Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K983326
    Date Cleared
    1999-02-05

    (136 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    884.1730
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    OMNIFLATOR 7640 MODEL 7-640-00

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

    THE NORTECH OMNIFLATOR® 7640 SHALL BE USED FOR GAS DISTENTION OF THE ABDOMEN FOR DIAGNOSTIC AND / OR OPERATIVE LAPAROSCOPY.

    Device Description

    The Omniflator® Model 7640 CO, Gas Insufflator incorporates front panel controls similar to our current Omniflator® Model #6630/6600. The 7640 has an adjustable gas flow rate from 0-40 LPM. The unit shall have direct patient pressure monitoring which can be used by attaching the direct patient monitoring tubing set to the Omniflator's® patient monitoring connector and subsequently into a cannula or trocar after initial insufflation has been achieved. The user has an option to utilize CO, from a central supply or E-Cylinder tank.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Nortech Omniflator® 7640 Laparoscopic Insufflator. It describes the device, its intended use, and states that it is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

    However, this document does not contain information about:

    • Specific acceptance criteria for device performance (numerical thresholds for accuracy, precision, etc.).
    • A study proving the device meets acceptance criteria.
    • Sample sizes for test or training sets.
    • Data provenance.
    • Number/qualifications of experts or ground truth establishment methods.
    • Adjudication methods.
    • Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies.
    • Standalone algorithm performance studies.
    • Type of ground truth used.

    The document is a regulatory submission demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices, which is a different type of evaluation than a study proving performance against specific acceptance criteria. The substantial equivalence relies on the device being similar in design, materials, and intended use to previously cleared devices.

    Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them based on the provided text.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1