Search Results

The Andorate® Disposable Suction Valve is used to control the suction of an endoscope (Fujifilm 700 series) during a GI Endoscopic procedure.

The Andorate® Disposable Air/Water valve is used to control the air/water function of an endoscope (Fujifilm 700 series) during a GI Endoscopic procedure.

The subject devices are intended for single-use and are supplied sterile. Disposable suction and air/water help prevential safety risks and eliminate the need for manual cleaning and reprocessing. The subject devices are easily incorporated into infection prevention policies as a single use item. The suction valve is designed to be attached to the suction port of the endoscope and the air/water valve is designed to be attached to the air/water port of the endoscope. The activation of the suction valve allows the user to aspirate excess fluids or other debris obscuring the endoscopic image. while the activation of the air/water valve allows the user to control air and water flow to assist in cleansing the lens during procedures. The suction and air/water are housed together with biopsy valve and auxiliary water connector in a single tray and packaged in sealed packed. The subject devices are supplied as sterile The subject devices in this submission have the same operation and method of action with the predicate device.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for medical devices, specifically for disposable suction and air/water valves used with endoscopes. It outlines the regulatory submission to the FDA, demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Based on the provided document, here's a description of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

Crucially, this submission is for physical medical devices (disposable valves), not an AI/software device. Therefore, many of the questions related to AI acceptance criteria (e.g., ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, training set) are not applicable to this document.

The primary acceptance criteria for these physical devices are based on bench testing demonstrating functional performance, safety, and compatibility, along with biocompatibility testing and sterilization validation. The study performed is a series of non-clinical, bench-top tests.

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

Note on "Reported Device Performance": The document states that "The bench testing was performed to support substantial equivalence" and "The test result can imply that the subject devices can provide and maintain a sterile barrier and its intended performance before the expiration date," and "The test result shows that the subject devices are biocompatible." While specific quantitative results are not detailed in this summary, the submission asserts that all tests were conducted and the devices met the necessary criteria for their intended use and substantial equivalence claim.

Regarding the AI-specific questions, they are largely N/A for this K200495 submission which is for physical medical devices.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a number of "cases" or "patients." These are physical devices. The "test set" would be a quantity of manufactured valves used for bench testing. The document states "The bench testing was performed to support substantial equivalence. The following testing were performed on subject devices from initial production lots, including sterilization." It does not specify the exact number of units per test.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of an AI dataset. The data provenance here refers to the results of physical and chemical tests conducted on the manufactured valves. The manufacturer is GA Health Company Limited. The shelf-life tests were conducted by "Sanitation Environment Technology Institute, Soochow University," which implies the testing was done in China (where Soochow University is located). The document does not specify whether the data is retrospective or prospective, as it's not a clinical study in that sense; rather, it's product testing.

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

• N/A. This is a physical device submission, not an AI/diagnostic software. Ground truth for these devices is established through engineering specifications, material science, and established medical device testing standards (e.g., for flow rates, leak integrity, biocompatibility).

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

• N/A. Not applicable for a physical device bench test. Test results are typically objective measurements against predefined specifications.

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:

• N/A. No MRMC study was conducted or is applicable for this physical medical device. The device is a disposable valve, not an AI diagnostic tool that assists human readers.

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

• N/A. No algorithm is involved. This is a physical device.

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

• N/A (in the AI sense). The "ground truth" for this device's performance is defined by established engineering and medical device standards for mechanical integrity, fluid dynamics (suction/air/water flow), material properties (biocompatibility), and sterilization efficacy. For example, a "Vacuum Leak Test" would have a specific maximum allowable leak rate as its ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• N/A. There is no "training set" as this is a physical medical device, not an AI model.

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

• N/A. Not applicable. There is no AI training set.

Ask a specific question about this device