Search Results

EVIS EXERA III BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPES OLYMPUS BF-XP190 is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, Endo Therapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. This instrument is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

EVIS EXERA III BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPES OLYMPUS BF-P190 is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, Endo Therapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. This instrument is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

EVIS EXERA III BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPES OLYMPUS BF-XT190 is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, Endo Therapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. This instrument is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPE OLYMPUS BF-H1100 is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, documentation equipment, monitor, Endo Therapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. This instrument is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPE OLYMPUS BF-1TH1100 is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, documentation equipment, monitor, Endo Therapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. This instrument is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

The EVIS EXERA III BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPES (OLYMPUS BF-XP190, OLYMPUS BF-P190, and BF-XT190) and BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPE BF-H1100 and BF-1TH1100 are used for endoscopic diagnosis and treatment within the respiratory organs. These endoscopes consist of three parts: the control section, the insertion section, and the connector section.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance documentation for the Olympus Bronchovideoscopes (K250862) primarily demonstrates substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and bench testing. It does not contain information about comparative effectiveness studies (like MRMC studies for AI devices), expert ground truth establishment, or typical performance metrics associated with AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) clearances.

This submission focuses on:

• Technological Equivalence: Showing that the devices (BF-XP190, BF-P190, BF-XT190, BF-H1100, and BF-1TH1100) are fundamentally the same as their predicates, with the primary change being compatibility with a new video system center (CV-1500) and updated labeling related to laser/high-frequency/APC systems.
• Bench Testing: Verification of physical and imaging performance parameters (e.g., thermal safety, color performance, resolution, noise, video latency) to ensure they meet specifications, particularly when combined with the new video system.
• Animal Testing: To assess the imaging modes (WLI, NBI, TXI, BAI-MAC) with the new video processor.

Therefore, the requested information about "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of AI/software performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment by experts) is not present in this document. The document explicitly states that "Software Testing and Cybersecurity" was "not performed" due to "no design, material, sterilization, reprocessing, packaging, shelf life, or software changes" (Page 29). This implies that the device itself is a hardware endoscope, and any software associated with it is considered an intrinsic part of its established functionality, not a new or significantly changed software component requiring a separate performance study with clinical endpoints or AI evaluation.

The "acceptance criteria" here relate to the successful completion of the listed bench (and limited animal) tests, demonstrating that the new combination (endoscope + CV-1500) functions as intended and safely, similar to the predicate combinations.

Below is a table summarizing the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" as derived from the document's comparison tables and performance data section, which are primarily about technical specifications and functional verification, not software/AI performance metrics.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Summary based on provided text)

Since this 510(k) is for existing endoscopes with a new video system and updated labeling, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the extensive comparison tables (Tables 1-5) which show the subject devices having nearly identical technical specifications to their predicate devices, and the successful completion of specified bench and animal testing. The performance data section doesn't list specific quantitative acceptance criteria for each test but rather states that tests were conducted to "ensure that the subject device performs as intended and meet design specifications."

Study Details (based on provided text)

The document describes performance testing rather than a comparative clinical study for AI/software-as-a-medical-device.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   • See table above. The acceptance criteria are largely implied by the equivalence to the predicate devices in terms of physical, optical, and functional characteristics, and the successful completion of specified bench and animal tests. Quantitative metrics for these tests are not provided in this summary but would have been part of the full submission.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test set sample size: Not specified. The document mentions "bench testing" and "animal testing." For bench tests, it typically refers to a small number of devices or engineered test setups. For animal testing, the number of animals or studies is not provided.
   • Data provenance: Not specified. It can be inferred that the testing was conducted by or on behalf of Olympus Medical Systems Corp. in Japan, given the manufacturing site and submitter location. It does not state if the data is retrospective or prospective, or from which country/region the "animal" data would originate.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable / Not specified. This type of information is typically provided for studies evaluating AI algorithms or diagnostic accuracy, where human experts establish a ground truth for imaging interpretation. The present submission is for a hardware endoscope system, and its performance evaluation relies on engineering specifications and functional testing, not expert interpretation of diagnostic images.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   • Not applicable / Not specified. Adjudication methods are relevant for human reader studies or expert ground truth establishment, which are not detailed here.

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, not performed / Not applicable. This submission is not for an AI companion diagnostic or an AI-software-as-a-medical-device. It's for an endoscope system. The document explicitly lists "Software Testing and Cybersecurity" and "Clinical" as "not performed" because there were no fundamental software changes beyond integration with a new video system, which itself does not constitute an AI component in the context of this 510(k) summary. The NBI, RDI, TXI, and BAI-MAC modes are imaging enhancements, not AI algorithms.

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

   • Not applicable. This relates to AI/software performance, which is not the focus of this 510(k).

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

   • Not applicable. For this device (endoscope), ground truth typically relates to engineering specifications (e.g., accurate measurements, clear image quality as determined by reproducible test patterns, proper functionality of mechanical parts). For the animal testing of imaging modes, the "ground truth" would be the direct observation of the animal's internal anatomy via the endoscope itself and comparison to expected/known characteristics, not an independent "pathology" or "outcomes" ground truth in a diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This submission is not for an AI system that requires a "training set."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. As above, no AI training set is described.

Ask a specific question about this device

EVIS EXERA III BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPE OLYMPUS BF-XP190
This instrument is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. This instrument is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

EVIS EXERA III BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPE OLYMPUS BF-P190
This instrument is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. This instrument is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

This EVIS EXERA III BRONCHOVIDEOSCOPE (OLYMPUS BF-XP190, OLYMPUS BF-P190) is intended to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery. The bronchovideoscope (BF-XP190, BF-P190) is indicated for use within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.

The bronchovideoscope (BF-XP190, BF-P190) is a video scope used for endoscopic diagnosis and treatment within the respiratory organs and modification of the BF-XT190 which was previously cleared under K183419.

The endoscope consists of three parts: the control section, the insertion section, and the connector section. The basic principle including user interface and operation for the procedure of the endoscope is identical to that of the predicate device, BF-XT190.

This appears to be a 510(k) summary for a bronchoscope, not an AI/ML device. Therefore, the typical acceptance criteria and study designs associated with AI/ML performance (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, human-in-the-loop studies, multi-reader multi-case studies, ground truth establishment for AI/ML) are not directly applicable.

The document describes the device as a traditional medical device (a bronchoscope) and demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on conventional performance testing, rather than AI/ML performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide an answer based on the requested format because the input document does not contain information about an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria or performance studies in the context of diagnostic or classification tasks.

However, I can summarize the types of performance data that were provided for this traditional medical device:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The document doesn't provide a direct table of acceptance criteria vs. specific reported numerical performance values for this bronchoscope in a diagnostic sense. Instead, it states that various tests were "conducted to ensure that the subject devices were carried out to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness" and that the "design verification tests and their acceptance criteria were identified and performed as a result of this risk management." The conclusion is that the device "raise no new issue of safety and effectiveness and are substantially equivalent to the predicate device."

The performance data listed are qualitative in nature, focusing on compliance with standards and successful completion of tests:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that uses a test set of data samples in the way an algorithm would. Performance testing involved physical device testing and compliance with standards.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for diagnostic AI/ML algorithms is not relevant for this device. Its performance is evaluated through engineering and biological safety tests.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Not an AI/ML diagnostic or classification device.

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 a standalone medical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. No algorithm is being evaluated in this context.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable to this type of traditional medical device submission. Ground truth, in the context of this device, refers to meeting established engineering and safety standards, not diagnostic truth.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device with a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device with a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device