Search Results

The EndoChoice Select Injection Needle mainly consists of a cap, needle, boosting tube, and positioning ring, all made of 304 stainless steel. It also contains an outer tube and nut made of PTFE. The spring and spring tube are made of 302 stainless steel. The shell and injection handle are made of ABS. The bushing is made of TPE (SBS), the inner tube is made of nylon, and the color band indicator is made of CNBR.

The products are intended for single use; an individual device is packed in a sealed pouch following ETO sterilization. The device is used for local injection via endoscope, with the average contact time of the products and the mucosa of the human digestive tract of less than 1 hour.

AI/ML Overview

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) Summary for the EndoChoice Select Injection Needle, which is a medical device. This type of submission is for modifications to a previously cleared device. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study to prove a device meets those criteria for a novel device.

Therefore, many of the requested data points (like specific performance metrics, sample sizes for test and training sets, number and qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, and detailed ground truth establishment) are generally not found in this type of submission. The focus is on showing the modified device performs as safely and effectively as the original, cleared device.

However, I can extract the information that is present and indicate where the requested information is not typically presented in a 510(k) summary focused on substantial equivalence.

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

For the modified EndoChoice Select Injection Needle, the "acceptance criteria" are predominantly related to the equivalence of its characteristics and safety to the predicate device. The "reported device performance" is essentially that it passed these equivalence-based tests.

Acceptance Criteria (Demonstrated Equivalence to Predicate K132065)	Reported Device Performance (Result)
Material Equivalence: The new patient-contacting material must be safe and effective.	Biocompatibility testing for the new patient-contacting material passed.
Sterilization Equivalence: Sterilization method and efficacy must be equivalent.	Sterilization testing is unchanged from the predicate and passed.
Accelerated Aging Equivalence: Shelf life and stability characteristics must be equivalent.	Accelerated aging testing is unchanged from the predicate and passed.
Functional Equivalence: The modified device must perform identically to the predicate.	All test results passed, demonstrating safety and efficacy equivalent to the predicate device.
Design, Intended Use, Labeling Equivalence: Must be the same or similar as the predicate.	All characteristics (manufacturer, endoscope compatibility, sterility, sheath diameter, needle size, outer tubing, length, needle extension, indications for use, packaging) were found to be equivalent to the predicate.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not specify sample sizes for individual tests. The "test set" here refers to the samples of the modified device used for the mentioned non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, accelerated aging, sterilization). The data provenance is internal to EndoChoice, Inc.

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

This information is not provided. Ground truth, in the context of device performance, would typically refer to established standards or verifiable performance metrics against which the device is measured. For a K151475 submission, the "ground truth" for "substantial equivalence" is the performance and safety profile of the predicate device (K132065).

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable/Not specified in this document. Adjudication methods are more relevant for human-read evaluations, not typically for non-clinical engineering tests of medical devices like injection needles.

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 device is an injection needle, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so MRMC studies involving human readers and AI are not relevant.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this substantial equivalence submission is the established safety and efficacy profile of the predicate device (EndoChoice Injection Needle K132065). The non-clinical tests conducted on the modified device (biocompatibility, sterilization, accelerated aging) were designed to demonstrate that the changes did not negatively impact these established characteristics of the predicate.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/machine learning model that would require a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical injection needle.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1