Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

This device is intended to provide access, illumination and allow observation or manipulation of body cavities, hollow organs, and canals.

This device has an overrall lenght of 354mm. This diameter of the shaft is 2.7mm for direction of the center of field of view of 0/30/70 degrees. Diameter of the shaft of 4mm for direction of the center of field of view of 0/15/30/70 dearees. This device is composed of identical materials to that of the Sight-Plus Arthroscope.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Cystoscope 0/15/30/70 degrees 2.7mm/4mm". This document outlines the device's intended use, description, and claims of substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Crucially, this 510(k) summary is from 1996 and pertains to a medical device that is a physical instrument (an endoscope) and not an AI/ML-based diagnostic or assistive software.

Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth, expert involvement, and MRMC studies, which are standard for evaluating AI/ML medical devices, does not apply to this specific submission.

The 510(k) process for traditional devices like an endoscope focuses primarily on:

• Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This typically involves performance testing related to the physical properties, materials, sterilization, and basic functionality of the instrument.
• Performance Benchmarking: Comparing the physical characteristics and functional performance (e.g., optical clarity, durability, illumination, sterility) to the predicate device.
• Safety Data: Ensuring materials are biocompatible, the device can be properly sterilized, and that design features minimize risks.

To directly answer your question based on the provided text, none of the requested information (acceptance criteria, study details for AI/ML performance, sample sizes, ground truth definitions, expert qualifications for reading, MRMC studies, standalone performance) can be extracted because the submission is for a physical endoscopy device, not an AI/ML system.

If this were an AI/ML device submission from the modern era, the 510(k) summary would contain a section detailing the clinical validation study's design and results, which would then include the type of information you requested.

Ask a specific question about this device