Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(34 days)
The Defendo Fujifilm 700 Single Use Cleaning Adapter is intended to be used only to pre-clean the endoscope's air/water channel post-procedure, and not to be used during a patient procedure.
This device is intended to be used only to pre-clean the endoscope's air/water channel post-procedure, and not to be used during a patient procedure.
The Defendo Fujifilm 700 Single Use Cleaning Adapter is a single use, non-sterile disposable valve that fits onto the air/water cylinder of Fujifilm endoscopes (that do not contain a balloon channel). It allows air and water to be flushed through the endoscope's air/water channels after an endoscopic procedure is completed to remove debris. The adapter is not intended to be used with patients and a warning tag comes with the device providing this information. The materials of the valve are nonpatient contacting. The Defendo Fujifilm 700 Single Use Cleaning Adapter assembly consists of a cap, a spring, a spring cup, an overmolded boot, the cleaning valve stem, the valve stem backflow umbrella valve, and valve stem sealing gaskets and a warning label.
This document is a 510(k) premarket notification from the FDA for a medical device. It is not a study demonstrating the performance of an AI/ML powered device. Most of the requested information regarding AI/ML study design and results is therefore not applicable.
The device is the "Defendo Fujifilm 700 Single Use Cleaning Adapter," which is a non-sterile, single-use disposable valve intended to pre-clean endoscope air/water channels post-procedure. The submission is a "Special 510(k)" to obtain clearance for a non-sterile version of a previously cleared sterile device (K232329).
Here's the relevant information based on the provided text, with explanations why certain points are not applicable:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document provides a summary table of non-clinical performance testing. The "Acceptance Criteria" column consistently states "Meet acceptance criteria" without detailing the specific numeric or qualitative thresholds for each test. However, the "Results" column consistently states "Pass," indicating that the device met these (undisclosed) criteria for all tests.
| Testing Conducted | Acceptance Criteria | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Button cycling/external leak | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
| Water Flow Rate | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
| Air Flow Rate | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
| Cap breakage strength | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
| Force to depress | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
| Backpressure Hold Test | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
| Force to Attach | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
| ASTM D4169 Ship Test | Meet acceptance criteria | Pass |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size for any of the non-clinical tests conducted.
- Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the tests were retrospective or prospective. Given that these are benchtop "non-clinical" performance tests for a physical device, the concepts of retrospective/prospective clinical data or patient data provenance do not apply.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)
This is not applicable. The device is a mechanical cleaning adapter, not an AI/ML-powered diagnostic tool. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus or clinical diagnosis is not relevant to its performance testing. The "truth" here is objective physical measurements and functional performance as per engineering specifications.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. As noted above, this is not a study requiring expert adjudication of clinical findings.
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 not an AI/ML device, nor is it a clinical study involving human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
The "ground truth" for this device's performance testing consists of engineering specifications, material properties, and functional requirements (e.g., specific flow rates, force thresholds, leak prevention). It is established through physical measurements and bench testing against predefined criteria, not against clinical expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set for an AI/ML model.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set for an AI/ML model.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1