Search Results

The Vevazz LED can be used to provide the non-invasive dermatological aesthetic treatment for the reduction of circumference of hips, waist, and thighs.

The Vevazz is a non-invasive red-light system. The device is a moderately complex device that consists of a base unit that plugs into 120 VAC or 240 VAC main power with Ground (earth) and a 2 amp 250 VAC Fuse. The base unit can support up to 16 large LED paddles and 4 small LED paddles. The connections on the base are female phono jacks that are low voltage having a maximum electrical output of 16 VDC @ .5 amps for a total of 8 Watts per port. The large paddles consist of 28 LEDs in a series/parallel electrical connection that has a cord with a male phono jack. Small paddles consist of 4 LEDs and have matching electrical characteristics as the large paddles. Each LED produces 50 mw/cm2 of light energy with a wavelength of 650 nm; +/- 25 nm uniformly over the treatment area without producing hot spots. Treatment time is preset to 7 minutes for non-invasive dermatological aesthetic treatment for the reduction of circumference of hips, waist, and thighs.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Vevazz LED

This document outlines the acceptance criteria and the study conducted to demonstrate the Vevazz LED device's performance for the non-invasive dermatological aesthetic treatment for the reduction of circumference of hips, waist, and thighs.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for the Vevazz LED device was demonstrated through substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Photonica Professional (K160880). The key performance metric was the "combined circumferential reduction of the waist, hips, and thighs" after a single treatment session.

100% of patients had clinically significant results, losing at least 1.0 inch.

Breakdown by Gender:

• Males (13 patients): 1 5/8 inches
• Females (64 patients): 2 2/5 inches

Breakdown by Study Site (average inch loss across 4 sites):

• Site A (8 patients): 3 4/7 inches
• Site B (16 patients): 1 2/3 inches
• Site C (23 patients): 2 1/2 inches
• Site D (30 patients): 2 1/6 inches

Minimum inch loss observed: 1 inch
Maximum inch loss observed: 7 1/2 inches | Average combined circumferential reduction: 3.5 inches (from one 32-minute treatment) |
| Treatment time | 28 minutes (four 7-minute exposures) | 32 minutes (four 8-minute treatments) |
| Safety: No device-related adverse events | No device-related adverse events were reported. | Not explicitly stated for predicate in provided text, but assumed to be safe as per FDA clearance. |

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

• Sample Size: 77 patients (64 female, 13 male)
• Data Provenance: Retrospective analysis of existing treatment records from multiple private practice locations in the USA.

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

• The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth measurements in the retrospective analysis. It notes that "measurements were taken in exact accordance with the Photonica Male Measurement Guide. Female Measurement Guide. Male Measurement Form, and Female Measurement Forms as were used in the clinical trials upon which the predication was approved." This suggests reliance on pre-established measurement protocols rather than independent expert adjudication for the retrospective data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method (such as 2+1, 3+1). The nature of the retrospective analysis of existing records suggests that measurements were likely taken by clinic staff following standardized protocols at the time of patient treatment, rather than an independent adjudication process for the study itself.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study was a retrospective analysis of the Vevazz LED's performance, with a direct comparison of its numerical results (average inch loss) to previously published results from the predicate device (Photonica Professional). It does not involve human readers evaluating cases with or without AI assistance.

• Effect Size of Human Readers with AI vs. without AI Assistance: Not applicable, as this was not an MRMC study comparing human reader performance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Yes, a standalone study was done in the sense that the Vevazz LED device itself (without direct human interpretive aid for results) was evaluated for its efficacy. The "performance" being measured is the physical effect of the device on patients (circumferential reduction), not an interpretation of images or data by an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Outcomes Data (Clinical Measurements): The ground truth was established by direct clinical measurements of circumferential reduction (in inches) of the waist, hips, and thighs taken before and immediately after treatment. These measurements were performed using self-tensioning tape measures and adhered to specific measurement guides established for the predicate device's clinical trials.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document describes a retrospective analysis of an existing device (Vevazz LED) to demonstrate its performance against a predicate. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms, as this is a physical medical device. The 77 patients' data constitutes the "test set" or clinical evidence for the device's efficacy.

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

• Since there was no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation was established through direct pre- and post-treatment physical measurements of patients using standardized protocols.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Vevazz is a device that emits energy in the infrared spectrum and is to be used to provide topical heating for the purpose of elevating tissue temperature for the temporary relief of minor muscle and joint pain, arthritis, stiffness or muscle spasms; the temporary increasing of local blood circulation and/or the temporary relaxation of muscle.

The Vevazz device is a moderately complex device that consists of a base unit that plugs into 120 VAC or 240 VAC main power with Ground (earth) and a 2 amp 250 VAC Fuse. The base unit can support up to 16 large LED paddles and 4 small LED paddles. The connections on the base are female phono jacks that are low voltage having a maximum electrical output of 16 VDC @ .5 amps for a total of 8 Watts per port. The large paddles consist of 28 LEDs in a series/parallel electrical connection that has a cord with a male phono jack. Small paddles consist of 4 LEDs and have matching electrical characteristics as the large paddles. Each LED produces 50 mw/cm2 of light energy with a wavelength of 650 nm: +/- 25 pm uniformly over the treatment area without producing hot spots.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the Vevazz LED Heat Lamp describes the device, its intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain the level of detail typically found in a clinical study report regarding acceptance criteria and study methodology for proving the device meets those criteria.

However, based on the limited information available in the "9. Clinical Testing Summary" section, I can extract and infer some points regarding acceptance criteria and the "study" that supports it:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document explicitly states acceptance criteria only for temperature performance. Other characteristics are described but not presented with pass/fail criteria from a specific study.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "monitor skin temperature and uniformity on the abdominal region and multiple skin types" but does not quantify the number of subjects or tests.
• Data Provenance: Prospective, as it describes testing carried out specifically for the Vevazz device. No specific country of origin is mentioned for this "human test data," though the submitter is based in California, USA.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. The "clinical testing summary" describes a performance test (temperature measurement) rather than a diagnostic accuracy study requiring expert adjudication of ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. This type of performance testing (temperature measurement) does not involve adjudication.

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

• No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document does not describe a study involving human readers or comparative effectiveness with or without AI assistance. This device is a therapeutic lamp, not a diagnostic imaging AI system.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• No, a standalone performance study in the context of an algorithm's diagnostic accuracy was not done. This device is a physical therapeutic device, not an algorithm. The "clinical testing" described focuses on the device's physical performance (temperature generation).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for the performance "study" was the actual measured temperature of the skin using an IR camera, confirming the device's ability to achieve and maintain a specific temperature range. This is a direct physical measurement, not an expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the usual sense of a diagnostic or therapeutic clinical trial.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is a hardware product, and the described "testing" is a physical performance verification. There is no mention of a machine learning algorithm requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set for an algorithm, this question is not relevant to the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device