Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K022948
    Date Cleared
    2002-11-04

    (60 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    884.4530
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    VAGINAL SPECULUM, MODEL 5555S, 5555M, OR 5555L

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

    Vaginal Speculums are single use and shall be used to expose the interior of the vagina.

    Device Description

    The MAI vaginal speculum is a non-metal (polystyrene), hand held device used to expose the interior of the vagina.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a vaginal speculum. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, or any of the detailed study parameters requested in your prompt (sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone performance).

    The 510(k) summary states:

    • Description of Device: The MAI vaginal speculum is a non-metal (polystyrene), hand-held device used to expose the interior of the vagina.
    • Intended use of the Device: To be used by medical professionals to expose the interior of the vagina to facilitate visualization during gynecological and obstetric procedures.
    • Technical Characteristics: The MAI vaginal speculum has the same technological characteristics as and is substantially equivalent to the Leespec Disposable Vaginal Speculum (K021017), manufactured by ITL Corporation.

    The letter from the FDA (sections 1 and 2) confirms the review of the 510(k) submission and the determination of substantial equivalence. This type of FDA clearance (510(k)) for Class II devices often relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring extensive new clinical studies with detailed performance metrics as might be seen for novel or higher-risk devices.

    Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria, study details, and performance metrics because that information is not present in the provided text. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on technical characteristics to a predicate device, not on presenting novel performance data or clinical study results against predefined acceptance criteria.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1