Search Results

The EndoGuide is intended to be used with an endoscope to facilitate intubation, change of endoscopes, and removal of multiple polyps and/or foreign bodies.

The EndoGuide fits over a pediatric colonoscope and can be converted from a flexible to a rigid configuration on demand. The EndoGuide is back loaded onto the shaft of the colonoscope before the instrument is inserted into the patient. The device was designed to be activated by a vacuum source and needs to be connected to the existing vacuum line in the endoscopy suite. Application of vacuum causes the device to become rigid. In this "active" mode (vacuum on) the rigid insertion tube facilitates the passing of the colonoscope thru the insertion tube and resists colonoscope looping. In the "passive" mode (vacuum off) the insertion tube is very flexible and can be advanced deeper into the colon.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the EndoGuide device and does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study report with quantitative performance data. The document states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device, focusing on its functional characteristics and intended use.

Here's a breakdown of the available information and what is not present:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document explicitly states: "To support the substantial equivalence determination, a summary of the in-vitro testing to confirm the performance characteristics in comparison with the predicate device has been submitted." However, the actual table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance from this in-vitro testing is NOT included in the provided text.

The document only notes the functional differences from the predicate device:

• The EndoGuide differs in that it is capable of becoming rigid when required by the physician. When rigid the device facilitates the passing of the endoscope thru the insertion tube and resists endoscopic looping. But when in its flexible state, the insertion tube is can be advanced into the colon.

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

This information is not provided in the document. It only mentions "in-vitro testing" without details on sample size, or whether the data was retrospective or prospective, or country of origin.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications:

This information is not provided. The 510(k) summary does not mention any expert review or ground truth establishment related to clinical performance metrics. The focus is on device function compared to a predicate.

4. Adjudication Method:

This information is not provided. Given that no expert review or ground truth establishment relevant to clinical performance is mentioned, an adjudication method would not be applicable in the provided context.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

An MRMC study was not conducted or reported in this 510(k) summary. The device is a medical instrument (an overtube), not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically involve human reader performance comparisons.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only):

A standalone performance study was not conducted or reported. As mentioned, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The document refers to "in-vitro testing to confirm the performance characteristics in comparison with the predicate device." This implies that the "ground truth" for the device's technical performance would be defined by engineering specifications and comparative functional assessments against the predicate device's established performance. There is no mention of clinical outcomes data, pathology, or expert consensus being used as ground truth for this type of device in the provided summary.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

This information is not applicable and not provided. There is no "training set" as this device is a physical instrument, not an AI or machine learning model.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided as there is no training set for this type of device.

In summary, the provided 510(k) document is a regulatory submission focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a physical medical device (EndoGuide) to a predicate device (Guardus™ Overtube) based on its operational characteristics and intended use. It explicitly mentions "in-vitro testing" for performance comparison but does not detail the specific acceptance criteria, test results, or methodology (like sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth establishment). It does not involve AI or diagnostic imaging algorithms, hence no MRMC or standalone algorithm performance studies are relevant or reported.

Ask a specific question about this device