Search Results

Cook Endoscopy's Esophageal Dilation Balloon is intended to endoscopically dilate strictures of the esophagus. The Esophageal Balloon Dilator is used to endoscopically dilate strictures of the esophagus.

The proposed Cook Endoscopy Dilation Balloon is a single lumen catheter with a balloon mounted on the distal tip. The balloon is inflatable with water to three distinct and progressively larger size diameters to exert force on esophageal strictures resulting in stricture dilation. It is offered in a variety of diameters to accommodate a range of esophageal strictures This device is supplied sterile and intended for single use. This balloon is not sold with inflation device.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Cook Endoscopy Esophageal Dilation Balloon. However, it does not include detailed acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria in the format requested. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on intended use, indications for use, performance characteristics, available diameters/lengths, and biocompatibility.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, highlighting what is present and what is missing in relation to your request:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

The document mentions "Non-Clinical Testing was performed on characteristics of the balloon with respect to The FDA Guidance for Urological Balloons and additional tests as needed to verify safety and performance." However, it does not provide a specific table of acceptance criteria (e.g., burst pressure, inflation/deflation times, material integrity) nor the detailed reported performance results against those criteria.

2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance:

This information is not present in the provided text. The document refers to "Non-Clinical Testing," which implies laboratory or bench testing rather than a clinical study with a test set of patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and qualifications:

This information is not present. As the testing appears to be non-clinical, the concept of "ground truth" established by experts in a clinical context (e.g., for diagnostic accuracy) does not apply here.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

This information is not present. This is typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical outcomes, which are not described here.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and effect size:

This information is not present. An MRMC study compares human readers' performance with and without AI assistance, which is not applicable to a non-clinical device like an esophageal dilation balloon.

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

This information is not present. This applies to AI algorithms, not to a physical medical device like a balloon dilator.

7. The type of ground truth used:

Given that "Non-Clinical Testing" was performed, the "ground truth" would likely refer to engineering specifications and performance standards established by FDA guidance (e.g., "FDA Guidance for Urological Balloons") and internal Cook Endoscopy requirements. However, the exact type of ground truth (e.g., specific measurement tolerances, physical properties verified by calibrated instruments) is not explicitly detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not present. This concept applies to machine learning models, which are not relevant to the described device.

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

This information is not present, for the same reason as point 8.

Summary of what's available and what's missing:

The provided text from K061937 describes the Cook Endoscopy Esophageal Dilation Balloon and its 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence.

• Acceptance Criteria & Performance: The document states that "Non-Clinical Testing was performed on characteristics of the balloon with respect to The FDA Guidance for Urological Balloons and additional tests as needed to verify safety and performance." However, specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance results (e.g., burst pressure values, diameter consistency, material strength) are not provided.
• Study Design: The study mentioned is "Non-Clinical Testing," indicating laboratory or bench testing rather than a clinical trial with human subjects.
• Missing Information: Crucially, the document does not contain information regarding:
  • Specific quantitative acceptance criteria.
  • Detailed reported performance data.
  • Sample sizes for test or training sets.
  • Data provenance.
  • Number or qualifications of experts.
  • Adjudication methods.
  • MRMC comparative effectiveness studies.
  • Standalone algorithm performance.
  • Type or establishment method of ground truth in a clinical or AI context.

The 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices (Wilson-Cook Quantum T.T.C. Dilation Balloon and Microvasive RX Biliary Balloon Dilation Catheter) based on intended use, indications, and general performance characteristics, rather than detailing a specific study with defined acceptance criteria for a novel AI or diagnostic device.

Ask a specific question about this device