an AI/ML medical device. The device in question is an "Electric Cranial Drill Motor," which is a traditional hardware device, not an AI/ML powered one.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be extracted from this document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not provided. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on general features and safety/EMC standards, not specific performance metrics against defined acceptance criteria.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not provided. Performance testing mentioned is "bench testing" to assure operation within predefined design specifications, but no details on sample size, data origin, or retrospective/prospective nature are given.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device requiring expert ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for the reasons above.
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, as this is not an AI/ML device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device. Performance is assessed against engineering specifications.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

Information that can be extracted or inferred from the document regarding "acceptance" in a general sense:

The "acceptance criteria" for devices seeking 510(k) clearance are primarily about demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device regarding safety and effectiveness. This is achieved by showing conformance to recognized standards and comparable performance.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria (based on 510(k) process):

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria (as described in the document):

The "study" or evidence provided is a collection of non-clinical tests and conformance to standards, rather than a single, formal "study" with specific statistical endpoints to prove new performance claims.

• Non-clinical Performance Data:
  • (1) Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC): Conducted according to IEC 60601-1:2005/AMD2:2020 and IEC 60601-1:2015+A1:2021. This demonstrates adherence to recognized safety standards.
  • (2) Software Verification and Validation Testing: Conducted in accordance with FDA's "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices" (May 11, 2005) and IEC 62304, for a "moderate level of concern." This ensures the software operates as intended and mitigates risks.
  • (3) Performance Testing (Bench Test): This testing was performed to "assure that the SSG10 operates safely and within the predefined design specifications." The report references "performance criteria such as RPM." Although the maximum RPM (40,000rpm) is lower than the predicate (80,000rpm), the testing results reportedly showed this difference "does not raise any problems in the safety and effectiveness."
  • (4) Sterilization: Validated in conformance to ISO 17665-1:2006.
  • Biocompatibility: Materials tested and confirmed safe per ISO 10993 series (1, 5, 10, 12).

Key Takeaway: The document outlines the evidence used to support a substantial equivalence determination, focusing on compliance with established safety and performance standards for a medical device that is not an AI/ML technology. It does not contain the specific AI/ML-related study details requested.

Ask a specific question about this device

Traus SSG30 Surgical System is an electrical appliance intended to cut, shave, bone & tissue resection, grinding, and drilling in the cranium and spine. Shaver handpiece is not intended for use in neurosurgical procedures.

Traus SSG30 Surgical System, is available to apply surgical operation by various handpieces incorporating a micro motor and a handpiece. The technological characteristics and operating parameters of OSSEODUO Shaver and Drill System is very similar to the predicate device. With respect to the functional aspects, Traus SSG30 Surgical System, Bone surgery Engine Unit, uses the same fundamental technology as the predicate device. Traus SSG30 Surgical System consists of a control box (main unit), foot controller, micro motor and handpieces. Traus SSG30 Surgical System is composed of a control box, micro motor and a foot controller as an electric bone surgery machine. A signal for operating a foot controller, a handpiece, etc... is transmitted when a power source is inputted to a control box (main body) to control functions such as rotational speed, torque and water injection amount. It is a mechanism for puncturing, and cutting bones and human tissues through rotation and reciprocating motion by connecting handpiece and attachments to a micro motor. Three modes (Drill, Saw, Shaver) can be set, and the handpiece and attachment for each mode can be used in many surgical areas.

The provided text describes the 510(k) premarket notification for the "Traus SSG30 Surgical System." This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through clinical performance data, especially concerning AI/ML aspects.

The document explicitly states: "Clinical Data: No clinical performance testing was performed."

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request as the information required for a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria, particularly for AI/ML performance, is not present in this regulatory submission. This submission primarily focuses on functional equivalence, electrical safety, software verification, and sterilization validation.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria that were tested (non-clinical) and the methods described:

Summary of Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Non-Clinical Data Provided):

Information Not Available / Not Applicable for this Device's Clearance:

As stated previously, this submission is for a Traditional 510(k) of a physical surgical system, not an AI/ML-driven device that requires performance studies related to diagnostic accuracy or human-AI collaboration. Therefore, many of your specific questions are not applicable to the context of this FDA clearance.

• Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable for a traditional surgical system's non-clinical performance tests like electrical safety or mechanical RPM. The "test set" here refers to physical bench tests and software V&V, not a clinical data set.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for mechanical and electrical systems is typically defined by engineering specifications and standards, not expert consensus on images or clinical outcomes.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
• 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, as this is not an AI/ML device.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
• The type of ground truth used: For non-clinical tests, ground truth is based on engineering specifications, physical measurements, and industry standards (e.g., IEC, ISO).
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (not an AI/ML device).
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Conclusion from the Document:

The 510(k) summary concludes: "The non-clinical data support the safety of the device and software and software verification and validation demonstrate that the SSG30 device should perform as intended in the specified use conditions. The clinical data demonstrate that the SSG30 device performs comparably to the predicate device that is currently marketed for the same intended use Based on the available information, the subject device and the predicates are similar indication for use, operational principal, performance data. In accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 CFR Part 807 and based on the information provided in this premarket notification that we conclude that substantially equivalent with predicate device."

This explicitly indicates that substantial equivalence was primarily demonstrated through non-clinical performance and a comparison of technical specifications to a predicate device, without clinical performance testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hekaDrill system is intended for use in surgical procedures involving incision / cutting, removal, drilling and sawing of soft and hard tissue, bone and biomaterials. The system is specifically intended for use in Neurosurgical (Cranial including craniotomy); Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT), Maxillofacial, Orthopedic, Arthroscopic, Spinal, Stemotomy, and General Surgical Procedures.

The hekaDrill System consists of electric and pneumatic drill handpieces, a power console, footswitches, attachments, connection cables, irrigation tube kits, cutting tools, and system accessories. The handpieces, attachments, and system accessories are provided non-sterile and are reusable. The console and footswitches are reusable and are not intended to be sterilised. The cutting tools and irrigation tube kits are provided sterile and are single use.

The hekaDrill device primarily consists of various components for surgical procedures involving cutting, drilling, and sawing of soft and hard tissues. The performance assessment focused on comparing the device's cutting performance, electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, and biocompatibility with predicate devices and relevant standards.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes for each performance test (e.g., number of cutting trials, number of biological samples). It also does not specify the country of origin for 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 Qualifications of Those Experts:

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish a "ground truth" in the traditional sense for the performance tests described. The assessment relied on objective measurements and comparisons against established standards and predicate device performance. For the biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" is determined by the specific reaction observed (e.g., cytotoxicity, sensitization), not expert consensus on an image or diagnosis.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable in this context. The performance tests involve objective measurements and comparisons to standards, not subjective interpretations requiring adjudication among experts.

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. The hekaDrill is a surgical drill system, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive device that would involve human readers or image interpretation.

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

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the performance tests:

• General Performance: The "ground truth" was established by comparing direct measurements of performance characteristics (vibration, noise, control, cutting effectiveness) against those same characteristics of a predicate device.
• Electrical Performance: The "ground truth" was the adherence to established international safety standards (IEC 60601-1:2005 and IEC 60601-1-2:2014).
• Biocompatibility: The "ground truth" was dictated by the specific biological responses observed in standardized tests, such as the absence of biological reactivity in cytotoxicity assays or no significant reaction in sensitization tests.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device. The concept of a "training set" is typically associated with machine learning or artificial intelligence models.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The ORIGO system is a software-controlled motorized system that includes attachments and tools for cutting soft tissue and bone and provides irrigation fluid to the surgical site.

The ORIGO system is used in the following surgical fields:

· for cutting and shaping bones and resection of soft and hard tissues in the fields of head & neck/ENT (otology, rhinology, laryngology) and maxillofacial surgeries.

The ORIGO System is a software-controlled electrically-powered surgical system designed to be used in an operating room by a clinician for head & neck, ENT, and maxillofacial surgical procedures in a healthcare facility/hospital setting.

