Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K020973
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2002-03-29

    (3 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.4810
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    EX-308 EXCIMER LASER FOR PHOTOTHERAPY TREATMENT OF VITILIGO

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The SurgiLight, Inc. EX-308 Excimer laser, handpieces and laser related accessories is indicated for use for the treatment of psoriasis and for the treatment of vitiligo.

    Device Description

    The SurgiLight EX-308 Excimer Laser is a medical device that is capable of emitting a treatment laser beam at a wavelength of 308nm under the quidance of a visible aiming beam. This laser may be used in a pulsed mode at various repetition rates.

    AI/ML Overview

    This 510(k) submission (K020973) for the SurgiLight, Inc. EX-308 Excimer Laser does not contain the type of detailed information typically found in studies for AI/ML-driven devices. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through a comparison of technological characteristics and intended use, rather than presenting a performance study against specific acceptance criteria.

    Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled based on the provided text, as this device is a laser for medical treatment, not a diagnostic or AI-powered device that relies on performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies.

    Here's a breakdown based on the provided text, highlighting what is (and isn't) present:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Not applicable. This submission doesn't define acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) that would be relevant to an AI/ML device study. The "performance" described is about the laser's physical characteristics and its ability to emit light at a specific wavelength, which are compared to a predicate device for substantial equivalence.

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

    Not applicable. No test set or data provenance related to a performance study for an AI/ML device is mentioned. This submission is for a physical medical device (excimer laser).

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

    Not applicable. No ground truth establishment for a test set is discussed, as this is not an AI/ML performance study.

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

    Not applicable. No adjudication method for a test set is mentioned.

    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 is not a diagnostic AI/ML device, and no MRMC study is mentioned.

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

    Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

    Not applicable. Ground truth for an AI/ML performance study is not discussed.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. No training set is mentioned as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

    Not applicable. No training set ground truth establishment is discussed.


    Summary of Device and Approval from the Provided Text:

    The SurgiLight, Inc. EX-308 Excimer Laser is a medical device designed to emit a treatment laser beam at a wavelength of 308nm for the treatment of psoriasis and vitiligo.

    The 510(k) submission (K020973) sought to establish substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices (e.g., PhotoMedix K003705). The core argument for approval was that:

    • The candidate and predicate laser devices are of similar technology.
    • They have the same intended use (treatment of psoriasis and vitiligo).
    • Based on an analysis of overall performance characteristics (implicitly, the physical characteristics and laser output, not clinical outcome studies in this document), no significant differences exist.

    The FDA's approval letter confirms the determination of substantial equivalence, allowing the device to be marketed. The submission did not seek new indications for use; it relied on the existing clearances for the predicate devices.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1