Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(307 days)
Eclipse DermaFlex Cannula
The Eclipse DermaFlex Cannula is intended to inject fluids intradermally.
The Eclipse DermaFlex Cannula is provided as a single-use, sterile device. It is comprised of a needle. hub and cap. This device comes in a variety of needle gauges and lengths. The Eclipse DermaFlex Cannula offers AN type and B Type. The AN type is a hypodermic single lumen needle intended to prepare the site for injection. The tip of this pilot needle is sharpened at one end, while the other end is joined to a hub. The B type has a metal tube with the tip, which is closed and blunt, while the cannula has an opening laterally at a lower point under the tip. On the other end, the device is joined to a female connector (hub) designed to mate with a male connector (nozzle) of a piston syringe or secondary medication sets to prepare and administer fluids/ medications/ drugs to a patient.
The Eclipse DermaFlex Cannula is a hypodermic single lumen needle intended to inject fluids intradermally. The submission demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate device MV INTRADERMIC NEEDLES; MAGIC NEEDLE (K110606) by M.V. S.R.L.
Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantifiable manner for each test. Instead, it refers to performance testing conducted in accordance with various ISO and ASTM standards. The reported device performance is a general statement that the device "meets the established characteristics and performance requirements needed to perform its intended function." It also states, "Substantial equivalence is established as these are the same standards established for the predicate device as well. As the Eclipse meets the required criteria of the standards, its performance may be considered to support substantial equivalence."
Therefore, the table below reflects what can be inferred from the document:
Test Category | Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from standards) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Sterilization Validation | In accordance with ISO 11135, ISO 11138-1, ISO 11138-2, ISO 11737-1, ISO 10993-7, AAMI TIR28 | Meets established characteristics and performance requirements. |
Shelf Life Validation | In accordance with ISO 11608-2, ASTM F1929, ISO 11737-2 | Meets established characteristics and performance requirements. |
Biocompatibility Testing | In accordance with ISO 10993-1, ISO 10993-10, ISO 10993-4 | Meets established characteristics and performance requirements. |
Performance Tests | In accordance with ISO 9626:2016, ISO 7864:2016, ISO 80369-7, ISO 6009:2016 | Meets established characteristics and performance requirements. |
Overall Equivalence | Demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate device (K110606) | Established through meeting required criteria of the referenced standards. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
The document does not provide details on the specific sample sizes used for each test or the data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only lists the standards followed for the tests.
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 to this type of device (hypodermic needle). The ground truth for performance testing of a medical device like this is established through adherence to recognized international and national standards, not by expert consensus on clinical findings.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
This information is not applicable as the evaluation of this device is based on objective performance testing against established standards, not interpretation of data by multiple readers requiring adjudication.
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
An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not applicable to this device. This is a physical medical device (cannula/needle), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
A standalone algorithm performance study is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI system.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
The ground truth for this device's performance is based on established national and international standards for medical device manufacturing, sterility, biocompatibility, and functional performance (e.g., needle strength, connection integrity, color coding). These standards define objective, measurable parameters.
8. The sample size for the training set
This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device and does not involve a training set for machine learning or AI.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This information is not applicable as there is no training set for this type of device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1