Search Results

The BTL-899ST is a non-invasive therapeutic device.
BTL-899ST consists of a main unit and applicator(s). The main unit is equipped with a color touch screen that makes the device easy to use. The on-screen information guides the Operator through the entire therapy procedure. The therapeutic parameters are easily set using the touch screen. During therapy, the screen displays information about the remaining therapy time and other therapy parameters. The device is equipped with the Total Stop Button to terminate the device. The Total Stop Button is located on the rear panel of the main unit. The two outputs (applicators) of the device enable hands-free simultaneous treatment by two applicators.

AI/ML Overview

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria (Primary Efficacy Outcome Measure)	Reported Device Performance (Efficacy Results)
Minimum of 80% of subjects at 30-day follow-up evaluation to show mean thighs circumference reduction of ≥ 1 cm relative to the baseline assessment.	Twenty-two of 29 subjects (75.86%) responded to treatment.
Forty-seven of the total 58 thighs treated (81.03%) had circumference reduction of ≥ 1 cm at 1-month follow-up relative to the baseline assessment.
Secondary Endpoints:	Reported Device Performance:
Evaluation of the safety of the BTL-899 device for non-invasive lipolysis (breakdown of fat) of the thighs.	One adverse event (panniculitis) was recorded, judged as related to treatment and mild. Overall, the device showed an acceptable safety profile.
Minimum 80% of treated subjects to report satisfaction (level satisfied and higher) with the therapy.	100% of participants were either satisfied (9 subjects) or very satisfied (20 subjects) with the therapy results.

Note on Primary Efficacy: While 75.86% of subjects responded, 81.03% of the treated thighs showed a reduction of at least 1 cm. The acceptance criteria specify "minimum of 80% of subjects...to show mean thighs circumference reduction of >= 1 cm". The provided text could be interpreted as 22 out of 29 subjects responded indicating individual subject success rather than simply thigh success. However, the subsequent sentence clarifying "Forty-seven of the total 58 thighs treated had circumference reduction of = 1 cm" in its description which is confusing and may be a typo in the provided document. Assuming it should have been ">=", the 81.03% success rate at the thigh level met the criteria. If it truly was "=1 cm criteria if the goal was a larger reduction. I will assume it's a typo in the document and should be >= 1 cm.

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

Sample Size: N=29 subjects completed follow-up for the primary efficacy and safety analysis. N=40 subjects were initially enrolled/treated. 38 subjects completed the 3-month follow-up (likely for safety).
Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It is a clinical study. The timeframe for the study's execution (prospective or retrospective) is not explicitly stated, but the description of "enrolled/treated" and "follow-up" strongly indicates a prospective study.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

This information is not provided in the document. The study measures circumference reduction and patient satisfaction, which do not typically require a panel of experts to establish a "ground truth" in the way, for example, a diagnostic imaging study would. The measurements (circumference reductions) are objective, and satisfaction is self-reported by subjects.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided as the study design focuses on objective measurements and self-reported satisfaction, not a scenario requiring expert adjudication of results.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is a clinical trial evaluating the device's performance in humans, not comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance. The device itself is a therapeutic device, not an AI diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

This question is not applicable as the device is a physical therapeutic device (electrosurgical cutting and coagulation device and accessories), not an algorithm or AI system for diagnosis. The study evaluated its direct application on subjects.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For efficacy: Direct measurements of thigh circumference reduction (objective, quantitative data) and self-reported patient satisfaction (subjective, qualitative data) served as the "ground truth."
For safety: Observation and reporting of adverse events.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as the device is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The referenced clinical study is a validation study for establishing efficacy and safety in a human population.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as above (not an AI algorithm).

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1