Search Results

The BIOTOP HookSafe™ LUER-LOCK Safety Syringe; models 3cc/mL, and 10cc/mL serves as the vehicle in which medication can be injected into the human body, or fluid withdrawn from the human body, via the hypodermic needle injection. The safety mechanism may limit accidental needle stick injuries as well as help to prohibit syringe reuse.

The HookSafe™ LUER-LOCK series is the Safety Syringe with the following functional advantage: Single use, completely non-reusable, all parts and components can be safely inoperative and safely discarded. Fully meets anti-needlestick requirements and incorporates anti-reuse functionality as well. As with any normal syringe, after the injection process, the syringe plunger should be fully depressed to ensure complete injection of the serum. It is at this stage where the anti-reuse function of our syringe begins; a mechanism within our syringe engages the syringe needle and forms a lock. At this point, one simply needs to pull the syringe plunger back again and the needle will be completely retracted into the barrel of the syringe. Because the needle, when retracted, is in a stably-tilted position and forced against the inner shoulder of the syringe barrel. At this stage the syringe becomes completely harmless and fully meets its anti-reuse functionality.

The provided text does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria and the results of a study designed to prove a device meets those criteria. Instead, it describes a 510(k) submission for the BIOTOP HookSafe™ LUER-LOCK Safety Syringe, focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device.

The document highlights the following:

• No explicit acceptance criteria for "performance" beyond substantial equivalence: The core claim is that the new models are substantially equivalent to the predicate device despite a "small change in the needle change mechanism." The "discussion of non-clinical tests" simply states "Compliance to the applicable standards is completely identical to that of the device being modified." This suggests that the acceptance criteria for the new device are implicitly the same as those met by the predicate device, and the current submission relies on the predicate's established performance.
• "Verification and validation tests" are mentioned but not detailed: The text states, "Moreover, verification and validation tests contained in this submission demonstrate that the difference in the submitted demonstrate could maintain the same safety and effectiveness as that of cleared device." However, no specifics about these tests (e.g., protocols, sample sizes, failure rates, or specific performance metrics) are provided.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of the questions as the information is not present in the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred or determined from the text, and what critically cannot:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

Missing Information for Table: Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "Needle stick injury rate < 0.1%", "Reuse prevention rate = 100%"). The document only states the device may limit accidental needle stick injuries and help to prohibit syringe reuse, which are qualitative statements of intended function, not quantitative acceptance criteria.

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

• Sample size: Not specified. The document mentions "verification and validation tests" but not the number of units tested.
• Data provenance: Not specified. Given the company is in Taiwan, some testing may have occurred there, but this is not confirmed. It's a 510(k) submission, not a clinical trial report, so the focus is often on engineering testing rather than clinical data provenance in this context. There's no mention of retrospective or prospective.

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

• Not applicable as the provided text doesn't describe a study involving expert-established ground truth on a test set (e.g., for diagnostic accuracy). The testing described is for the functional and safety aspects of the device itself (e.g., anti-needlestick, anti-reuse).

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. (See answer above for #3).

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 a syringe, not an AI-powered diagnostic device, so MRMC studies are irrelevant here.

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

• Not applicable. This is a syringe, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the functional and safety aspects of the syringe, the "ground truth" would likely be engineering specifications, compliance with relevant ISO standards for medical devices (e.g., for syringe dimensions, fluid leakage, needle retention, etc.), and successful activation of the safety mechanism. The text states "Compliance to the applicable standards is completely identical to that of the device being modified," indicating adherence to known industry standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable. (See answer above for #8).

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) summary focused on establishing substantial equivalence for a medical device (a safety syringe) based on engineering changes. It does not provide the kind of detailed study results, acceptance criteria, or ground truth establishment methods that would be relevant for a diagnostic device or an AI/ML-powered system. The "study" mentioned is general "verification and validation tests" to ensure the minor design change did not negatively impact safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device