Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K140753
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2014-07-15

    (111 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.1500
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    ENDO SMART BOTTLE, RINSE AND INSUFFLATION SYSTEM

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The EndoSmart Bottle is intended to be used with an air or CO2 source and/or a pump along with a sterile water source to supply air or CO2 and sterile water to an endoscope during endoscopic procedures.

    Device Description

    Endo Smart Bottle is designed to be attached to an endoscope, to help supply water, air/CO2. The device consists of a connector cap, a water bottle, a threaded cap, a small tube, and a male luer. The main function of the subject device is -

    • . To provide water for rinsing the lens.
    • To provide air or CO2 to insufflate the anatomical lumen, to help the end user to see . the inner wall more clearly.

    Similar to its predicate device, the subject device is provided sterile to the end user, fabricated from plastics, and elastomers, intended for daily (24 hour) multi-patient use and must be discarded daily. Both the subject device and its predicate device do not come in direct contact with patients.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) summary for the Medivators Endo Smart Bottle, an endoscopic irrigation/suction system. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Endo Smart Cap. The document describes the device, its intended use, and non-clinical performance data to support its safety and effectiveness.

    Here's an analysis of the requested information based on the provided text:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner (e.g., minimum accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity thresholds). Instead, it lists types of performance tests designed to demonstrate equivalence to the predicate device. The "reported device performance" is described qualitatively as having passed these tests, indicating equivalence.

    Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from testing)Reported Device Performance (Qualitative)
    Lens Rinsing FunctionPerformed equivalently to predicate
    Insufflation FunctionPerformed equivalently to predicate
    Safety (Design Verification)Performed equivalently to predicate
    Cytotoxicity EvaluationMet biocompatibility requirements
    Intracutaneous Irritation TestMet biocompatibility requirements
    SensitizationMet biocompatibility requirements
    Functional Testing (Shelf-life)Maintained function over shelf-life
    Dye Penetration Testing (Shelf-life)Maintained integrity over shelf-life
    Peel Strength Testing (Shelf-life)Maintained integrity over shelf-life
    Visual Seal Inspection (Shelf-life)Maintained integrity over shelf-life
    Sterilization ValidationMet sterility requirements

    2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

    The document does not provide details on the specific sample sizes used for each non-clinical performance test (e.g., how many bottles were tested for lens rinsing function). It also does not mention data provenance (country of origin or retrospective/prospective nature) as these are non-clinical engineering and bench tests, not clinical studies involving patient data.

    3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and the Qualifications of Those Experts

    This information is not applicable. The evaluations described are "Design Verification," "Biocompatibility," "Shelf-life validation," and "Sterilization validation," which are engineering and laboratory tests based on established standards and protocols, not expert consensus on medical interpretation.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    This is not applicable as the tests are non-clinical engineering and laboratory tests, not clinical performance studies requiring adjudication of results.

    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

    No such study was conducted or is mentioned. This product is a physical medical device (endoscopic irrigation/suction system) and does not involve AI or human "readers" in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

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

    This is not applicable. This device is a manual accessory for an endoscope and does not involve algorithms or AI.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

    The "ground truth" for the non-clinical performance tests would be defined by established engineering and biological standards, specifications, and test methodologies relevant to medical device performance (e.g., maintaining specific flow rates, successfully clearing a lens, demonstrating no cytotoxic effects, maintaining sterile barrier integrity). It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in a clinical sense.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    This is not applicable. This device does not use machine learning or AI, and therefore does not have a "training set."

    9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

    This is not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1