(197 days)
The SR-1 Skin Treatment System is indicated for use in dermatologic procedures requiring the coagulation of soft tissue, as well as for skin resurfacing procedures.
The SR-1 Skin Treatment System is intended to be used by medical professionals and staff who are trained in the use of lasers and who are familiar with the technology, operation of the system, and safety precautions.
The SR-1 Skin Treatment System is a prescription device. Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a physician or any practitioner licensed by state law to use or order the use of this device.
The SR-1 Skin Treatment System is a 1550nm-based laser system intended to generate thermal zones of damage in skin. The system includes three (3) main components: Console, Tablet, and Patient Interface. The Console houses the system control electronics, power distribution, contact cooling, and laser. The Tablet is the primary user interface for controlling the system through a touch screen graphical user interface. The Patient Interface contains the optics, scanner, laser aperture, and contact cooling interface.
The SR-1 Skin Treatment System is a software-controlled device. The operator enters treatment parameters on the Tablet and places the Patient Interface on the treatment site. A treatment is initiated by the operator to cause laser energy to be projected into the skin of a patient. The device is intended to be used by a suitably trained professional in a clinical setting. There are no sterile components.
The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the SR-1 Skin Treatment System, comparing it to predicate devices. However, it does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the manner requested (e.g., performance metrics in a table, sample size for test set with data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, or standalone algorithm performance).
Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and safety and efficacy studies rather than outlining specific performance metrics for acceptance.
Here's an attempt to structure the information based on the request, extracting what is available and noting what is missing:
Acceptance Criteria and Study for SR-1 Skin Treatment System
The provided 510(k) summary does not detail specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a dedicated study designed to prove the device meets such criteria in the format requested. Instead, the submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, which involves:
- Technological Characteristics Comparison: Showing the SR-1 has similar operating principles, laser source, output power, etc., to predicate devices.
- Safety and Performance Testing: Compliance with international standards for electrical safety, EMC, usability, biocompatibility, and laser safety.
- In-vivo Human Study: A histological assessment comparing the thermal damage zones and healing rates to a predicate.
Therefore, a table of "acceptance criteria" as performance metrics isn't explicitly provided, as the criteria for clearance are primarily based on substantial equivalence and safety/functionality compliance with established standards.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
As specific quantitative "acceptance criteria" for clinical performance (e.g., a specific percentage of improvement in skin resurfacing) are not detailed in this document, such a table cannot be constructed from the provided text. The document states that the histological data "show that the SR-1 Skin Treatment System performs in accordance with its specifications and requirements," implying that its performance (specifically in terms of thermal damage zones and healing rate) was found comparable to the predicate.
2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance
- Sample Size for In Vivo Study: 14 healthy subjects.
- Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It is implied to be a prospective in vivo human study based on the description "A 14 day in vivo human study assessing safety, healing and MTZ morphology was performed..."
3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth for Test Set
- Number of Experts: Not specified.
- Qualifications of Experts: Not specified, other than "histological analysis" was performed.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- Adjudication Method: Not specified.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
- Was an MRMC study done?: No. The device is a laser treatment system, not an imaging interpretation device where human reader performance would be compared with and without AI assistance. The study described is an in vivo histological assessment.
- Effect size of human readers with/without AI: Not applicable.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance
- Was a standalone study done?: Not directly applicable in the terms of an "algorithm only" performance for diagnosis. The device is a physical laser treatment system with software control. Software verification and validation were performed according to IEC 62304 and FDA guidance, indicating that the software's functionality was tested.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
- Ground Truth Type: "Histological analysis" was used to determine the zones of thermal damage and healing rate in the in vivo human study.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
- Sample Size: Not applicable. This device is a laser treatment system, not an AI model that requires a training set in the conventional sense (e.g., for image classification or diagnosis). Its software underwent "verification and validation testing."
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established
- Ground Truth Establishment: Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI model being trained for diagnostic or predictive tasks. The software "ground truth" (i.e., its correct functionality) would be established through software requirements, design specifications, and subsequent verification and validation testing.
§ 878.4810 Laser surgical instrument for use in general and plastic surgery and in dermatology.
(a)
Identification. (1) A carbon dioxide laser for use in general surgery and in dermatology is a laser device intended to cut, destroy, or remove tissue by light energy emitted by carbon dioxide.(2) An argon laser for use in dermatology is a laser device intended to destroy or coagulate tissue by light energy emitted by argon.
(b)
Classification. (1) Class II.(2) Class I for special laser gas mixtures used as a lasing medium for this class of lasers. The devices subject to this paragraph (b)(2) are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 878.9.