Search Results

EndoWindow™ High Frequency Electrocautery Device is indicated for the transendoscopic electrocautery of tissue in the upper gastrointestinal tract such as Barrett's esophagus.

EndoWindow™ is a sterile, single-use, disposable bipolar device that is intended to cauterize tissue in the esophagus. EndoWindow fits around a flexible endoscope and contains electrodes located distally on the exterior surface of the device. When positioned and activated, the electrodes deliver electrical current to cauterize tissue. Cauterization of tissue manifests as a white coagulum and occurs in full view of the user in the narrow rectangular window located between the electrodes. The inner diameter of EndoWindow is designed to accommodate an endoscope having a maximum diameter of 8.7mm.

The provided Special 510(k) summary for the EndoWindow™ High Frequency Electrocautery Device (K021266) does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer all the posed questions regarding acceptance criteria and the specific study that proves the device meets them.

This document is a summary of safety and effectiveness, and typically, detailed study protocols, acceptance criteria, and comprehensive results are found in the full 510(k) submission, which is not publicly available in this format.

However, based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted and what remains unknown:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation of Limitations: The document states that "Laboratory and animal testing was performed to verify performance and safety" and "A biocompatibility assessment was conducted in accordance with ISO 10993-1 with satisfactory results." However, it does not list specific acceptance criteria (e.g., "device must coagulate tissue within X seconds at Y power level with Z tissue damage depth") nor does it provide the quantitative reported device performance against such criteria. The primary "performance" mentioned is the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate.

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

• Sample Size: Unknown. The document mentions "Laboratory and animal testing" but does not specify the number of animals or the number of tests performed.
• Data Provenance: Undisclosed. It only states "Laboratory and animal testing was performed." The location (country) or whether it was retrospective or prospective is not mentioned.

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

• Number of Experts: Unknown.
• Qualifications of Experts: Unknown.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Unknown.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically associated with diagnostic devices where human readers interpret results, and the AI's impact on their performance is evaluated. The EndoWindow™ is an electrocautery device, not a diagnostic one. The performance data focuses on its function (cautery) and safety, not on human interpretation.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Not applicable in the context of AI. This question typically applies to AI/ML software as a medical device. The EndoWindow™ is a physical surgical device, and its "performance" is inherently "standalone" in how it functions to cauterize tissue. There is no AI algorithm or human-in-the-loop component to evaluate here.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Performance and Safety: Based on the description, the ground truth was likely established through direct observation during laboratory and animal testing. For instance, the "cauterization of tissue manifests as a white coagulum," which would be a direct visual ground truth for efficacy. Safety would be evaluated by observing adverse events, tissue damage, etc., during these tests.
• For Biocompatibility: Ground truth was established by adherence to ISO 10993-1 standards and the satisfactory results of the assessments.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The "testing" mentioned refers to traditional medical device performance and safety testing.

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

• Not applicable. As above, there is no AI/ML training set for this device.

Summary of what the document does provide:

• Device Description: A sterile, single-use, disposable bipolar device for transendoscopic electrocautery in the upper GI tract, specifically for Barrett's esophagus.
• Predicate Device: Microvasive Gold Probe.
• Performance Data Mentioned: Laboratory and animal testing to verify performance and safety, and a biocompatibility assessment per ISO 10993-1 with satisfactory results.
• Conclusion: The device is substantially equivalent to the predicate, and safety and effectiveness are assured for its intended use.

In conclusion, for a traditional medical device like the EndoWindow™ High-Frequency Electrocautery Device, the concept of "acceptance criteria" and "study proving it meets criteria" is typically demonstrated through a combination of engineering specifications, performance tests (bench and animal), safety assessments (biocompatibility, electrical safety), and comparison to a legally marketed predicate device. The provided 510(k) summary only offers a high-level overview of these activities without the granular details requested by many of the questions.

Ask a specific question about this device