The ORIGO System consists of the ORIGO Control Unit, the ORIGO Foot Pedal, the ORIGO System-compatible micromotors and motorized handpieces with corresponding motor cables, handpieces, attachments, cutting tools, the ORIGO System Irrigation Line, and other accessories.

The ORIGO System transforms electrical energy through micromotors or motorized handpieces and converts it to rotational force to cut bones and resect soft and hard tissues through attached cutting tools.

Four motor subsystems of the ORIGO System include NANO, RAPIDO, OSSEOSTAP, and S120. The NANO and RAPIDO are micromotors. OSSEOSTAP is a motorized microdrill handpiece. S120 is a motorized shaver handpiece that is a microdebrider/microresector.

PM2 Handpieces are intended to be connected to the NANO Micromotor and RAPIDO Micromotor and used in conjunction with PM2 Burs. The PM2 80K Burs and PM2 50K Burs are used for cutting and shaping bones in ENT surgical procedures.

OSSEPSTAP is intended to be used for cutting and shaping bones in ENT surgical procedures, such as stapedotomy or ossiculoplasty. The OSSEOSTAP is used with OSSEOSTAP Burs and OSSEOSTAP Perforator.

S120 is intended to be used for resecting soft and hard tissues in ENT surgical procedures. The S120 is used with S120 Shaver Blades and S120 Shaver Burs.

The ORIGO System is equipped with a peristaltic pump, which delivers saline irrigation solution to surgical sites through a 5m ORIGO System Irrigation Line.

The ORIGO System is a prescription-only device.

The provided text describes the ORiGO System, a software-controlled motorized surgical system. However, it does not contain information regarding objective acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or study details such as sample size, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or separate training/test set details for AI/algorithm-based performance evaluation.

The document outlines performance testing related to design validation, functional verification, usability, electromagnetic compatibility, electrical safety, software life cycle, and biocompatibility, all in conformance with relevant FDA recognized consensus standards and guidance documents. These tests are described as successfully demonstrating that the device performs as designed and is safe and effective when compared to predicate devices.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot complete a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or provide the detailed study information requested.

The text generally states that the device's performance aligns with relevant standards and shows substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but specific numerical or objective performance criteria and their measured results are not presented in a traditional "acceptance criteria" format.

Here's an overview of what can be extracted and what is missing:

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

• Cannot be generated. The document mentions "functional verification, device performance, and usability" were carried out but does not provide specific acceptance thresholds or quantitative results for these tests. It only states that testing "demonstrated that the device is safe and effective, performs comparably to and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device."

2. 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 provided. This device is a surgical motor system, not an AI or diagnostic device that typically uses test sets of data (e.g., medical images). The testing described is non-clinical bench testing, and no "test set" in the context of data analysis is mentioned.

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. This information pertains to studies involving expert review for establishing ground truth, which is not described for this device.

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

• Not applicable. This pertains to expert review of data, which is not described.

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. The device is a surgical motor system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. No MRMC study is mentioned.

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

• Not applicable. The device is a surgical motor system, not a standalone AI algorithm. While it is "software-controlled," the performance evaluation described is for the physical device system.

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

• Not applicable generally. For non-clinical bench testing, "ground truth" typically refers to engineering specifications, physical measurements, and compliance with standards. The document states "conformance of the ORiGO System with applicable international and internal standards was verified" and "successfully demonstrated that the device correctly performs as designed."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML system that undergoes a "training set" of data in the conventional sense.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ORiGO System is a software-controlled motorized system that includes attachments and tools for cutting bone, and provides irrigation fluid to the surgical site. The ORiGO System is used in the following surgical fields: -For cutting bones in neuro (cranial) and spinal surgeries.

