Search Results

The Interject Injection Therapy Needle Catheter is used for endoscopic injection into gastrointestinal mucosa and submucosa to: • introduce a sclerosing agent, vasoconstrictor, or other solutions into selected sites to control actual or potential bleeding lesions in the digestive system • aid in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR), Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD), or polypectomy procedures • control non-variceal hemorrhage

The Interiect™ Injection Therapy Needle Catheter that consists of a handle with a hub for injection, a catheter sheath, and a needle. It is available in a variety of configurations with varying needle lengths, gauges, and catheter lengths.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Interject Injection Therapy Needle Catheter." This type of submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics as might be found for novel devices or PMAs.

Therefore, the document does not contain the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details (sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance), or training set information.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating that the new Interject Injection Therapy Needle Catheter is substantially equivalent to existing predicate devices.

Here's what can be extracted from the document conceptually related to performance and testing, though not in the format requested for acceptance criteria and a study proving those:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: This information is not provided in a quantified, tabular format. The document states that the proposed device "meets the requirements of ISO 10993-1, ISO 11135, and ISO 10993-7." These are standards for biological evaluation of medical devices, sterilization, and ethylene oxide sterilization residuals, respectively. Meeting these standards is a form of acceptance criterion, but specific performance metrics (e.g., tensile strength, injection force, flow rate) are not detailed, nor are the actual measured performance values reported.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable or not provided. The substantial equivalence argument relies on the fact that the proposed device is "identical" to one predicate (K012864) and has only "minor differences" (sheath outer diameter) from others, which are stated not to "alter the suitability of the proposed device for its intended use." This comparison suggests that new, extensive performance testing on a specific "test set" to establish entirely new performance metrics was not deemed necessary by the submitter beyond verifying compliance with the mentioned ISO standards.

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): Not applicable. This type of information is relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical endpoints, which are not detailed in this 510(k) summary.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.

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 therapy needle catheter, not an AI diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of clinical or diagnostic performance is not relevant for this type of device submission based on substantial equivalence to a physical instrument.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the document demonstrates substantial equivalence through:

• Stating "identical technological characteristics" to the predicate Interject Injection Therapy Needle Catheter (K012864).
• Acknowledging "similar technological characteristics" and "minor difference in sheath outer diameter" to Olympus InjectorForce Max (K902736) and Wilson-Cook Variable Length GI Injection Needle (K941305), but asserting this difference "does not alter the suitability of the proposed device for its intended use."
• Stating compliance with key ISO standards (10993-1, 11135, 10993-7) for biological evaluation and sterilization, noting that the "design and materials remain unchanged from that of the predicate Interject Injection Therapy Needle Catheter (K012864)."

The "study" here is implicitly the verification that the device maintains the same performance characteristics as the predicate through design and material equivalence and compliance with relevant industry standards for safety aspects (biocompatibility, sterilization). No specific clinical or comparative performance study with human readers or AI algorithms is described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ON-Q* QuikBloc* Over-the-Needle Catheter Set is indicated for delivery of medication for regional anesthesia and pain management. Route of administration may be intraoperative, percutaneous, or perineural. The ON-Q* QuikBloc* Over-the-Needle Catheter Set is contraindicated for the epidural space.

ON-Q* QuikBloc* Over-the-Needle (OTN) Catheter Sets are available in four product codes (20 GA x 4" Needle, 16 GA x 3" Catheter (with and without Stimulating needle); 20 GA x 6" Needle, 16 GA x 5" Catheter (with and without stimulating needle)). The kits include: 1) ON-Q* QuikBloc* Over-the-Needle Catheter Set (some models include an integrated stimulating cable) 2) Removable Needle Wing 3) Non-DEHP 24 inch Needle Extension Set, 4) Non-DEHP 6 inch Catheter Extension Set 5) Connector Securement Device 6) Occlusive Dressing 7) Adhesive Strips 8) Catheter ID label These devices are sold as disposable, sterile, single use, devices.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and device performance:

Based on the provided text, the document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the ON-Q* QuikBloc* Over-the-Needle (OTN) Catheter Set. It asserts substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study proving quantitative performance against those criteria as would be expected for a novel device or a device demonstrating new clinical claims.

Therefore, much of the requested information for acceptance criteria and a detailed study is not present in this document.

However, I can extract the information that is implicitly or explicitly stated:

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

No explicit quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics are provided in this document. The submission is based on substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document mentions "evaluated for biocompatibility by their corresponding vendors" and "Gamma or EO sterilized samples of the components...were tested". This suggests component-level testing rather than a specific clinical test set for the integrated device.
• Data Provenance: The document states "tested in vitro or in laboratory animals". It doesn't specify country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective, but animal and in vitro testing are typically prospective lab studies.

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

Not applicable/specified. This document describes a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence and non-clinical testing (biocompatibility, functionality). There is no mention of a human-reader study or ground truth established by experts for performance evaluation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable/specified. There is no mention of human-reader studies or a need for 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

Not applicable. This device is a catheter set, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. MRMC studies are not relevant here.

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

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

7. The type of ground truth used

For biocompatibility, the "ground truth" would be established by the standardized methods and endpoints defined in ISO 10993 guidelines (e.g., absence of cytotoxicity, irritation, sensitization). For functionality, the "ground truth" would be the successful operation of the device according to its design specifications and user instructions. There is no mention of pathology, expert consensus, or outcomes data in a clinical sense for performance claims in this document.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device