Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K093067
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2009-12-29

    (90 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.5040
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    LIPOSE DISPOSABLE CANNULA

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

    The Lipose Disposable Cannula is intended for use in aesthetic body contouring.

    Device Description

    The Lipose Disposable Cannulas are coated stainless steel cannulas designed for connection to syringes (Luer Lock connector or hub adaptor). The cannulas are designed to be used with a syringe aspirator or syringe re-injector. There is also an infiltrator configuration available, to administer a solution to surgery sites pre-lipoplasty. The cannulas are made of hydrophilic coated stainless steel, and are available in various diameters, lengths and tip configurations. The Lipose Disposable Cannulas are single-use disposables, supplied sterile (gamma radiation), packaged in a PETG tray sealed with a labeled or pre-printed Tyvek lid.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) summary for the Lipose Disposable Cannula, which is a medical device used for aesthetic body contouring. The document does not describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way described in the prompt (e.g., performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or improvement with AI assistance).

    Instead, this 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The primary "acceptance criterion" in this context is showing that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device.

    Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

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

    The document does not provide a table of quantitative acceptance criteria and device performance metrics in the way typically seen for diagnostic or AI-driven devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).

    Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are demonstrating substantial equivalence in terms of:

    • Indications for Use: The Lipose Disposable Cannula is "intended for use in aesthetic body contouring." This is identical to the predicate device's intended use.
    • Technological Characteristics: The document states: "The design, use, and materials of the Lipose Disposable Cannulas and their predicate device are equivalent, in that all these cannulas are designed to be used for aesthetic body contouring and are fabricated out of stainless steel. Lipose Cannulas are all provided with a hydrophilic coating with lubricious properties as well, as are the Tulip Disposable Cannulas. No new technology or change in indications for use have been introduced by Lipose Corp. in the manufacture of the Disposable Cannulas."

    Therefore, the "reported device performance" is essentially that its characteristics (design, materials, intended use, lubricious coating) are equivalent to the predicate device, thereby inferring equivalent safety and effectiveness.

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

    There is no "test set" in the traditional sense of a study evaluating performance against ground truth. The submission relies on comparative data and descriptions against a predicate device. Therefore, no information on sample size or data provenance is provided.

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

    Not applicable. This is not a study requiring expert consensus for ground truth establishment. The evaluation is based on comparing the device's characteristics and intended use to a legally marketed predicate device.

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

    Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication.

    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 a surgical instrument (cannula), not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging device. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

    Not applicable. This device is a physical surgical instrument, not an algorithm.

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

    The "ground truth" in this context is the safety and effectiveness profile of the predicate device, the Tulip Disposable Cannula (K060089), which has already been cleared by the FDA. The submission argues that the Lipose Disposable Cannulas are substantially equivalent to this established device.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. No training set for an algorithm.

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

    Not applicable. No training set.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1