Search Results

Single-Use Video Hysteroscope is intended to be used for viewing of the adult cervical canal and uterine cavity for the purpose of performing diagnostic and operative procedures.

The device is suitable for professional healthcare facility environments such as hospitals and clinics.

The subject device, Single-Use Video Hysteroscope is intended to be used for viewing of the adult cervical canal and uterine cavity for the purpose of performing diagnostic and operative procedures.

The device is suitable for professional healthcare facility environments such as hospitals and clinics.

The subject device consists of an endoscope (a hysteroscope) which includes an insertion portion and handle, and the following accessories: 2 pieces of two-way valves and 1 piece of silicone cap.

The provided document, K241987, describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device and does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria from an AI/algorithm performance perspective.

The document is a K241987 submission for a Single-Use Video Hysteroscope (RP-G-C24, RP-G-C0101). This device is a traditional medical instrument used for viewing the cervical canal and uterine cavity. It is not an AI/algorithm-based device.

Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI/algorithm performance, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details, are not applicable to this submission.

The "Performance" section within the document refers to non-clinical performance testing of the physical device, such as mechanical, optical, and biocompatibility tests, not an algorithm's performance.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is available in the document, framed against your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Single-Use Video Hysteroscope (RP-G-C24, RP-G-C0101)

As this is a physical medical device (a hysteroscope) and not an AI or algorithm, the acceptance criteria and performance data relate to its physical and functional attributes. The document states that "Verification testing including performance testing using previously submitted methods and acceptance criteria cleared under K232003... were conducted to evaluate the modifications. The subject device passed all the testing in accordance with internal requirements and applicable standards."

Due to the nature of the device, many of the requested fields are not relevant.

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

The document lists performance tests conducted but does not explicitly detail the quantitative acceptance criteria or the specific reported device performance values beyond stating that the "subject device passed all the testing." The acceptance criteria are implicitly those established for the predicate device (K232003) and internal requirements/applicable standards.

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: Not specified for individual performance tests. The testing refers to "subject device" and implies a representative number of units were tested.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. Testing was conducted internally by Guangzhou Red Pine Medical Instrument Co., Ltd.

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)

• Not applicable. This relates to human expert review for AI/algorithm performance. The device is a physical hysteroscope. The "truth" for physical performance tests (e.g., leakage, dimensions, biocompatibility) is determined by objective measurements against established standards, not expert consensus on medical images or diagnoses.

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

• Not applicable. See 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

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI system. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

• For Biocompatibility: "Ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series, USP ) and observable biological responses in tests.
• For Mechanical/Optical Performance: "Ground truth" is based on engineer specifications, physical measurements, and conformity to applicable industry standards (e.g., ISO 80369-7:2021).
• For Sterilization/Shelf Life: "Ground truth" is based on validated methods (e.g., ISO 11135:2014) demonstrating sterility assurance levels and packaging integrity per standards (e.g., ISO 11607).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set as it's not an AI/algorithm-based device.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device