Search Results

The Spirus Medical, Inc. Endo-Ease Endoscopic Overtube is indicated for use with a flexible endoscope to aid in endoscopic insertion and advancement during diagnostic and therapeutic lower GI flexible endoscopy.

The device described in this 510(k) consists of a a modified sterile, single use, flexible over ube designed for use with currently marketed flexible endoscopes in the lower GI tract.

The provided text is related to a 510(k) submission for a medical device called "Endo-Ease Endoscopic Overtube." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting new clinical study data with acceptance criteria for device performance.

Therefore, the input does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria. The text explicitly states it's a "Special 510(k): Device Modification" and relies on compliance with design control requirements and verification/validation testing of the modifications, implying that extensive clinical studies with new performance metrics were not required for this specific submission.

Here's a breakdown of why each requested point cannot be answered:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present. The submission focuses on device modification and equivalence to a predicate, not new performance metrics from a clinical study.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as a clinical performance study with a test set is not described. The text mentions "verification and validation testing methods and results" but does not detail the sample sizes or data provenance for these engineering/design tests.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth is typically for diagnostic devices or those requiring expert interpretation, which is not the primary focus of this overtube device's submission.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable as a clinical performance study with expert adjudication is not described.
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 endoscopic overtube, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.
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): Not applicable, as detailed clinical performance studies requiring ground truth are not outlined. The "safety and performance" claim refers to demonstrated equivalence and successful engineering/design verification.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable as this is not an AI/algorithm-based device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) summary for a device modification, emphasizing substantial equivalence and design control compliance, rather than presenting clinical study data with specific acceptance criteria as you would find for a de novo device or a device requiring new clinical evidence.

Ask a specific question about this device