Clinical evaluation according to MDR for endoscopy devices and accessories: requirements, challenges and practical tips
Introduction
Hardly any imaging method has shaped modern medicine as much as endoscopy – from Bozzini’s light guide to highly specialized systems for diagnosis and therapy in numerous disciplines.
With the introduction of the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745), the regulatory environment for manufacturers of endoscopy equipment and accessories has changed fundamentally. Clinical evaluation is no longer just a formality, but a central evidence of a product’s safety and clinical performance – throughout the entire product life cycle.
In this article, we examine what is important in the clinical evaluation of endoscopes and their accessories, which typical pitfalls are to be avoided and how manufacturers can ensure a rule-compliant and practical implementation.
General requirements of the MDR for clinical evaluation
In accordance with Article 61 of MDR and Part A of Annex XIV, manufacturers must carry out a systematic clinical evaluation based on clinical evidence and addressing the general safety and performance requirements (GSPR) set out in Annex I. For endoscopes, these requirements apply to the full extent, since they are usually class IIa to III products.
Manufacturers must systematically analyze all relevant clinical data – including literature sources, technical tests and user experiences – and document them in the Clinical Evaluation Report (CER).
Important:
- Independent clinical evaluation for accessories if it has a medical purpose or affects relevant safety characteristics.
- Obligation to provide evidence of, for example, biological safety, functional safety, mechanical integrity, image quality.
- Independent of being a "reusable" or "single-use" endoscope.
Product-specific requirements for endoscopes and accessories
Endoscopes are complex systems with a wide range of applications – from diagnostics to therapy. This results in special requirements for clinical evaluation.
Variety of applications:
Endoscopes are used in a variety of medical applications. In principle, a distinction is made between flexible endoscopes, such as those used in gastroenterology, in gastroscopy or colonoscopies, and rigid endoscopes which are used, for example, in arthroscopy or laparoscopy. These instruments are complemented by a wide range of accessories. These include light sources, tools such as grippers, pliers, slings, clips or injection devices, high-frequency or laser generators and probes, ultrasonic probes, balloons, etc. Endoscopes serve both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. For example, special channels allow the collection of tissue samples or the introduction of instruments for treatment. In addition, the use varies depending on the body area or organ to be examined, such as in gastroenterology, urology or gynaecology, whereby different body cavities are made accessible via different natural or surgical body openings.
Contact with critical tissue and liquids:
Reusable endoscopes are subject to particularly high requirements in terms of preparation, hygienic safety, material endurance, biocompatibility and microbiological safety. The validation of the processing methods is an integral part of the clinical evaluation and must also be carried out under realistic worst-case conditions – for example, taking into account repeated treatment cycles and practical contamination scenarios. In the context of risk analysis, microbiological risks, including possible cross-contamination between patients, should be systematically identified and assessed.
Accessories: Tools such as grippers, pliers, slings, energy and light sources, etc.
A clear definition of which components belong to the basic system and which accessories need to be evaluated separately is crucial for the completeness of the clinical evaluation. A technical dossier with a clear distinction facilitates conformity assessment by notified bodies. If a product consists of a basic system and accessories, additional technical and clinical evidence is required to demonstrate safety and performance. Accessories with medical purpose must either be evaluated separately or fully integrated into the system and documented accordingly. Regardless of the integration, accessories are always subject to the requirements of the MDR. The clinical evaluation is risk-based and must be product-specific – depending on the application and risk class, usually Class IIa to III.
Ensure regulatory compliance –
Start now with a structured, MDR-compliant clinical evaluation of your endoscopes and accessory systems. Our team of experts will support you with methodology, data strategy, and PMCF – in a practical, efficient, and evidence-based manner.
Contact us for a no-obligation initial consultation!
Innovative developments and their influences on clinical evaluation
The methods and technologies of endoscopy are continuously evolving. Current trends to be considered in clinical evaluation include:
- Integration of AI-based diagnostic systems
- High-resolution imaging technologies
- Wireless capsule endoscopy
- Robot-assisted systems
Typical pitfalls in practice
Insufficient clinical data:
Especially in the field of endoscopy, many devices have been established on the market for years or even decades, which often leads to the lack of current clinical data or being difficult to access. Many manufacturers rely on historical data or on equivalence with competing products – a procedure that is only permitted to a very limited extent under the MDR. Without access to the technical data of the comparison product, proof of equivalence is often not tenable. In addition, there is often no clear or complete designation of the equipment and accessories used in the scientific literature, which makes it difficult to specifically identify and assign concrete products. In addition, comparative studies are often lacking, as many endoscopic techniques have established themselves over years and are clinically widespread – without documenting systematic performance or safety comparisons with current products. The research for reliable clinical data is made considerably more difficult.
Contextual benefits of instruments:
Endoscopy instruments and accessories are primarily tools – their actual clinical benefit can only be evaluated in connection with the specific application or procedure. An isolated consideration is therefore often not expedient. This makes it all the more important to look at the clinical data in the context of the respective indication and the application scenario.
Challenges: Definition of performance, safety and benefit/risk acceptance criteria:
A frequently underestimated but crucial aspect of clinical evaluation is the clear definition and discussion of acceptance criteria for performance, safety and benefit/risk balance – compared to the state of the art (SOTA). Especially with complex systems such as endoscopes, this can be difficult, because the evaluation depends heavily on the individual application environment, the user experience and the clinical routine. Nevertheless, these criteria must be depicted in a comprehensible and product-related manner in order to enable regulatory reliable statements on clinical safety and performance. Their inadequate consideration is a common weakness in many assessments.
Unvalidated processing processes:
A common mistake: The cleaning validation is isolated and not included in the clinical evaluation. Material fatigue, residues or microbial risks remain unevaluated.
Unclear distinction of accessories vs. Basic system:
What is part of the system? What is accessory? These questions are often answered too unclear, which leads to incomplete evaluations – and thus to queries or rejections by notified bodies.
Neglect of user feedback/PMS data:
The post-market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) is an integral part of the assessment. Standardized forms (generic, non-product-specific questionnaires or templates created independently of product type or risk class) are not sufficient – product- and risk-adjusted data collections are required, such as image quality, defect rate, or user feedback.
Unser Newsletter „qonzentrat“
kompakt, professionell und präzise
Profitieren Sie von unserem Fachwissen.
Jetzt anmelden
