Search Results

Biopsy forceps are intended for use in collecting tissue samples for histological examination.

Multi-bite Electric (Hot) Biopsy Forceps

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device called "Multi-bite Electric (Hot) Biopsy Forceps." It determines the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, this document does not contain information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, study details (sample size, data provenance, ground truth, experts, adjudication, MRMC, standalone), or training set information.

The letter confirms the device's classification and regulation, and outlines the general controls and additional controls it may be subject to under FDA regulations. The "Indications for Use" section simply states the intended use of the biopsy forceps is for "collecting tissue samples for histological examination."

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria. Such details would typically be found in the 510(k) submission itself or related study reports, not in the clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ETI Hemostatic Probe is intended for use during endoscopic procedures where electrosurgery is required to cauterize tissue of actual or potentially bleeding sites in the gastrointestinal tract. The device also can be used for irrigation.

Not Found

The provided text is a clearance letter for a medical device (ETI Bipolar Hemostatic Probe). It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, study details, device performance data, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications that would typically be found in a study report or clinical trial documentation.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based solely on the provided input. The letter confirms that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device and lists the indications for use. It does not elaborate on the specific tests or studies conducted to demonstrate this equivalence or the performance metrics achieved.

To answer your questions, I would need access to the 510(k) submission itself or a summary of its contents, which would typically describe the testing and performance evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

Endo-Glide Guidewires are intended to be used for selective cannulization of the biliary ducts, including but not limited to, the common bile, cystic, right and left hepatic ducts during endoscopic biliary procedures for catheter introduction and exchanges.

The Endo-Glide Guidewire has a range of diameters from 0.025" to 0.035" and lengths from 250cm to 450cm. The wires are offered with and without a 50mm radiopaque platinum distal tip (curved and straight). The wires are assembled with a solid nitinol or stainless steel core wire, which can be tapered at the distal tip. A lubricious coating (PTFE or hydrophilic) surrounds the entire core and/or tip, which also provides insulation.

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a guidewire, which is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML powered device. As such, the concepts of "acceptance criteria," "device performance study," "sample size," "ground truth," "MRMC study," "standalone study," "training set," and "adjudication method" as they relate to AI/ML device evaluations are not applicable in this context.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the Endo-Glide Guidewire to predicate devices based on technological characteristics, intended use, design, materials, and method of operation. It does not contain information about the performance criteria, study design, or results in the way it would for an AI/ML device.

Here's a breakdown of what is available in the document, framed to address your request where possible, but highlighting the inapplicability to AI/ML:

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

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. This document pertains to the substantial equivalence of a physical medical device (guidewire) to legally marketed predicate devices. The concept of a "test set" and "data provenance" in the context of performance evaluation for an AI/ML device is not relevant here. The evaluation focuses on physical characteristics and intended use.

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. There is no "ground truth" to establish for a test set in the AI/ML sense for this type of device submission. The FDA reviews the device's design, materials, manufacturing processes, and intended use for substantial equivalence, relying on established standards for medical devices and comparison to approved predicates.

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

• Not applicable. No adjudication method for a test set is mentioned or relevant for this type of device.

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. This is not an AI/ML device, so no MRMC study, human readers, or AI assistance is involved.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, so "standalone algorithm performance" is not a relevant concept.

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

• Not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of AI/ML, is not relevant for this device. The "truth" for substantial equivalence is based on engineering principles, materials science, and comparison to legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set, there is no ground truth for a training set to be established.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a physical guidewire, not an AI/ML-driven medical device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML performance evaluation, such as acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, and expert involvement for algorithm validation, are not applicable to the information contained within this document. The "study" here is essentially the comparison of the new device's characteristics to those of already approved predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Endo-Therapeutics Laparoscopic Surgical Instruments are a line of reusable general surgical forceps, graspers and scissors intended to be used for lifting, dissecting, cutting organs and tissue during general open and laparoscopic procedures.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving a device meets them. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for "Endo-Therapeutics Laparoscopic Instruments," indicating that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a predicate device. It specifies the product's intended use but does not detail any performance studies, acceptance criteria, or ground truth establishment. Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information.

Ask a specific question about this device

Varices Injection Needles are used for endoscopic injection of legally marked sclerotherapy agent and dyes into esophageal or colonic varices

Not Found

I am sorry to inform you that the provided document, a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a "Varices Injection Needle," does not contain the information required to answer your request.

The letter only states that the device has been deemed substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device for its stated indications for use. It does not include:

• Acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics. This letter is about regulatory clearance, not performance specifications from a study.
• Details about any specific studies, such as sample sizes, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or results of MRMC or standalone studies.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or provide the requested study details based on the input document.

Ask a specific question about this device