Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K160419
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2016-05-12

    (86 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5980
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    Monoject Enteral Feeding Syringe with ENFit Connector

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

    The Monoject™ Enteral Feeding Syringe with ENFit Connector is indicated for use as a dispenser, a measuring device, and a fluid transfer device. It is used to deliver fluids into the gastrointestinal system of a patient who is physically unable to eat and swallow. The enteral syringes are intended to be used in clinical or home care settings by users ranging from laypersons (under the supervision of a clinician) to clinicians, in all age groups.

    Device Description

    The Monoject™ Enteral Feeding Syringe with ENFit Connector is a disposable enteral feeding syringe provided in a variety of sizes from 6mL to 60mL. The device incorporates a female ENFit connector for connection to an enteral access device with male ENFit connector.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, specifically an enteral feeding syringe. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical testing. It does not describe a study involving an AI algorithm or an acceptance criteria study related to an AI device's performance.

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI device meets those criteria because the document is not about an AI device.

    However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and test results for the physical characteristics of the Monoject™ Enteral Feeding Syringe with ENFit Connector, as detailed in the "Nonclinical testing" section.

    Here's the information adapted to the prompt's structure for the physical device, recognizing this is not an AI study:

    1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

    TestAcceptance Criteria (Requirement Defined in AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014)Reported Device Performance
    Fluid LeakageClause 6.2Conforms to the requirements of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014
    Stress CrackingClause 6.3Conforms to the requirements of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014
    Resistance to separation from axial loadClause 6.4Conforms to the requirements of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014
    Resistance to separation from unscrewingClause 6.5Conforms to the requirements of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014
    Resistance to overridingClause 6.6Conforms to the requirements of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014
    Disconnection by unscrewingClause 6.7Conforms to the requirements of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014
    Dimensional AnalysisCriteria in Table B.2 of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014Conforms to the criteria in Table B.2 of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014
    BiocompatibilityNot explicitly stated, implied by "demonstrated the biological safety"Demonstrated the biological safety
    StabilityNot explicitly stated, implied by "evaluated the properties... after accelerated aging"Evaluated properties after accelerated aging in support of labeling

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

    The document does not specify the exact sample sizes for each non-clinical test (e.g., number of syringes tested for fluid leakage). It mentions "accelerated aging" for stability testing, implying lab-based, prospective testing conducted by the manufacturer, Covidien, based in Mansfield, MA, USA.

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

    Not applicable. This is not an AI device or a study requiring expert human interpretation for ground truth establishment. The ground truth for physical tests is based on objective measurements against international standards (ISO 80369 series and AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014).

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    Not applicable. The tests are objective physical measurements against predefined criteria.

    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 not an AI device or a study involving human readers.

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

    Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

    7. The type of ground truth used

    For the physical tests, the ground truth is based on objective measurements against established international and industry standards. For example, fluid leakage is "true" if the device meets Clause 6.2 of AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. This is not an AI device, so there is no training set in the context of machine learning.

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

    Not applicable.

    Summary regarding the device:

    The Monoject™ Enteral Feeding Syringe with ENFit Connector underwent non-clinical testing to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to predicate devices and conformity to relevant standards (ISO 80369-3, ISO 80369-20, and AAMI /CN3 (PS):2014). The testing covered aspects like fluid leakage, stress cracking, resistance to separation, resistance to overriding, disconnection by unscrewing, dimensional analysis, biocompatibility, and stability. All tested parameters met the specified criteria in the relevant standards. Clinical testing was not deemed necessary for the demonstration of safety and effectiveness.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1