Search Results

The ClearPath Tubing is intended to provide irrigation fluids, such as water, during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures when used in conjunction with the ClearPath irrigation system components (ClearPath Lower GI, ClearPath Upper GI, and ClearPath Irrigator).

The ClearPath Tubing is intended to provide irrigation fluids, such as water, during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures when used in conjunction with the ClearPath irrigation system components (ClearPath Upper GI, ClearPath Lower GI, and ClearPath Irrigator). The ClearPath Tubing is single use, disposable.

The ClearPath irrigation system is designed to improve procedure reliability by improving visualization during endoscopic procedures by performing a colon or stomach wash.

The ClearPath Tubing is used to connect the irrigation fluid source (i.e. water bottle), via the peristaltic pump, to the cleaning device of the ClearPath product family (ClearPath Lower GI, K091305 and K113050, ClearPath Upper GI, K093779 and K113166, and ClearPath Irrigator, K 101094). Note that only the ClearPath accessories are to be used with the ClearPath Tubine.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the ClearPath Tubing, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices for the ClearPath Tubing, which is an irrigation tube for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. As such, the "acceptance criteria" are more related to functional performance and safety demonstration rather than specific quantitative metrics often seen with diagnostic devices.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of a clinical study with a defined sample size of patients or cases. The performance testing appears to be primarily engineering or bench testing focused on the physical integrity and function of the tubing itself. This type of testing typically involves a number of manufactured units but not a patient-centric test set.

• Sample Size: Not specified in terms of patient/case count. The testing focused on manufactured tubing units.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of patient data. The tests are likely internal laboratory tests.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications

This information is not applicable. The device is an irrigation tube, and its performance testing as described focuses on physical properties (leakage, degradation) rather than diagnostic performance requiring expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method

This information is not applicable. There's no mention of a human-in-the-loop diagnostic study or a need for expert adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was mentioned or conducted. This type of study is more common for diagnostic devices where AI assistance could impact human interpretation.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

Not applicable. The ClearPath Tubing is a physical medical device (irrigation tube), not an algorithm or AI system.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance acceptance is based on the satisfactory results of engineering tests (leak detection, material integrity, visible degradation) rather than clinical outcomes, pathology, or expert consensus on a diagnosis. The primary "ground truth" for regulatory approval is demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through functional and design similarities.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML-based system that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As noted, there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ClearPath Lower GI is intended to connect to standard colonoscopes to help facilitate intraprocedural cleaning of a poorly prepared colon by irrigating or cleaning the colon and evacuating the irrigation fluid (water), feces, and other bodily fluids and matter, e.g. blood. It is for use only by trained medical personnel located in hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices.

The proposed modified ClearPath Lower Gl is one component of the predicate ClearPath (K091305) which included a number of components: Controller, Tubing Set, Irrigation set (now referred to as the ClearPath Lower GI). We are proposing to only modify the ClearPath Lower GI which attaches to a conventional endoscope. The ClearPath Lower GI includes one suction tube + tip, one irrigation tube + tip, and a sleeve to attach to the endoscope. The ClearPath Lower GI is connected to the ClearPath Controller and the ClearPath Tubing (K091305) and allows for irrigation and evacuation of debris from the colon during an endoscopic procedure. The device can accommodate several sizes and configurations of endoscopes with a change in the attachment ring.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "ClearPath Lower GI," an irrigation/evacuation system for colonoscopies. However, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through a performance testing summary, rather than presenting a detailed study with specific acceptance criteria and outcome metrics that would typically be found in a clinical trial report.

The performance testing listed aims to verify that the modified device performs as expected and is equivalent to the predicate, but it does not define quantitative acceptance criteria or provide specific numerical results of a study designed to meet those criteria.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based on the available information, noting where information is not explicitly provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in the format you requested (e.g., a specific success rate, a defined threshold for dislodgement, etc.). Instead, it mentions that "All testing demonstrated that the modified ClearPath Lower GI disposable performed to its specifications and / or was equivalent to the predicate."

Here's a summary of the performance testing categories and the general "reported performance," which is a claim of equivalence/specification compliance rather than specific numerical outcomes:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size for the bench or animal testing. For animal testing, it likely refers to a number of individual animals, but this is not quantified.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The applicant is "EasyGlide Ltd." from Israel, but whether the testing was conducted in Israel or elsewhere is not mentioned.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated. Animal testing, by nature, is prospective. Bench testing is also inherently prospective for verifying specific design elements.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not provided in the document. The testing involved "trained medical personnel" for the animal studies, but their specific number or qualifications are not detailed.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not provided in the document. It's unclear if any formal adjudication method was used for evaluating the animal testing outcomes.

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

• MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is an irrigation/evacuation system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so such a study would not be relevant.
• Effect Size: Not applicable, as no MRMC study or AI component is involved.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance was not done. This device is a physical medical instrument requiring human operation in conjunction with an endoscope, not a standalone algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

For the animal study, the "ground truth" would be the direct observation and assessment of the device's performance characteristics by trained personnel during the simulated procedure. This would implicitly involve expert judgment on aspects like "ease of maneuverability," "quality of visibility," and "quality of evacuation." There is no mention of pathology or broader outcomes data for these specific tests.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable as this device is a physical instrument, not a machine learning model, and therefore does not have a "training set."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

This is not applicable as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device