Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K132039
    Date Cleared
    2014-02-21

    (234 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    874.4760
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    ERGO-FLEX LARYNGO-NASOPHARYNGOSCOPE EF-N AND EF-N SLIM

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

    JEDMED's Ergo-Flex EF-N and EF-N Slim Laryngo-Nasopharyngoscopes are intended to examine the larynx, nasal cavity and nasal pharynx. They are used between the upper respiratory tracts of the nasal passage and the vocal cords.

    Device Description

    This flexible scope is designed with the insertion tube with its bendable distal tip, the handle, the eyepiece and the focus ring. The handle incorporates the control lever to bend the distal tip and the connectors for the leakage tester and the fiber optic light-guide cable.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the JEDMED Laryngo-Nasopharyngoscope EF-N and EF-N Slim. This type of submission is for medical devices and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving novel effectiveness or clinical superiority. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" are framed in terms of demonstrating equivalence through engineering and performance bench testing, rather than a clinical study with human subjects, ground truth, or expert consensus in the way those terms are typically used for AI/diagnostic devices.

    Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    For a 510(k) submission of this nature, the "acceptance criteria" are typically defined by engineering specifications, safety standards, and performance characteristics compared to the predicate device. The "reported device performance" are the results of bench testing to demonstrate compliance with these criteria and equivalence.

    Acceptance Criteria (Based on Predicate Device & Relevant Standards)JEDMED EF-N/EF-N Slim Reported Performance
    Performance Specifications - Physical Characteristics
    Sheath diameterPredicate: 3.5 mm
    JEDMED: 2.8 and 3.4 mm (Differences noted, but considered equivalent)
    Working lengthPredicate: 300 mm
    JEDMED: 320 mm (Differences noted, but considered equivalent)
    Bending angle (Up)Predicate: 130°
    JEDMED: 130°
    Bending angle (Down)Predicate: 130°
    JEDMED: 130°
    Bending radiusPredicate: Not specified (implied to be similar or acceptable via function)
    JEDMED: 8 mm
    Field of viewPredicate: Not specified (implied to be similar or acceptable via function)
    JEDMED: 80°
    Depth of fieldPredicate: 3 - 50 mm
    JEDMED: 1 - 50 mm (Predicate has a wider range at the near end, but both cover relevant range)
    WeightPredicate: Not specified (implied to be similar or acceptable via function)
    JEDMED: 230 g (8 oz)
    Forceps Channel DiameterPredicate: 1.1 mm
    JEDMED: N/A (JEDMED device does not have a forceps channel, a key difference, but not deemed to impact equivalence for its stated indications for use as an examination scope)
    Biocompatibility
    No relevant cytotoxicity effects (ISO 10993-5, ISO 10993-10)No relevant cytotoxicity effects found for direct and indirect contact.
    Reprocessing Effectiveness
    Cleaning efficacy (following ANSI/AAMI ST81, AAMI TIR 12, TIR 30, ISO 17664)Manual cleaning process validated using enzymatic detergent.
    Disinfection efficacy (e.g., Cidex 2.4, Cidex OPA efficacy, Steris System 1E)Disinfection instructions validated using Cidex 2.4 and Cidex OPA; met all criteria for acceptance for efficacy and material compatibility. Met all criteria for efficacy and material compatibility for Steris System 1E.
    Safety Testing - Temperature
    Temperature below 41°C (per IEC60601-2-18 Part 2-18 section 201.11)Tests results showed the temperature was below the 41°C as required. (Tested at 4 sites with 50w Metal Halide, 50w LED, and 150w Halogen bulbs).
    Durability - Life Cycle and Angulation
    Minimum angulation cycles (e.g., 26,000 cycles for 2 years use)Angulation function cycled a minimum of 50,000 cycles.
    130 degree angulation still in tolerance after 30,000 cycles.
    All tested scopes met the requirement.

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

    • Sample Size for Testing: Not explicitly stated as a number of distinct devices for all tests. For example, "all tested scopes" for angulation implies multiple devices, but the exact number isn't quantified. For temperature testing, it refers to "4 different test sites" on the device.
    • Data Provenance: The studies are bench tests and laboratory validations performed by the manufacturer, JEDMED Instrument Company, and Geneva Test Laboratory (for disinfection). This is not human data or clinical data; it's engineering and material testing. The country of origin of the data is implicitly the USA where JEDMED is located.

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

    Not applicable in the typical sense for this device.

    • There is no "ground truth" derived from human interpretation or clinical outcomes in the context of this 510(k) submission.
    • The "acceptance criteria" are based on recognized standards (ISO, AAMI, IEC) and comparison to the predicate device's specifications. Compliance is measured via objective physical and chemical tests rather than expert consensus on a diagnostic outcome.
    • The validation of reprocessing and biocompatibility would involve laboratory professionals and engineers.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. There is no ambiguous "test set" requiring adjudication by multiple readers or experts. Performance is measured against objective standards and specifications.

    5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

    No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is a premarket notification for a medical device (an endoscope), not a diagnostic AI algorithm. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence in design, materials, and safety/performance characteristics to a legally marketed predicate device.

    6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

    Not applicable. This device is an endoscope, a tool used by a human clinician to visualize anatomical structures. It does not operate as an "algorithm only" or a "standalone" diagnostic system.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    Not applicable in the sense of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data for making diagnoses. The "ground truth" for this submission are:

    • Established national and international standards for medical devices (e.g., ISO, AAMI, IEC).
    • The engineering and performance specifications of the predicate device (Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp. flexible nasopharyngo-laryngoscope and flexible bronchoscope; K992526).
    • Laboratory testing results (e.g., temperature measurements, cycle counts, chemical compatibility results).

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

    Not applicable. As noted above, this is not an AI/machine learning device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1