Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K082028
    Date Cleared
    2008-08-08

    (22 days)

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

    LASERPEEL SOFT-MET MODIFIED ERBIUM LASER

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

    Indicated at 2940 nm for Fitzpatrick skin types I-V for coagulation, vaporization, ablation or cutting of soft tissue (skin, cutaneous tissue, subcutaneous tissue, striated and smooth tissue, muscle, cartilage meniscus, mucous membrane, lymph vessels and nodes, organs, and glands) in dermatology, plastic surgery (including aesthetic surgery), oral surgery, and ophthalmology. Specifically indicated for skin resurfacing, treatment of wrinkles, and superficial skin lesions.

    Device Description

    The LaserPeel Soft-MET Modified Erbium Laser is a compact self-contained device that delivers a beam of laser energy at an infrared wavelength of 2940 nm to the treatment site. The LaserPeel Soft-MET Modified Erbium Laser consists of four primary components:

    1. A console which houses the power supply, electronics, cooling system, and liquid crystal display screen (LCD);
    2. A handpiece which contains the laser cavity and optical delivery system and is connected to the console by an umbilical cord:
    3. An on/off footswitch; and
    4. An integrated trolley/cart.
      The LaserPeel Soft-MET Modified Erbium Laser is not battery operated, but is controlled and operated with the aid of computer software.
    AI/ML Overview

    The provided 510(k) summary for the LaserPeel Soft-MET Modified Erbium Laser does not include any acceptance criteria or a study demonstrating the device meets such criteria.

    In fact, the document explicitly states:

    • Nonclinical Performance Data: None
    • Clinical Performance Data: None

    Therefore, I cannot populate the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth details.

    The 510(k) process in this instance seemingly granted substantial equivalence based on the device's technical characteristics and intended use being similar to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than requiring new performance studies with specific acceptance criteria.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1