The ORIGO System is a software-controlled electrical surgery system intended to be used in an operating room by a clinician in a healthcare facility/hospital setting for cranial and spinal surgical procedures. The ORIGO System consists of the ORIGO Control Unit, the ORIGO Foot Pedal, the ORIGO System-compatible two micromotors and one motorized handpiece with corresponding motor cables, handpieces, attachments, cutting tools, the ORIGO System Irrigation Line, and other accessories. The ORIGO System transforms electrical energy through motors and converts it to rotational force to shape and cut bones through attached cutting tools. Three micromotor subsystems of the ORIGO System include NANO, RAPIDO, and PM PERFO. The NANO and RAPIDO are micromotors. The PM PERFO is a motorized cranial perforator handpiece. PM2 Handpieces are intended to be connected to the NANO Micromotor and RAPIDO Micromotor. Cranio-Guards are attached to the PM2 Handpieces, and craniotomy is performed using PM2 Craniotomy Burs. Other PM2 80K Burs are attached to the PM2 Handpieces without attachment. The PM2 80K Burs are used for cutting bones in cranial and spinal surgical procedures. PM PERFO is intended to be used for a cranial perforation. The ORiGO System is equipped with a peristaltic pump, which delivers saline irrigation solution to surgical sites through a 5m ORiGO System Irrigation Line. The ORiGO System is a prescription-only device.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the ORiGO System, an electrical surgical system. It details the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and performance testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the specific information required to complete the detailed table and answer all the questions regarding acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria.

The document focuses on demonstrating that the ORiGO System is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device (OSSEODUO Shaver and Drill System K173066) based on similarities in intended use, technological characteristics, and performance. The performance testing section primarily lists compliance with various international standards, FDA guidance documents, and biocompatibility tests. It does not provide specific acceptance criteria values with corresponding device performance metrics for the device itself or the study that definitively proves the device meets those criteria in a quantitative sense as might be expected for an AI/software-based device performance study.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing based on your request:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed device performance metrics in a table format. Instead, it states:

• "The conformance of the ORiGO System with applicable international and internal standards was verified during non-clinical bench testing and evaluation."
• "Tests were performed on the subject device, which demonstrated that the device is safe and effective, performs comparably to and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device."
• "Together, these verification/validation activities successfully demonstrated that the device correctly performs as designed, has been validated for its intended use, and raises no new questions regarding either safety or effectiveness when compared to the predicate devices."

This broadly states that the device met the required standards for safety and effectiveness and is comparable to the predicate. Specific numerical criteria and results are not provided.

Missing Information/Answers to Specific Questions:

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

• Not provided. The document describes non-clinical bench testing, but does not specify sample sizes for test units or any 'data sets' in the context of an AI/software performance study. This is a hardware device; thus, the concept of a "test set" as understood for AI performance is not applicable here in the same way. The provenance of any test data (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not mentioned.

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. This is a hardware surgical device. The document does not describe any human expert review or ground truth establishment relevant to an AI model's performance.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. No mentions of adjudication are present as it's not relevant to the type of device and testing described.

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. The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not required for a determination of substantial equivalence of the ORiGO System." Therefore, no MRMC study involving human readers or AI assistance was performed.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. While the device is "software-controlled," the evaluation focuses on the mechanical and electrical safety/performance of the surgical system, not on the standalone performance of an independent algorithm in the context of diagnostic or interpretive tasks.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided in the context of AI ground truth. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is compliance with established engineering standards (e.g., electrical safety, software lifecycle, usability, biocompatibility) and its functional performance in cutting bone as designed through bench testing, not through a diagnostic or interpretive ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. The device is a hardware surgical system. The concept of a "training set" as used for AI/machine learning models does not apply here.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. As there is no training set mentioned, there is no discussion of establishing ground truth for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

The eG1 High Speed System is indicated for cutting and shaping bone including spine and cranium.

The eG1 Wireless Hand Control System is intended to be used as an optional accessory to the eG1 High Speed System (K133604) to provide an alternative method for controlling the eG1 Handpiece motor speed instead of using the existing wired foot control pedal.

The eG1 Wireless Hand Control System consists of two articles:

1. The Wireless Hand Control, EG1A (article # WIRELESS-HC) is a sterile, single-use device that snaps on the eG1 Handpiece.

