Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K022398
    Date Cleared
    2002-10-11

    (80 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    874.4680
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    REUSABLE BRONCHIAL BIOPSY FORCEPS

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

    Intended to remove, by cutting, a specimen of tissue for microscopic examination from the lungs or bronchial passageways. Patient population; Any patient demonstrating an abnormality or condition indicative of malignancy or benign obstruction as noted through bronchoscopy, x-ray, MRI, etc.

    Device Description

    Figure A-1 depicts all but a few reusable biopsy forceps designs. All operate on a 4-bar linkage arrangement as shown. Transverse motion of the control cable results in the pendulum motion of the handle consists of a slide, finger spool or finger ring arrangement and a thumb ring. The jaws are actuated by transverse motion of the finger spool that connects to the control cable is connected to the clevis. The linkages are hinged on small pins, the jaws rotate about an axle pin that is supported by the fork. With the exception of the handle, all the components are fabricated from ASTM 302, 303 or 304 stainless steel. The handle components are fabricated from a suitable material able to withstand several reprocessing cycles.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Ballard Reusable Bronchial Biopsy Forceps, based on the provided text:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document doesn't explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" with quantitative targets for each test. Instead, it describes various tests performed and implies that the device met the necessary performance for substantial equivalence. The "reported device performance" is primarily qualitative, stating that the device passed the tests.

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    Functional EquivalenceSimilar general design characteristics and function to predicate device.
    Sheath Length120cm (similar to predicate's 105cm, deemed acceptable)
    Sheath Diameter1.6mm (matches predicate)
    Jaw Diameter1.8mm (matches predicate)
    Jaw GeometryEllipsoid, fenestrated, no spike (similar to predicate)
    Reprocessing EffectivenessSuccessfully withstood recommended reprocessing cycles (Soak, Enzymatic wash, Ultrasonic cleaning, Rinse, Autoclave)
    - SoakImmediately after use (matches predicate)
    - Enzymatic washThoroughly clean, dry (no direct comparison, but implies effectiveness)
    - Ultrasonic cleaning40KHz, 10 minutes (predicate: 30 minutes, implies 10 min effectively cleans)
    - RinseClean running tap water (matches predicate)
    - AutoclavePre-vacuum cycle: 134°C, 4min, .2Mpa pressure; Gravity cycle: 134°C, 15 min, .310Mpa pressure (different from predicate's 132-134°C, 5min, but implies effectiveness)
    Sterilization EffectivenessPassed sterilization tests (no specific details provided)
    Tensile StrengthPassed tensile tests (no specific details provided)
    Overall Safety & Effectiveness"Safe and effective for its intended use" based on submitted data.

    2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

    The document does not provide details on the sample size for the test set used in the functional, sterilization, reprocessing, or tensile equivalence tests. It also does not specify the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

    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 in the document. The studies conducted are primarily engineering/performance tests (functional, sterilization, reprocessing, tensile) directly comparing the device to a predicate, not clinical studies requiring expert ground truth for interpretation of observational data.

    4. Adjudication Method (for the test set)

    This information is not applicable as the tests performed are not clinical trials requiring adjudication of expert interpretations but rather performance tests against defined specifications or predicate device characteristics.

    5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done, and its Effect Size

    No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted or described. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance testing against a predicate device.

    6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only, without human-in-the-loop performance) was Done

    This question is not applicable as the device is a physical medical instrument (biopsy forceps), not an AI algorithm.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests appears to be:

    • Performance Specifications/Benchmarks: For functional tests, this would be the expected performance of a biopsy forceps.
    • Predicate Device Characteristics: For sheath length, diameter, jaw geometry, and reprocessing parameters, the Olympus FB Series Biopsy Forcep (K962555) served as the direct comparator for substantial equivalence.
    • Established Industry Standards/Protocols: For sterilization, reprocessing, and tensile strength, the tests would have been performed according to accepted methods to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical instrument, not a learning algorithm or AI model that requires a training set.

    9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

    This question is not applicable for the same reason as above.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1