Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(109 days)
EndoChoice Hot Biopsy forceps are indicated for endoscopic use in in conjunction with monopolar electrosurgical current to obtain gastrointestinal mucosal tissue biopsies and for removal of sessile polyps.
EndoChoice Hot Biopsy Forceps is a sterile single use device designed for use in the gastrointestinal tract. A plug is located on the handle for connection to an electrosurgical unit, giving the capability to apply high frequency monopolar electrocautery during resection. The device is compatible with endoscopic access channels of at least 2.8 mm and is provided with a working length of 230.0 cm. Using the EndoChoice Hot Biopsy Forceps, the user can cauterize and remove tissue from the mucosal wall by using the handle to open the jaws, pressing the jaws against the site, closing, applying electrical current via a compatible electrosurgical unit (not included), and gently pulling the away from the site.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the EndoChoice Hot Biopsy Forceps. This type of regulatory submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving device performance through clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria as might be seen for novel or high-risk devices.
Therefore, the information requested in your prompt for "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of typical AI/software device evaluation (e.g., performance metrics, ground truth, expert review) is largely not applicable to this document. The provided text describes a physical medical device (forceps) and its regulatory clearance process, not a software or AI-based diagnostic device.
However, I can extract the relevant information from the document in the spirit of your request, interpreting "acceptance criteria" as the regulatory requirements met for 510(k) clearance, and "study" as the non-clinical testing performed.
Here's a breakdown based on the provided 510(k) summary:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
| Acceptance Criteria (Met for 510(k) equivalence) | Reported Device Performance (Summary of Non-Clinical Testing) |
|---|---|
| Functional Performance: Device operates as intended (e.g., jaw opening/closing, grasping, electrosurgical current application). | Bench testing of functional performance was conducted. Results demonstrate the device is "safe and effective in meeting user requirements in accordance with its intended use." |
| Biocompatibility: Materials are safe for contact with human tissue. | Biocompatibility testing was conducted. Results demonstrate the device is "safe and effective in meeting user requirements in accordance with its intended use." |
| Sterility Assurance: Device can be sterilized and maintained as sterile. | A sterility assurance validation was conducted. Results demonstrate the device is "safe and effective in meeting user requirements in accordance with its intended use." |
| Shelf Life: Device maintains its properties over its intended storage period. | Shelf life testing was conducted. Results demonstrate the device is "safe and effective in meeting user requirements in accordance with its intended use." |
| Electrical Safety: Device meets safety standards for electrosurgical accessories. | Electrical safety testing for high frequency surgical accessories was conducted. Results demonstrate the device is "safe and effective in meeting user requirements in accordance with its intended use." |
| Substantial Equivalence: The device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. | The EndoChoice Hot Biopsy Forceps was determined to be "substantially equivalent to the Radial Jaw 4™ Hot Biopsy Forceps (K101657) manufactured by Boston Scientific Corporation" by both the manufacturer and the FDA. The basis for equivalence was stated as "intended use, operating principle, technology, energy used, packaging, and materials." |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. For physical device testing like this, "sample size" would refer to the number of devices tested in bench studies. The summary only states that "Testing includes..." and "Results demonstrate..." without specifying quantities or detailed methodologies. Data provenance is also not mentioned, as these are primarily engineering and materials tests, not human data studies.
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 information is not applicable and not provided. The "ground truth" for a physical device like biopsy forceps in a 510(k) submission is established by engineering standards, material science, and functional requirements, not by expert medical review of output.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies or expert reviews of data or images to establish ground truth, which is not what this 510(k) summary describes.
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
This information is not applicable. MRMC studies are specifically for evaluating diagnostic performance, often for AI or software-assisted interpretation, where human readers interpret cases. This document is about a physical medical instrument and does not involve "human readers" or "AI assistance."
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This information is not applicable. This device is a physical instrument, not an algorithm, and intrinsically involves a "human-in-the-loop" (the trained medical professional using the forceps).
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
The "ground truth" for this device's performance, as implied by the non-clinical testing, is based on:
- Engineering specifications and validated functional performance standards.
- Biocompatibility standards.
- Sterilization standards.
- Electrical safety standards.
8. The sample size for the training set
This information is not applicable and not provided. "Training set" refers to data used to train an algorithm or AI model, which is not relevant to this physical device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This information is not applicable and not provided, for the same reason as #8.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1