2. The Receiver for Wireless Hand Control, EG1A (article # RECEIVER-HC) is a non-sterile reusable device that plugs into the eG1 Control Console.

The WIRELESS-HC sends information about the amount of pressure applied by the user on its button to the RECEIVER-HC wirelessly. The RECEIVER-HC uses this information to modulate the speed of the eG1 Handpiece motor.

This looks like an FDA 510(k) summary for a medical device called the "eG1 Wireless Hand Control System." The document aims to demonstrate that this new device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device ("Foot control pedals used with eG1 High Speed System K133604").

However, the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets those criteria in the way you've outlined for diagnostic aids or AI products (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, clinical endpoints).

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence based on:

• Identical intended use and indications for use.
• Similar technological characteristics where applicable, and where there are differences (e.g., wireless technology, power source, sterilization), verifying that these differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness through specific engineering and regulatory testing.

The "studies" and "acceptance criteria" discussed here are primarily engineering verification and validation tests and compliance with recognized standards.

Let's break down what is available in the provided text in relation to your request, and explicitly state what is not present:

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

• What's available: The document lists several tests performed to assess the device's safety, effectiveness, and compliance with standards. It generally states that "All acceptance criteria are met." However, it does not provide a specific table with quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., a specific speed range, latency, signal reliability percentage) paired with reported performance metrics from a clinical study or a performance study with human subjects operating the device for diagnostic or therapeutic outcomes.
• Example of what is present as "performance" in this context:
  • Test Category: Design verification analysis
  • Purpose: Verify physical characteristics meet design inputs related to interfaces.
  • Reported Performance/Conclusion: Met acceptance criteria; differences do not raise new questions of safety/effectiveness.
  • Test Category: Design verification testing
  • Purpose: Verify functional aspects of the proposed device.
  • Reported Performance/Conclusion: Met acceptance criteria; differences do not raise new questions of safety/effectiveness.
  • Test Category: Software Validation
  • Purpose: Developed applying IEC 62304:2015.
  • Reported Performance/Conclusion: Met acceptance criteria; differences do not raise new questions of safety/effectiveness.
  • Test Category: Electrical Safety (IEC 60601-1:2012 / ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1:2012)
  • Purpose: Basic Safety and Essential Performance.
  • Reported Performance/Conclusion: Certified compliant.
  • Test Category: Electromagnetic Compatibility (IEC 60601-1-2:2014)
  • Purpose: Electromagnetic disturbances.
  • Reported Performance/Conclusion: Certified compliant.
  • Test Category: Radio Emissions (IEC 62311:2007)
  • Purpose: Human exposure restrictions for electromagnetic fields.
  • Reported Performance/Conclusion: Tested according to standard. (Implies compliance, though "compliant" isn't explicitly stated here).
  • Test Category: Sterilization Validation (ISO 11135:2014)
  • Purpose: Ethylene Oxide sterilization for WIRELESS-HC.
  • Reported Performance/Conclusion: Validated according to standard.

2. 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 provided in this document. This device is a surgical tool control, not a diagnostic device relying on patient data. The "test set" here refers to the physical devices and software being tested. There's no mention of patient data, retrospective/prospective studies, or country of origin for such data.

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. This type of information is relevant for studies involving expert interpretation of medical images or other clinical data to establish a "ground truth." This document describes engineering and regulatory compliance testing for a physical device. Ground truth, in this context, would be defined by engineering standards and specifications.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. Similar to point 3, this refers to methods for resolving discrepancies among expert interpretations, which is not relevant for the type of testing described here.

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. This is explicitly for AI-enabled diagnostic aids. The eG1 Wireless Hand Control System is a physical surgical control device, not an AI system or diagnostic aid.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. Again, this is for AI algorithms. The device performs its function as designed; there's no "algorithm only" performance separate from the device's operation.

