Search Results

The device is intended for endoscopic removal of biliary stones. The device is supplied sterile and intended for single use only.

The Stone Retrieval Balloon Catheter is comprised of a latex balloon mounted at the distal end of a Pebax catheter with three internal lumens. For some specifications, the balloon can be inflated to 8.5mm, 12mm, 15mm and 18mm only. But for some specifications, the balloon can be inflated to three sizes, 8.5mm, 12mm diameters, or 12mm, 15mm and 18mm. Radiopaque bands placed at the distal and proximal ends of the balloon provide fluoroscopic visualization of the balloon location. The catheter length is 2000mm with an outer diameter of 2.3mm. The three lumens correspond to a balloon inflation port, a wire guide port and an injection port. A stopcock is included at the proximal end of the balloon inflation port to control air movement into or out of the balloon. For rapid exchange models, there is a small hole on the catheter which is about 200mm far away from the distal end. It is used to insert the guide wire rapidly. EO sterilization and use for single use only.

This looks like a 510(k) summary for a medical device called a "Stone Retrieval Balloon Catheter." It describes the device, its intended use, and compares it to a predicate device to establish substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not contain the information you requested about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample size and data provenance for a test set.
• Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication method.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study results.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size and ground truth establishment for a training set.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical study is included in this submission." This means there isn't a study proving the device's clinical performance against acceptance criteria in the way you've described for AI/diagnostic devices.

The "Non-Clinical Performance Testing" section lists various standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP) that the device complies with, but it does not provide specific acceptance criteria (e.g., "sensitivity > 90%") or the results of meeting those criteria in the context of an AI-driven or diagnostic device study. The non-clinical tests are primarily focused on material properties, biocompatibility, sterilization, and packaging integrity, which are standard for this type of medical device.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for these particular details based on the provided text, as this document pertains to a medical device clearance application that relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than a clinical performance study with AI components.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for endoscopic removal of biliary stones. The device is supplied sterile and intended for single use only.

The subject Stone Retrieval Balloon is comprised of a latex balloon mounted at the distal end of a Pebax catheter with three internal lumens. For some models, the balloon can be inflated to 8.5mm, 12mm, 15mm and 18mm only. But for some models, the balloon can be inflated to three sizes, 8.5 mm, 12 mm and 15 mm diameters, or 13mm, 15mm and 18mm. Radiopaque bands placed at the distal and proximal ends of the balloon provide fluoroscopic visualization of the balloon location. The catheter length is 2000mm with a outer diameter of 2.4mm. The three lumens correspond to a balloon inflation port, a wire guide port and an injection port. A stopcock is included at the proximal end of the balloon inflation port to control air movement into or out of the balloon. For rapid exchange models, there is a small hole on the catheter which is about 200mm far away from the distal end, it is used to insert the guide wire rapidly. EO Sterilization and use for single use only.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a Stone Retrieval Balloon. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials as would be required for a novel device or a PMA.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of AI/ML device performance. The performance data provided is related to bench testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not, for example, the performance of an AI algorithm in image interpretation.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be extracted from this document:

• No AI/ML Component: The device described is a physical medical instrument (a stone retrieval balloon) used for endoscopic removal of biliary stones. There is no mention of any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or software component that would involve image analysis, diagnostic capabilities, or human-AI interaction.
• Focus on Substantial Equivalence: The entire 510(k) submission is built around demonstrating that the "Stone Retrieval Balloon" is substantially equivalent to existing predicate devices (Tri-Ex Extraction Balloon and 3-Lumen Extraction Balloon). This involves comparing technical characteristics, materials, and bench performance, not the diagnostic accuracy or efficacy of an AI system.
• Performance Data: The "Performance Data" section (5.8) explicitly states: "The Stone Retrieval Balloon meets all design specifications and medical for biocompatibility (ISO 1099) and sterility (ISO 11135). The non-clinical performance meets the design specification and shows substantial equivalence to the predicated device." This refers to physical and material properties, not AI performance metrics.
• No Clinical Test: Section 5.9 explicitly states: "No Clinical test is included in this submission." This further reinforces that there isn't a study proving a specific performance metric against a clinical outcome or ground truth in the way an AI/ML device would be evaluated.

In summary, the provided document does not describe the acceptance criteria or a study that proves an AI/ML device meets those criteria, as the device in question is a physical medical instrument without an AI/ML component.

Ask a specific question about this device