Search Results

ICOONE Laser med (also referred to as ICOONE Medical laser) is indicated for the relief of minor muscle aches and pain, relief of muscle spasms, temporary improvement of local blood circulation, and temporary reduction in the appearance of cellulite.

Icoone Medical Laser (also referred to as Icoone Lase med) is Therapeutic Massager machine attached to pivoting wheels, connected to a rolling stand, with a series of hand pieces equipped with motorized rollers, which are the core of the technology and that, opportunely guided by an operator, are applied to the patient's body. The combined synergistic action between the micro-stimulators (rollers) and a negative pressure (vacuum) created within the hand pieces grasp the skin tissues allowing to achieve the same effects of kneading tissue by hand. Applications are pre-set by the machine or the operator in relation to intensity, frequency, length of session, degree of tissue suctioning, and allow to address the issues of each individual in an absolutely targeted manner. Icoone Medical Laser (model ref 650EC24) (also referred to as Icoone Laser med) is also equipped with two light sources inside the Robosolo hand piece, each with the following wave lengths: - Led @ 650mm (50mW) - Laser @ 915mm (1W) Through the display, the light sources can be fully deactivated, or only LED activated. The sources are neither adjustable in intensity (always output at nominal value, as per specifications) nor in frequency (always continuous - CW). Once selected, by turning on the Robosolo hand piece, both suctioning and light emission are activated at the same time. The light is emitted via laser diodes or LEDs controlled by a dedicated power driver.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the ICOONE Laser med device. It details the device's substantial equivalency to a predicate device, its indications for use, technological characteristics, and performance data related to electrical safety, EMC, and software validation.

However, the document does not contain information about a study that proves the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria related to its clinical efficacy (e.g., reduction in cellulite, relief of muscle aches). Instead, the performance data presented focuses on safety and technical compliance standards.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request based on the provided text. I will address the parts that are extractable and clearly state when the information is not present.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study (as per document context)

The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on similar indications for use, technological characteristics, and compliance with safety and technical standards, rather than proving direct clinical performance against specific numerical acceptance criteria for its claimed therapeutic effects (e.g., a measured reduction in cellulite appearance, or pain relief scores).

The "Performance Data" section specifically lists compliance with electrical safety, EMC, and software verification/validation standards. It does not present data from studies measuring the device's efficacy for its stated indications (e.g., a clinical trial demonstrating cellulite reduction or pain relief).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the document's content, the "acceptance criteria" are compliance with relevant safety and technical standards, and the "performance" tabulated is demonstrating that compliance. There are no clinical efficacy metrics or associated acceptance thresholds provided.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

This information is not present in the provided document. The document describes technical testing (electrical safety, EMC, software, biocompatibility), which typically does not involve "sample sizes" in the sense of clinical study participants. No clinical efficacy study data is described.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

This information is not present in the provided document. As no clinical efficacy study is described, there's no mention of experts establishing ground truth for such a test.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not present in the provided document. Since no clinical efficacy test set is detailed, no adjudication method is mentioned.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

This information is not present in the provided document. The document does not describe any MRMC study or any study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance, as this is a physical device, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

This information is not applicable to the device described. The ICOONE Laser med is a physical therapeutic massager with laser and vacuum functions, operated by a human. It's not an algorithm or AI system for which standalone performance would be measured.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Based on the document, the "ground truth" demonstrated is compliance with established international safety and performance standards for medical electrical equipment, laser products, and biocompatibility. For instance, the ground truth for electrical safety is that the device passes specific tests under EN 60601-1. There is no mention of clinical outcome data, pathology, or expert consensus being used as a ground truth for efficacy.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable and not present in the document. The device is not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable and not present in the document. The device is not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating that the ICOONE Laser med device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device primarily through adherence to established safety and performance standards (electrical, EMC, software, laser, biocompatibility), rather than through a clinical study demonstrating its efficacy against specific, quantitative acceptance criteria for its indications for use.

Ask a specific question about this device

ICOONE h is indicated for the relief of minor muscle aches and pain, relief of muscle spasms, temporary improvement of local blood circulation, and temporary reduction in the appearance of cellulite.

The Icoone-h device is Therapeutic Massager machine attached to pivoting wheels, connected to a rolling stand, with a series of hand pieces equipped with motorized rollers, which are the core of the technology and that, opportunely guided by an operator, are applied to the patient's body.
lcoone-h Laser is also equipped with two light sources inside the Robosolo hand piece, each with the following wave lengths:
LED @ 650nm (50Mw) Laser @ 915nm (1W)
The light sources can be activated through the display, either combined or independently (only one of the two or both).
The sources are neither adjustable in intensity (always output at nominal value, as per specifications) nor in frequency (always continuous - CW).
Once selected, by turning on the Robosolo hand piece, both suctioning and light emission are activated at the same time.
The light is emitted via laser diodes or LEDs controlled by a dedicated power driver.

This FDA 510(k) summary for the ICOONE h device does not include acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets those criteria. Instead, it argues for substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on indications for use, technological characteristics, and conformance to safety standards.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table or describe a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria based on the provided text.

However, I can extract information related to the device's characteristics and the basis for its substantial equivalence claim, which may be relevant to regulatory acceptance:

Information available from the provided text:

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

As stated previously, explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics are not provided in the document. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific quantitative acceptance criteria. The table below summarizes the comparison to predicate devices, which serves as the basis for regulatory acceptance in this context.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

The document explicitly states "Clinical tests- brief discussion: Not applicable." This indicates that no clinical studies were performed to establish the device's safety or effectiveness as part of this 510(k) submission. Therefore, there is no test set, sample size, or data provenance to report from this document in this context. The acceptance is based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, which were assessed through non-clinical technical characteristics and compliance with recognized standards.

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, as no clinical tests were performed, and therefore, no "ground truth" for a test set was established using experts in this submission.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical tests were performed.

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 device is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, and 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 therapeutic device, not an algorithm, and no standalone performance study was conducted in the context of an algorithm.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical data or ground truth related to patient outcomes or diagnoses were generated for this 510(k) submission. The "ground truth" for regulatory clearance is based on the substantial equivalence argument, particularly alignment with the established safety and efficacy profiles of predicate devices and compliance with relevant safety standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable, as no algorithm or machine learning model was developed or trained for this device.

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

Not applicable, as no algorithm or machine learning model was developed or trained for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device