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

• N/A in the context of your question. For this device, "ground truth" equates to adherence to engineering specifications, performance standards (e.g., motor speed control accuracy, signal latency, electromagnetic compatibility limits), and recognized regulatory standards (IEC, ISO, FCC). It's not a clinical "ground truth" derived from patient outcomes or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. As above, no training set for this device.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a new surgical control device to an existing one by confirming adherence to engineering specifications, recognized safety and performance standards (like IEC and ISO), and regulatory compliance (FCC). It does not present clinical study data with acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance or AI model evaluation as implied by your detailed questions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hekaDrill system is intended for use in surgical procedures involving incision / cutting, removal, drilling, and sawing of soft and hard tissue and bone. The system is specifically intended for use in Neurologic and general surgical procedures.

The hekaDrill System consists of electric and pneumatic drill handpieces, a power console, footswitches, attachments, connection cables, irrigation tube kits, cutting tools, and system accessories. The handpieces, attachments, and system accessories are provided non-sterile and are reusable. The console and footswitches are reusable and are not intended to be sterilised. The cutting tools and irrigation tube kits are provided sterile and are single use.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the hekaDrill System. It includes details about performance testing, but it does not provide acceptance criteria in a quantitative format or a detailed study section with specific sample sizes, ground truth procedures, or expert involvement as requested.

However, based on the limited information available in the "Discussion of the Performance Testing" table, I can extract and infer some aspects related to acceptance criteria and reported device performance.

Here's an attempt to structure the answer based on the given information, with caveats about missing details:

Acceptance Criteria and Supporting Study for hekaDrill System

The K193630 submission for the hekaDrill System included performance testing to demonstrate the functionality and safety of the device compared to predicate devices. The following table summarizes the reported performance relative to general criteria.

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

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample sizes used for any of the performance tests. For instance, for "Cutting performance," it does not state how many devices were tested or how many cutting tasks were performed. For biocompatibility tests, the number of samples or specimens analyzed is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given that these are bench and lab-based performance tests for a new device submission, they would typically be prospective studies conducted in a controlled lab environment by Zethon Ltd (a UK company) or its contracted testing facilities.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The performance tests described (cutting performance comparison, electrical safety, EMC, biocompatibility) are primarily objective, quantitative measurements against established standards or predicate device performance, rather than requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• This information is not applicable/provided. The tests are objective measurements against standards or predicate performance, not subjective readings requiring adjudication for ground truth.

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 information is not applicable. The device, hekaDrill System, is an electric cranial drill motor, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study or assessment of AI assistance would not be relevant to this device.

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

• This information is not applicable. As stated above, the hekaDrill System is a surgical instrument, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the General Performance (Cutting performance), the ground truth was based on a comparison to a predicate drill system (Midas Rex Drill Systems), implying the predicate's performance served as a benchmark for "equivalent or better."
• For Electrical Performance and Electromagnetic Compatibility, the ground truth was adherence to international consensus standards (IEC 60601-1:2005 and IEC 60601-1-2:2014, respectively).
• For Biocompatibility, the ground truth was established by recognized biocompatibility testing methods (e.g., L929 MEM Elution for cytotoxicity, Kligman Maximization for sensitization, etc.) where specific biological responses or lack thereof (e.g., "Non-cytotoxic," "Non-sensitizer") define compliance.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This information is not applicable/provided. The device is a surgical instrument, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• This information is not applicable. As there is no training set for a machine learning algorithm, there is no ground truth to establish for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Midas Rex™ attachments and dissecting tools for Mazor are indicated for the incision/cutting, drilling, burring, and removal of hard tissue and bone in open and minimally invasive spine procedures.

Computer-assisted surgery and its associated applications are intended as an aid for locating anatomical structures in either open or percutaneous procedures. Their use is indicated for any medical condition for which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as a long bone or vertebra, can be identified relative to a CT- or MR-based model, fluoroscopic images, or digitized landmarks of the anatomy.

Midas Rex™ attachments and surgical dissecting tools for Mazor are intended for the incision/cutting, drilling, burring, and removal of hard tissue and bone. The subject instruments are designed to be utilized through a cannula, for use with the Mazor X Stealth Edition™ system in open and minimally invasive spine procedures.

