Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K961748
    Date Cleared
    1996-07-26

    (81 days)

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

    MEDLITE/ERBIUM LASER SYSTEM

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

    For use in dermatology for the incision, excision, ablation, vaporization and hemostasis of soft tissue.

    Device Description

    The Medlite\Erbium Laser is an erbium laser producing laser emissions at 2.94 $\mu$ . The laser consists of three interconnected sections: the power supply, the water cooling system and the optical bench. At 5 pulses per second and a pulse energy of 2 Joules, the average power from the laser is 10 watts.

    AI/ML Overview

    This 510(k) summary for the K961748 Medlite Erbium Laser System does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, as it explicitly states:

    • Nonclinical Performance Data: none
    • Clinical Performance Data: none

    Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt based solely on the provided K961748 document. The device was deemed substantially equivalent to a predicate device (SEO Medical TriLase 2940 Erbium Laser System; K954013) without specific performance studies detailed in this summary.

    Here's a breakdown of why each requested item cannot be answered:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: No performance data or acceptance criteria are reported.
    2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: No test set data or provenance is mentioned.
    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: No ground truth establishment or experts are mentioned.
    4. Adjudication method for the test set: No test set or adjudication method 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 a laser system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, and no such study is mentioned.
    6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a laser system, not an algorithm, and no such performance study is mentioned.
    7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable, as no performance study with ground truth is mentioned.
    8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as no algorithm training or training set is mentioned.
    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as no algorithm training or training set is mentioned.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1