Search Results
Found 3 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(447 days)
PENTAX Medical Single Use Video Bronchoscope EB-S01 is sterile single use flexible endoscopes intended for use with PENTAX Medical mobile processor, therapeutic accessories, and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endo-therapeutic procedures within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.
PENTAX Medical Mobile Processor ONE-M is intended to be used with PENTAX Medical endoscopes and other peripheral devices for endoscopic diagnosis, treatment and video observation.
PENTAX Medical Mobile Processor Plug-in ONE-Dock is intended to be attached to the PENTAX Medical Mobile Processor to provide additional ports for hardware interface.
PENTAX Medical ONE Pulmo Single Use Video Bronchoscope System is intended to provide the optical visualization of the airways and tracheobronchial tree for diagnostics and therapeutic applications. The PENTAX Medical ONE Pulmo Single Use Video Bronchoscope System consist of the following three component devices:
- . PENTAX Medical Single Use Video Bronchoscope EB11-S01 / EB15-S01
- . PENTAX Medical Mobile Processor ONE-M
- . PENTAX Medical Mobile Processor Plug-in ONE-Dock
The EB11-S01 / EB15-S01 endoscopes are connected to the ONE-M and video images captured with the bronchoscope are displayed on the touch screen of the ONE-M. The ONE-M is also connected to the Plug-in ONE-Dock, which has several interfaces, such as an external monitor to display captured images by the bronchoscope and a connection with an external network.
Based on the provided text, the document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the PENTAX Medical ONE Pulmo Single Use Video Bronchoscope System. This type of submission aims to demonstrate that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving clinical effectiveness through extensive clinical trials for new indications or technologies. Therefore, the information provided focuses on demonstrating equivalence through non-clinical performance data and technological comparisons, rather than a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and a human-in-the-loop performance study as might typically be found for AI/ML device submissions.
The document does not describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria related to an AI/ML algorithm's diagnostic performance, as it is a bronchoscope system, not an AI/ML diagnostic aid. It lists various non-clinical performance tests to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
Therefore, many of the requested fields regarding acceptance criteria, study design for AI/ML, human expert involvement, and ground truth establishment are not applicable or not detailed in this submission because it is not an AI/ML device submission for diagnostic accuracy.
However, I can extract the relevant information that is present and explain why other requested information is not available:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
The document describes general performance equivalency rather than specific quantitative acceptance criteria for image analysis or diagnostic performance of an AI system. The key "acceptance criteria" here relate to demonstrating equivalence to a predicate device and meeting recognized standards for safety and performance (e.g., electrical safety, biocompatibility).
Category | Acceptance Statement (Implied Criteria) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Intended Use/Indications | Must have the same or similar intended use and indications for use as the predicate device. | "The predicate and subject device have the same Intended use and Indications for Use..." (Page 4). "There are no differences in indications for use and intended use between the subject and predicate device and are therefore, substantially equivalent." (Page 9) |
Technological Characteristics | Must have similar fundamental technology, operating principles, design features, and constituent materials. | "The components of the subject device have the same fundamental technology and operating principles as the predicate device, as well as the same intended use." (Page 7). Minor differences (i-Scan™ technology) evaluated. |
Reprocessing Validation | Not required if device is single-use and sterile. | "EB-S01 scopes are provided sterile for single use and are discarded after use. Therefore, reprocessing validation is not required." (Page 8) |
Sterilization & Shelf Life | Validation of EO sterilization in accordance with specified ISO standards; stated shelf life. | Validated per ISO 11135:2014, AAMI/ANSI/ISO 10993-7:2008, ISO 11737-1:2018, and ISO 11737-2:2019. Shelf-life is 1 year. (Page 8) |
Biocompatibility | Confirmation of biocompatibility (cytotoxicity, sensitization, intracutaneous reactivity) per ISO 10993 standards; risk level "Acceptable." | Confirmed per ISO 10993-1, 5, and 10. Risk levels of local toxicity determined as "Acceptable." (Page 8) |
Software & Cybersecurity | Verification and validation per IEC 62304 and FDA guidance documents. | Conducted according to IEC 62304:2006 + A1:2015 and relevant FDA guidance documents ("Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices," "Content of Premarket Submissions for Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices," and "Post-market Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices"). (Page 8) |
Electrical Safety & EMC | Confirmation of acceptable levels per specified IEC standards. | Confirmed per IEC 60601-1-2:2014; IEC 60601-1:2005+CORR 1:2006+CORR 2:2007+A1:2012; and IEC 60601-2-18:2009. (Page 9) |
System Performance | Demonstrated equivalence to the predicate device. | "The system performance of the subject device demonstrated the equivalence to the predicate device." (Page 9) |
Optical Performance | Measured and shown to be equivalent to the predicate device. | "All results show that the optical characteristics of the subject device is equivalent to those of the predicate device." (Page 9) |
Animal Image Capture | Must be able to visualize vascularity and mucosal surface as well or better than the predicate device. | "The results indicate that the subject device is able to visualize vascularity and mucosal surface for each anatomical area as well or better than the predicate device." (Page 9) |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Test Set: Not applicable in the context of an AI/ML "test set" for diagnostic performance. Performance testing involved various engineering and animal studies. For the "Animal Image Capture Study," an animal model was used, but the specific number of animals is not provided. The data provenance is implied to be from internal testing by PENTAX Medical.