The subject devices perform the intended function as part of the existing Medtronic Midas Rex TM surgical drill systems which consist of the subject attachments and dissecting tools, electric and pneumatic drill handpieces and system accessories.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and a study for the "Midas Rex Attachments and Dissecting Tools" which are intended for surgical navigation.

Here's the detailed information based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

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

The document indicates that "Navigational Accuracy Analysis" was performed, which "Provides confirmation that the subject devices satisfy the necessary navigational accuracy requirements." However, the specific sample size used for this test set is not explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

Regarding data provenance, the study appears to be an internal performance verification study conducted by Medtronic Powered Surgical Solutions (MPSS) to demonstrate the device's adherence to specified accuracy metrics. The data would therefore be prospective in the context of this regulatory submission, generated specifically for the purpose of demonstrating substantial equivalence. The document doesn't specify the country of origin of the data beyond the manufacturer's location in Fort Worth, Texas.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for the navigational accuracy analysis. The "Navigational Accuracy Analysis" is likely a technical measurement against a known reference, rather than an expert-adjudicated ground truth like in image interpretation studies.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

No adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) is mentioned or implied for the navigational accuracy analysis. This type of test typically involves direct measurement against a known physical standard or simulated environment, rather than expert consensus on subjective interpretations.

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 multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, as this device is a surgical tool with navigation capabilities, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretive system involving human readers. The device itself provides assistance to the surgeon in locating anatomical structures.

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

A standalone performance evaluation was conducted for the device's navigational accuracy. The "Navigational Accuracy Analysis" measured the device's performance (Mean Positional Error and Mean Trajectory Error) against predefined acceptance criteria, independent of a human operator actively engaged in a clinical task. This assessment is purely about the device's technical specifications.

7. The type of ground truth used

For the "Navigational Accuracy Analysis," the ground truth is based on technical specifications and precision measurements. The comparison is against a known, presumably highly accurate, reference or measurement standard that determines what constitutes "0 mm error" and "0 degrees error." It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the typical sense of a diagnostic device.

8. The sample size for the training set

The provided document describes a medical device (surgical tools with navigation) and its substantial equivalence submission, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a training set. Therefore, there is no mention of a "training set sample size."

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

As mentioned above, this device is not an AI/ML model and therefore does not have a "training set" or a corresponding "ground truth for the training set" in the context of typical AI/ML development.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Stealth Autoguide™ System is a positioning and guidance system intended for the spatial positioning and orientation of instrument holders or tool guides to be used by neurosurgeons to guide standard neurosurgical instruments, based on a pre-operative plan and feedback from an image-guided navigation system with three-dimensional imaging software.
The Stealth Autoguide™ System is a remotely-operated positioning and guidance system, indicated for any neurological condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate (for example, stereotactic EEG, laser tissue ablation, etc.).
The Midas Rex™ Legend™ depth stop attachment and tools are incision, cutting, removing, and drilling of soft and hard tissue during cranial surgical procedures with the intent to create a hole through the cranium to allow surgeons access to desired surgical locations and/or to facilitate insertion, placement of other surgical devices during such procedures.

Stealth Autoguide™ System: The Stealth Autoguide System is a robotic positioning and guidance system intended to interpret navigation tracker coordinates and surgical plan coordinates from the StealthStation to robotically position and orient instrument holders or tool guides to be used by neurosurgeons to guide standard neurosurgical instruments to pre-defined plans.
Midas Rex™ Legend™ Depth Stop System: The Midas Rex™ Legend™ Depth Stop System consists of a Depth Stop Attachment and specific surgical dissecting tools that will be used in conjunction with the Stealth Autoguide System to create cranial access holes for neurosurgical procedures.

The provided text describes the Medtronic Stealth Autoguide System and Midas Rex Legend Depth Stop System. It includes information on performance testing for the Stealth Autoguide System, but lacks specific details on acceptance criteria and a study to prove the device meets all acceptance criteria in a comprehensive format. It also doesn't contain the requested information about training sets, expert ground truth development, MRMC studies, or standalone performance.

