Search Results

The Clean Connecting Tube (tubing and accessories to accommodate various GI endoscopes and irrigation pumps) is intended to provide irrigation via sterile water and to supply air(via an air pump) or CO2(Via a CO2 pump) along with sterile water during GI endoscopic procedures when used in conjunction pump or electrosurgical unit.

The Clean Connecting Tube is intended for 24 hour multiple-patient use and then discarded. The Clean Connecting Tube design minimizes infection control risks that are associated with manual cleaning and sterilization.The maximum number of patient is up to 15 in 24 hours , and maximum duration of us shall not exceed 15h. The check valve attached to the irrigation tubing shall be replaced after every patient use. The Clean Connecting Tube is manufactured for use in conjunction with sterile water bottle, and together with irrigation pump. The Clean Connecting Tube is designed to be attached to the auxiliary water connector or biopsy irrigation accessory and to be inserted into pump head of the irrigation pump to provide irrigation pump to provide irrigation through the auxiliary water channel to the distal end of endoscope.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the information required to answer your request regarding the acceptance criteria and study proving a device meets these criteria. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a "Clean Connecting Tube" device and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

It primarily discusses:

• The FDA's review and determination of substantial equivalence.
• Regulatory classifications and requirements for the device.
• A comparison of the proposed device ("Clean Connecting Tube") with a predicate device ("Universal Irrigation Solution Hybird™").
• Non-clinical performance data (bench tests, compliance with ISO standards), stating "The results of all testing were passing."
• A clear statement that "No Clinical Study is included in this submission."

Therefore, I cannot provide details on:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (beyond "passing" for bench tests).
2. Sample sizes for a test set or data provenance.
3. Number/qualifications of experts for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study or effect size.
6. Standalone algorithm performance.
7. Type of ground truth used.
8. Sample size for the training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established.

This document indicates that substantial equivalence was primarily established through a comparison of technological characteristics and non-clinical bench testing, rather than human-in-the-loop or standalone AI performance studies typically associated with the type of acceptance criteria you are asking about.

Ask a specific question about this device