- Data Provenance: Implied to be from internal testing and validation studies conducted by PENTAX Medical (e.g., "PENTAX Medical coordinated with HA2 Medizintechnik GmbH (German company) to validate the use of EO sterilization"). The animal study location and specifics are not provided.
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 and not provided. The ground truth for this device's performance does not involve human expert adjudication of images for diagnostic purposes in the way it would for an AI/ML algorithm. The performance evaluation focused on physical, electrical, and optical properties as well as safety and biocompatibility.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML diagnostic device requiring expert adjudication of results.
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. This device is a bronchoscope system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for image interpretation. No MRMC study was conducted or required for this type of submission.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not applicable, as this is a medical device for direct visualization and not an AI algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. The "ground truth" for this submission are the established performance specifications for medical devices, relevant ISO standards, and the performance of the predicate device, against which the subject device's non-clinical performance was compared (e.g., electrical safety standards, biocompatibility testing results, optical measurements, and visualization capabilities in an animal model).
8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable.
Ask a specific question about this device
(136 days)
The PENTAX Medical Video Bronchoscopes EB-J10 Series have been designed to be used with a PENTAX Video Processor (including Light source), documentation equipment, video monitor, endo-therapy accessories (such as biopsy forceps) and other ancillary equipment for endoscopic surgery within the airways and tracheobronchial tree.
The EB-J10 series endoscopes are used to provide visualization of, and therapeutic access to, the airways and tracheobronchial tree. There are two models of EB-J10 series: EB15-J10 and EB19-J10. These models are identical in all parameters and only differ in French size: 15 and 19.
The bronchoscopes are used with cleared PENTAX Video Processors (a softwarecontrolled device). The endoscopes have a flexible insertion tube, a control body, and PVE connector. The PVE connector will be attached to the Video Processor and has connections for illumination, video signals, air/ water and suction.
The control body includes controls for up/ down angulation, air/ water delivery, and an accessory inlet port. The endoscope contains light carrying bundles (LCB) to illuminate the body cavity, and a charge coupled device (CCD) to collect endoscopic image data. The instrument contains a working channel through which biopsy devices, or other devices, may be introduced.
The video processor contains a lamp that provides white light and is focused at the PVE connector light guide prong. The endoscope light carrying bundles present the light to the body cavity and the CCD collects endoscopic image data. Image data and other screen display information are formatted and presented to the video outputs of the video processor for display.
The instrument is immersible (with the use of supplied cleaning accessories) as described in the endoscope reprocessing instructions.
Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided document:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criteria/Tests Performed | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Reprocessing Validation | Simulated use testing, soil accumulation analysis, cleaning, high-level disinfection, and rinsing validation | Confirmed effectiveness of reprocessing procedures. |
Sterilization & Shelf Life | Validate STERRAD NX/100NX for sterilization, | |
Electron Beam Sterilization for packaging and single-use valve | 3-year shelf-life verified. Devices not provided sterile. | |
Software | Software verification and validation per FDA guidance; Classified as Class B (IEC 62304:2006); | |
Software level of concern: "Moderate"; Cybersecurity risk assessment and mitigation. | All tests conducted, documentation provided demonstrating compliance with FDA guidance and industry standards. Cybersecurity risks assessed and mitigated. | |
EMC and Electrical Safety | IEC 60601-1-2:2014; IEC 60601-1:2005+CORR 1:2006+CORR 2:2007+A1:2012; IEC 60601-2-18:2009 | Acceptable level of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and electrical safety (ES) confirmed according to stated standards. |
Optical Testing | Signal to noise, color, limiting spatial resolution transfer function (MTF), distortion, light distribution, spectral distribution, total luminous flux and photobiological safety (tested for EB15-J10 and EB19-J10 with EPK-3000, EPK-i7010, EPK-i5010 Video Processors). | All results show that the optical characteristics of the subject device are equivalent to those of the predicate device. |
Clinical Image Capture | Visualization of vascularity and mucosal surface for each anatomical area. | Subject device demonstrates equivalent or better capabilities in visualization compared to the predicate device. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not explicitly state the sample size for the clinical image capture study (test set) or its specific provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only mentions that "A clinical image capture study was performed."
3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth Establishment (Test Set)
This information is not provided in the document. The document only mentions "visualization of vascularity and mucosal surface for each anatomical area" as the outcome of the clinical image capture study, implying expert assessment, but no details about the experts are given.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not provided in the document.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or performed. The clinical image capture study primarily aimed to compare the visualization capabilities of the subject device against the predicate, not to assess human reader performance with or without AI assistance.
6. Standalone Performance Study
A standalone performance study (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop) was not performed as the device is a bronchoscope, which is a physical instrument used by a clinician, not an AI algorithm. The performance tests focused on the physical and optical characteristics of the device itself.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
For the clinical image capture study, the "ground truth" was likely based on expert assessment of the bronchoscope's ability to clearly visualize vascularity and mucosal surface. However, the document does not explicitly state the methodology for establishing this ground truth (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, etc.). The other tests (reprocessing, software, EMC, optical) used established engineering standards and measurements as their "ground truth".