However, based on the provided text, I can extract the following information concerning the performance testing for the Stealth Autoguide System's accuracy:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance for Stealth Autoguide™ System

Details of the Accuracy Study:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: The document states that performance was determined using "overall end-to-end worst-case system level accuracy testing which incorporated clinically relevant anatomical phantoms." Further specifics about the sample size (e.g., number of phantoms, number of measurement points per phantom) and data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) are not provided in this document.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: This information is not provided in the document. The accuracy testing seems to be based on direct physical measurements against defined targets on phantoms rather than expert interpretation of images.

3. Adjudication method for the test set: This information is not provided. Given the nature of the accuracy testing (physical measurements), traditional adjudication methods for image interpretation would likely not apply.

4. 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 information is not provided. The assessment described is a technical accuracy validation of the device's navigation and positioning capabilities, not a study involving human readers or AI assistance.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The "Stealth Autoguide™ System" is described as a "robotic positioning and guidance system" and the accuracy validation focuses on its "performance in 3D positional accuracy" and "trajectory angle accuracy." This implies standalone technical performance testing of the system's ability to achieve planned trajectories, before a human surgeon uses it to guide instruments. The system is designed to "robotically position and orient instrument holders or tool guides," suggesting its core function is algorithm-driven positioning. However, the evaluation here focuses on the accuracy of the guidance provided, which would then be utilized by a surgeon.

6. The type of ground truth used: The ground truth for the accuracy study was established by defining "clinically relevant anatomical phantoms" and measuring the device's "performance in 3D positional accuracy" and "trajectory angle accuracy" against the known positions and trajectories on these phantoms. This is a phantom-based measurement ground truth.

7. The sample size for the training set: This information is not provided. The document describes an accuracy validation study, not the development or training of an AI algorithm.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: This information is not provided, as details about a training set are not included in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Stealth-Midas MR8 System is indicated for the drilling, burring and removal of hard tissue and bone in spinal and cranial surgical procedures. Computer-assisted surgery and its associated applications are intended as an aid for precisely locating anatomical structures in either open or percutaneous procedures. Their use is indicated for any medical condition in which the use of stereotactic surgery may be appropriate, and where reference to a rigid anatomical structure, such as a long bone, or vertebra, can be identified relative to a CT- or MR-based model, fluoroscopic images, or digitized landmarks of the anatomy.

The Stealth-Midas MR8 consists of electric and pneumatic drill handpieces that feature an optical navigation tracker, enabling navigation in conjunction with the StealthStation S8 System and the Integrated Power Console (IPC). The system allows the navigation of a selection of currently available surgical dissecting tools. The navigated handpieces are provided non-sterile and are reusable. The associated attachments are provided non-sterile and are reusable. The associated surgical dissecting tools and MR8 ClearView burs are provided sterile and are single-use.

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the Medtronic Stealth-Midas MR8 System. The information provided outlines the device, its intended use, and comparative testing to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, the document does NOT contain a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria with reported device performance metrics in the format requested. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and functional testing, not a formal clinical efficacy or diagnostic performance study with specific quantitative acceptance criteria typically seen for AI/ML-driven devices.

Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, effect sizes, standalone performance, type of ground truth) are not explicitly present in the provided text. The device described is a surgical instrument with navigation capabilities, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or prognostic tool.

Despite this, I will describe what is present and indicate what is missing based on the prompt's requirements.

Device Name: Stealth-Midas MR8 System
Device Type: Stereotaxic Instrument (Surgical Navigation System with Drill)

The provided document describes the Stealth-Midas MR8 System, which combines an electric and pneumatic drill handpiece with an optical navigation tracker for computer-assisted surgery. The purpose of the 510(k) submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not necessarily to prove the device meets specific quantitative performance acceptance criteria in the context of an efficacy study as might be conducted for an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document:

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

The document focuses on "Navigational Accuracy Analysis" as a key performance test.

Ask a specific question about this device