Search Results

The primary indication for use of biopsy forceps is endoscopic tissue collection for histologic examination in GI/Urology, Bronchoscopy, Nasopharingoscopy, Esophagoscopy and Hysteroscopy. Non-electric biopsy forceps are not intended for use in conjunction with an electrocautery unit.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the LSVP International Biopsy Forceps. This type of submission is for demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through clinical studies with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance reports.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in points 1 through 9 regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth establishment.

Here's why and what the document does provide:

• Nature of the Submission: A 510(k) submission typically relies on non-clinical performance testing (e.g., mechanical testing, biocompatibility) and a comparison to a predicate device. It generally does not require or include extensive clinical studies with human subjects that would involve establishing specific acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance (like sensitivity/specificity), ground truth, or MRMC studies.
• Focus: The focus of this document is to establish that the LSVP Biopsy Forceps are "substantially equivalent" in design, function, and intended use to existing predicate devices (Reusable Biopsy Forceps manufactured by Olympus, Portlyn Corp., and American Endoscopy, Corp.).
• Intended Use: The device is intended "specifically to collect tissue endoscopically for histologic examination." This is a tissue collection tool, not a diagnostic algorithm that would have performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement.

In summary, none of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth establishment for a diagnostic performance study is present because this is a 510(k) submission for a medical device (biopsy forceps) and not a diagnostic algorithm or a software as a medical device (SaMD) that would typically generate such data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The primary indication for hot biopsy forceps is simultaneous biopsy and coagulation of diminutive polyps. Hot biopsy forceps are intended for use in conjunction with an electrocautery unit.

Not Found

The provided text describes the LSVP International Hot Biopsy Forceps and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, as typically seen in performance studies for AI/ML devices.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than conducting a separate performance study against predefined acceptance criteria for a novel technology. The "study" here is implicitly the comparison to predicate devices and adherence to general controls.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be directly answered from the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered:

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

• Cannot be provided directly. The document doesn't define explicit acceptance criteria or report specific device performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) in the way an AI/ML device study would. The acceptance is based on the device being "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices.

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

• Cannot be provided. No specific test set or data provenance is mentioned. The substantial equivalence is based on design, function, and intended use comparison.

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

• Cannot be provided. No ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is mentioned.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Cannot be provided. No test set or adjudication method is 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

• Cannot be provided. This is not an AI/ML device, and no MRMC study is mentioned.

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

• Cannot be provided. This is a physical medical device (forceps), not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Cannot be provided. No specific ground truth is referenced for performance testing. Substantial equivalence relies on comparison to existing devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Cannot be provided. This is not an AI/ML device, and no training set is relevant.

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

• Cannot be provided. Not applicable.

Summary based on available information:

The document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the LSVP International Hot Biopsy Forceps. The "study" in this context refers to the demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices already on the market.

• Acceptance Criteria (Implicit): The primary acceptance criterion for a 510(k) is demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, and does not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness. This is achieved by showing similarities in design, function, and intended use.
• Reported Device Performance (Implicit): The reported "performance" is that the LSVP International Hot Biopsy Forceps are "similar in design, function, and intended use to the currently marketed reusable Olympus hot biopsy forceps." This implies that its safety and effectiveness are comparable to the predicate devices.
• Predicate Devices: Reusable Hot Biopsy Forceps manufactured by Olympus, Microvasive Corp., Fujinon, Inc., and Mill-Rose Labs.

The device's review and marketing approval explicitly state: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976..." This is the core "proof" in this type of submission.

Ask a specific question about this device