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
This information is not applicable and not provided. The PENTAX Medical Video Bronchoscope EB-J10 Series is a medical device, specifically a bronchoscope, and not an AI or machine learning algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of AI.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This information is not applicable as there is no "training set" for this device.
Ask a specific question about this device
(262 days)
The PENTAX Medical Ultrasound Video Bronchoscope EB19-J10U is intended to provide optical visualization of, ultrasonic visualization of, and therapeutic access to, the Pulmonary Track including but not restricted to organs, tissues, and subsystem: Nasal Passage, Pharynx, Larynx, Trachea, Bronchial Tree (including access beyond the stem), and underlying areas. The instrument is introduced per orally when indications consistent with the requirement for procedure are observed in adult and pediatric patient populations.
Intended use: Diagnostic ultrasound imaging or fluid flow analysis if the human body as follows.
Clinical Application: Endoscopy
Mode of Operation: B, M, PWD, Color Doppler, Amplitude Doppler
The PENTAX Medical Ultrasound Video Bronchoscope EB19-J10U connects with a video processor and an ultrasound scanner, both of which are software controlled devices.
The endoscope has a flexible insertion tube, a control body, PVE connector, and scanning unit connector. The PVE connector attaches to the video processor and has connections for illumination and video signals. The ultrasound umbilical connector attaches to the ultrasound scanner unit.
The control body includes remote buttons for functions assigned from the video processor. It also includes controls for up/down angulation or neutral position, suction control, and ports for manual balloon insufflation/evacuation and accessory inlet.
The endoscope contains light carrying bundles to illuminate the body cavity, a change couple device to collect endoscopic image data, and a convex array ultrasound transducer to collect ultrasonic image data. The instrument contains a working channel through which biopsy devices, or other devices may be introduced. The video processor contains a lamp that provides white light focused at the endoscope PVE connector light guide prong. The endoscope light carrying bundles present the light to the body cavity and the CCD collects endoscopic image data. Image data and other screen display information are formatted and presented to the video outputs of the video processor for display.
The ultrasound transducer delivers ultrasonic pulses, reflections of the pulses are received and the signals are passed to the ultrasound scanner for processing and display. The instrument is immersible (with the use of supplied cleaning accessories). EB19-J10U is connected to the ultrasound scanners Arietta 70 and Noblus via the scanning unit connector of the endoscope directly to the probe connector of the scanning unit. In order to connect to the Preirus scanning unit, junction box PUN-JBP1 is required to connect the scanning unit connector to the probe connector.
The instrument is immersible (with the use of supplied cleaning accessories).
The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the PENTAX Medical Ultrasound Video Bronchoscope EB19-J10U. It details the device's technical specifications, intended use, and a summary of testing conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain any information about a study proving that the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or reader performance with or without AI assistance.
The document focuses on non-clinical testing to demonstrate that the device is equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, especially regarding safety and effectiveness from a design and manufacturing perspective. It mentions "Performance Testing - Bench" for "System compatibility" and "Optical characteristics," but does not provide specific acceptance criteria or quantitative results for these tests.
Therefore, I cannot fully answer your request for acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets them, as the provided text does not include the necessary information regarding a clinical performance study involving AI, human readers, or specific diagnostic performance metrics.
Here's an breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided text:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
- Cannot be provided. The document lists various types of non-clinical testing (Sterilization, Reprocessing, Biocompatibility, Software, EMC + Electrical Safety, System Compatibility, Optical Characteristics), and states that "Testing results confirm the subject device is safe and effective as the predicate device, and performs as intended." However, it does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed numerical results for these tests. For example, it says "The subject device demonstrates equivalent or better optical characteristics than the predicate device," but gives no numerical value for either.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Cannot be provided definitively for a performance study. The document outlines non-clinical bench testing. These tests typically don't involve "samples" in the same way clinical studies do (e.g., patient data). The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or mentioned for the types of tests described.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- Not applicable. This information is relevant for studies establishing diagnostic ground truth, often used for AI/clinical performance evaluations. The document describes engineering and safety testing, not clinical diagnostic performance.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical studies to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretations for ground truth establishment. This document doesn't describe such a study.
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:
- No, such a study was not done according to this document. This device is a bronchoscope, which is a physical instrument for visualization and access, not an AI software intended to assist human readers in image interpretation. The document does not mention any AI component or any MRMC studies.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- No, this is not an AI algorithm. This is a hardware device (bronchoscope) with associated software for its operation. Therefore, a standalone algorithm performance study is not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
- Not applicable in the context of diagnostic performance. The "ground truth" for the tests described relates to engineering specifications and safety standards (e.g., whether the device sterilizes correctly, whether electrical current is within safe limits, whether optical clarity meets design specs).
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI device being trained.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. (See point 8).
In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of a medical device (a bronchoscope) through non-clinical testing of its physical, electrical, and reprocessing characteristics. It does not involve AI or diagnostic performance studies that would require the types of acceptance criteria and study details you requested for AI-driven devices.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1