Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(24 days)
The OtoSight Middle Ear Scope is intended for use as an imaging tool for real-time visualization of the human tympanic membrane and fluid or air within the middle ear space. In the presence of middle ear Scope is used to visualize the fluid density. The OtoSight Middle Ear Scope is also used to provide surface images of the ear canal and tympanic membrane. It is indicated for use in children and adults.
The OtoSight Middle Ear Scope is a multiple use, non-sterile device which provides a surface view of the eardrum, equivalent to the functionality of a video otoscope. Additionally, the OtoSight Middle Ear Scope provides a view through the surface to visualize the contents of the middle ear using Low-Coherence Interferometry (LCI). LCI is an implementation of OCT which. rather than generating 2-D or 3-D images, is limited to the generation of a one-dimensional in-depth density profile displayed over time, which reveals the optical reflective property of the tympanic membrane (TM), as well as the content(s) which are present behind the TM.
The OtoSight Middle Ear Scope has a form factor which allows for ease of imaging the middle ear by the clinician, who will utilize disposable speculum tips and position the OtoSight Middle Ear Scope in the external ear canal in the same way routinely utilized for the current gold standard otoscopy. A push-button on the handheld is used to put the device into active recording mode, capturing both surface and LCI images simultaneously. Scan data is saved on the device with the option to export a summary of the scan over a Wi-Fi network.
The device incorporates a battery that provides 7 hours of use under a typical usage scenario to facilitate convenient use in a practice.
The provided text describes a 510(k) submission (K222655) for the PhotoniCare OtoSight Middle Ear Scope. This submission is a Special 510(k) for a modification to an already cleared device (K191804). Special 510(k)s are used for changes that do not affect the intended use or fundamental scientific technology of a device, where the new design is validated through design controls.
Therefore, the study described in this document is primarily focused on non-clinical performance testing to demonstrate that the modified device remains safe and effective and substantially equivalent to its predicate, rather than a clinical study establishing the device's diagnostic performance from scratch. Clinical studies to establish the diagnostic performance (e.g., accuracy in detecting fluid vs. air in the middle ear) would typically have been performed for the original predicate device (K191804).
Based on the provided text, here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details:
Nature of the Study: This submission is a Special 510(k), indicating that the device has undergone relatively minor changes (addition of battery operation). The "study" described is a series of non-clinical performance tests to ensure the modified device remains safe and effective and substantially equivalent to the original cleared device. It is not a clinical diagnostic performance study demonstrating efficacy in disease diagnosis.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Verification/Validation Method | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
IEC 60601-1:2005+AMD1:2012 CSV | Compliant with IEC 60601-1 ed3.1 | PASS |
IEC 62133-2:2017 | Compliant with IEC 62133-2:2017 | PASS |
IEC 60601-1-2 4th edition | Compliant with IEC 60601-1-2 4th edition | PASS |
Verification of existing and new design inputs according to existing protocols equivalent to used in K191804. | Equivalent to acceptance criteria used in K191804, as applicable. | PASS |
Validation of existing and new user needs according to equivalent protocol used in K191804. | Equivalent to acceptance criteria used in K191804, as applicable. | PASS |
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance:
- For the non-clinical performance tests listed, the "sample size" refers to the number of devices or test conditions used for engineering verification and validation, not patient data. The document does not specify exact numbers of devices tested but generally refers to "appropriate bench testing methods."
- Data Provenance: The document does not discuss the provenance of data in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective for patient data, as this 510(k) focuses on engineering changes and compliance with safety standards rather than clinical performance data. The device itself is manufactured by PhotoniCare, Inc. in Champaign, Illinois, USA.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and qualifications of those experts:
- This information is not applicable to the non-clinical performance tests described. Ground truth for diagnostic accuracy would be established during clinical studies, which are not the focus of this Special 510(k) submission.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable to the non-clinical performance tests.
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:
- Not applicable. The OtoSight Middle Ear Scope is an imaging tool for visualization, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device where human readers would interpret AI outputs. This document discusses engineering changes and safety compliance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- Not applicable. The device is an imaging tool, not a standalone algorithm. The "LCI" (Low-Coherence Interferometry) part of the device processes optical signals to generate a one-dimensional in-depth density profile. Its performance is evaluated through its ability to provide this visualization, not as a diagnostic algorithm independent of human interpretation.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
- For the non-clinical tests described, the "ground truth" or reference standard would be the specified engineering tolerances, recognized safety standards (IEC 60601 series, IEC 62133-2), and design inputs/user needs established for the device. For example, for battery performance, the ground truth would be that the battery operates for "up to 7 hours" under typical usage, or that it complies with the specified standard.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. This submission is for device modification, not for the development of a machine learning algorithm requiring a "training set."
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. See point 8.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1