Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(95 days)
Hysteroscope: Provides illumination and visualization of the cervical canal and the uterine cavity for the purpose of performing diagnostic and surgical procedures.
Gynecologic Laparoscope: Used to permit direct viewing of the organs within the peritoneal cavity for the purpose of performing diagnostic and surgical procedures.
The asap hysteroscope and gynecologic laparoscope (herinafter: asap endoscope) is a rigid type endoscope with a new generation of compact objectives and a newly developed rod-lens system.
The basic design of the asap endoscope is similar to those legally available for sale in the U.S.A.. It consists of an eyepiece and the body with light guide and rod-lens system. The body is designed of an outer and an inner tube of surgical steel. The light carrying fibers are sandwiched between these tubes. The inner tube of the body contains the rod-lens system.
Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the asap endoscope's acceptance criteria and studies:
Assessment: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Hysteroscope and Gynecologic Laparoscope). For this type of submission, the primary focus is demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than conducting new clinical trials to prove efficacy or performance against specific numerical acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding detailed acceptance criteria, specific performance metrics, sample sizes for test sets, expert-established ground truth, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, is not present in this document.
Summary of Device Acceptance and Study Information:
| Feature | Description from Document |
|---|---|
| 1. Acceptance Criteria & Reported Performance | Acceptance Criteria: The primary acceptance criterion for this 510(k) submission is that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This means that its specifications, intended use, and materials are equivalent, and there are no significant differences in design or conditions of intended use that would raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. |
Reported Performance: The document states that the asap endoscope's specifications and intended use are the same as the predicate devices. It is constructed of materials of the same specifications to ensure biocompatibility and conforms to applicable ISO standards. The ability to repeatedly adequately sterilize the devices has been confirmed by validation protocol. |
| 2. Sample Size for Test Set & Data Provenance | Not applicable. This document does not describe a "test set" in the context of a clinical performance study with patient data. The evaluation is based on a comparison to predicate devices and adherence to standards. |
| 3. Number of Experts & Qualifications for Ground Truth | Not applicable. Ground truth for clinical performance was not established by experts for a new study, as the submission relies on equivalence to devices with established safety and effectiveness. |
| 4. Adjudication Method for Test Set | Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication of findings is described. |
| 5. MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study | Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted device, and no MRMC study is mentioned. |
| 6. Standalone Algorithm Performance Study | Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (endoscope), not a software algorithm. |
| 7. Type of Ground Truth Used | The "ground truth" implicitly used for this type of submission is the established safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate devices, as determined by prior FDA approvals or marketing. The new device is deemed safe and effective if it can demonstrate substantial equivalence to these predicates. |
| 8. Sample Size for Training Set | Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML system requiring a training set. |
| 9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established | Not applicable. |
Explanation of the 510(k) Process in this Context:
The 510(k) pathway is a premarket submission made to FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and effective as a legally marketed device (predicate device). This is called "substantial equivalence." The document's purpose is to show that the asap endoscope is substantially equivalent to the Baho and Galileo hysteroscopes and gynecologic laparoscopes.
The "study" described in the document is essentially a comparison study against predicate devices and adherence to recognized standards.
- Design Comparison: The "basic design of the asap endoscope is similar to those legally available for sale in the U.S.A."
- Materials Comparison: "constructed of materials of the same specifications as the predicate devices to ensure biocompatibility."
- Intended Use Comparison: The "indications for use" are explicitly stated to be "Like the predicate device" and "used to illuminate and visualize... for the purpose of performing diagnostic and surgical procedures."
- Compliance with Standards: The device "comply[s] with applicable portions of voluntary standards IEC 60601-2-18, DIN 58105, part 1 and 2, DIN 17442 (medical steel), as well as applicable portions of DIN 980." This demonstrates adherence to recognized safety and performance benchmarks.
- Sterilization Validation: "The ability to repeatedly adequately sterilize the devices has been confirmed by validation protocol." This is a crucial safety aspect for reusable devices.
This 510(k) summary does not involve a clinical trial with a "test set" of patients or data, nor does it involve AI algorithms with "training sets" or expert adjudications of performance. The acceptance is based on demonstrating that the new device is fundamentally the same as devices already on the market that have been deemed safe and effective.
Ask a specific question about this device
(34 days)
Like the predicate devices, the BAHO autoclavable Cystoscope is indicated for use in the visual examination of body cavities, hollow organs and canals and using additional accessories, to perform various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.
The BAHO autoclavable Cystoscope has a basic design similar to those legally available for sale in the U.S.A. Like others legally sold in the U.S.A.,it consists of an evepiece.body and insertion tube. The insertion tube is double walled surgical steel with illumination fibers in between. The insertion tube contains the optical rod lens system. ( identical to BAHO autoclavable Laparoscope 510(k) Number K982276 )
The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device (BAHO Autoclavable Cystoscope) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed performance data and acceptance criteria from a study.
Therefore, many of the requested data points (acceptance criteria table, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) are not available in the provided text, as they are not typically part of a 510(k) submission that relies on demonstrating equivalence through material and design similarity to already approved devices.
Here's an attempt to answer the questions based only on the provided text, indicating when information is not available:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Acceptance Criteria (from text) | Reported Device Performance (from text) |
|---|---|---|
| Design Equivalence | Basic design similar to legally available devices in the U.S.A. (eyepiece, body, insertion tube, double-walled surgical steel with illumination fibers, optical rod lens system). | "The BAHO autoclavable Cystoscope has a basic design similar to those legally available for sale in the U.S.A. Like others legally sold in the U.S.A., it consists of an eyepiece, body and insertion tube. The insertion tube is double walled surgical steel with illumination fibers in between. The insertion tube contains the optical rod lens system." (identical to K982276) |
| Material Equivalence | Selection of materials demonstrating appropriate levels of biocompatibility, similar or identical to predicate devices and other approved BAHO endoscopes. | "The biological safety of the BAHO autoclavable Cystoscope has been defined through the selection of materials that demonstrated appropriate levels of biocompatibility which constitute the building blocks of the proposed device. These materials are similar or identical to those used for the manufacturing of the predicate devices as well as other brands legally sold in the U.S.A. and other approved BAHO endoscopes (Arthroscope, Laparoscope)" |
| Functional Equivalence | Biocompatibility, function, indications, and designs developed to ensure safety and substantial equivalence to commercially approved cystoscopes. | "In summary : biocompatibility, function, indications and designs have been developed to ensure the safety of this device. It is substantially equivalent to commercially approved cystoscopes available for sale in the U.S.A." |
| Indication for Use | Indicated for visual examination of body cavities, hollow organs, and performing diagnostic/therapeutic procedures with accessories. | "Like the predicate devices the BAHO autoclavable Cystoscope is indicated for use in the visual examination of body cavities, hollow organs and using additional accessories, to perform various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures." |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size: Not applicable/Not provided. The submission relies on claiming substantial equivalence based on material and design similarity to existing predicate devices, not on a new testing study with a "test set" in the context of performance metrics for an AI/diagnostic device.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable/Not provided.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Not applicable/Not provided. No dedicated "test set" requiring expert-established ground truth is mentioned. The submission is about device design and materials.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- Not applicable/Not provided.
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/Not provided. This is not a diagnostic device involving human readers or AI assistance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not applicable/Not provided. This is a physical, optical medical device, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- Not applicable/Not provided. The "ground truth" for this submission is the established safety and efficacy of the predicate devices and the biocompatibility of the materials used in the new device, rather than diagnostic accuracy.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable/Not provided. This device does not involve machine learning or a "training set."
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable/Not provided.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1