Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K250140
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2025-02-20

    (34 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.1500
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    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.

    Device Description

    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.

    AI/ML Overview

    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 ConductedAcceptance CriteriaResults
    Button cycling/external leakMeet acceptance criteriaPass
    Water Flow RateMeet acceptance criteriaPass
    Air Flow RateMeet acceptance criteriaPass
    Cap breakage strengthMeet acceptance criteriaPass
    Force to depressMeet acceptance criteriaPass
    Backpressure Hold TestMeet acceptance criteriaPass
    Force to AttachMeet acceptance criteriaPass
    ASTM D4169 Ship TestMeet acceptance criteriaPass

    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 Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1