Search Results

The ZZIREN™ Orogastric Tube is indicated for use in gastric and bariatric surgical procedures for gastric aspiration and lavage, to serve as a size guide, and to test for leaks.

The ZZIREN™ Orogastric Tube is a non-sterile, single use device comprising a 37-inch-long insertion tube, a Y extension containing a suction regulating valve, and a pinch clamp. An accessory straight connector is included. The insertion is made of flexible polyvinylchloride (PVC). The suction requlating valve limits negative pressure applied to the stomach or intestine to less than 175 mmHg, produces an audible signal when the suction pressure exceeds ~160 mmHg, and is identical in all models. All six models have multiple apertures in proximity to a rounded distal tip. Three of the models, ZZ-SGT-36, ZZ-SGT-40 have side-holes extending 13 cm from the tip, and three models, ZZ-GBT-36, and ZZ-GBT-40, have side-holes extending 6 cm from the tip. The insertion tubes have diameters of 32, 36, and 40 Fr and humeric markings to indicate depth of insertion.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the ZZIREN™ Orogastric Tube. It describes a medical device and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain any information about a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of device performance related to a diagnostic AI/ML algorithm or similar technology.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Device Description: Physical characteristics and components of the ZZIREN™ Orogastric Tube.
• Intended Use/Indications for Use: What the device is used for (gastric aspiration and lavage, size guide, leak testing in gastric/bariatric surgery).
• Technological Comparison: How the ZZIREN™ Orogastric Tube is similar to and differs from its predicate devices in terms of materials, design features (Y extension, FR sizes, number of apertures), and suction regulating mechanisms.
• Non-Clinical Tests Summary & Conclusions: Results from bench tests (e.g., kink test, stiffness test, compression test, pinch clamp test, connector tests, air syringe compatibility test, dimensional analysis). These tests aim to demonstrate that the new device performs similarly and safely compared to the predicate, and meets its design specifications.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance in the context you've provided (which implies a diagnostic or AI-driven device with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC). The document is about a mechanical, single-use surgical accessory, and its "performance" is assessed through physical and functional bench tests, not clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.

To directly answer your numbered points based on the provided text, where applicable, and noting where the information is absent:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   The document describes non-clinical tests and their conclusions, which implicitly serve as performance demonstrations against internal acceptance criteria (e.g., "equally or less stiff," "substantially equivalent," "fit and function well"). However, a formal table of acceptance criteria with quantitative thresholds is not explicitly provided. The conclusions are qualitative comparisons to the predicate devices.

   Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Test Goals)	Reported Device Performance (Summary)
   Propensity to kink	Substantially equivalent to predicate SIREN SGT™
   Stiffness	Equally or less stiff than corresponding predicate device
   Inadvertent stapling likelihood	Equally or less likely to be inadvertently stapled than corresponding predicate device
   Pinch Clamp performance	Substantially equivalent to predicate SIREN SGT™
   Accessory tubing connector fit and function	Attach easily, reversibly, securely; provide reliable connection
   Compatibility with leak testing device (Air Syringe)	Compatible and may be safely used together for leak testing
   Adherence to design specifications	All models made to design specifications

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   This information is not provided in the document. The tests described are bench tests on the device itself, not clinical studies on patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   This information is not applicable as the document describes bench testing of a physical device, not an AI/ML or diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 3.

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:
   This information is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device, not an AI/ML or imaging interpretation device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   This information is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
   The "ground truth" for the bench tests would be the established physical properties and functional requirements of the predicate devices or engineering specifications. For example, the "truth" for the kink test is whether the tube kinks or not under certain conditions, compared to the predicate. There is no biological or diagnostic ground truth mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set:
   This information is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device, not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device