Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(459 days)
The LIPOcel delivers High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) energy that can disrupt the Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue (SAT) to provide a non-invasive approach to achieve a desired aesthetic effect. The LIPOcel is specifically indicated for non-invasive waist circumference reduction.
LIPOcel, the Subject Device, is a medical device indicated for non-invasive waist circumference reduction. It consists of a control unit, Touch LCD monitor, power supply unit, and driver unit for irradiation and for setting parameters after the main power and key switch is turned on. The ultrasound energy that is generated from the pulse generator operates the HIFU transducer, and is irradiated from the cartridge when the footswitch or the finger switch on the handpiece is pressed in the READY state and the energy is delivered into the target tissue. HIFU energy is irradiated based on linear scanning method through the hand-piece depending on irradiation energy, irradiation spacing and irradiation distance, that are set in advance by the user. The Subject Device's L13 Cartridge uses the focused ultrasound energy to focus from the transducer onto the fat layer at a depth of 13mm from the surface of the skin. As a result, tissue temperature rises over 55°C and thermal coagulation occurs. Using thermal effects generated by the HIFU transducer, cellular disruption of the subcutaneous adipose tissue occurs. This thermal coagulation results in the contraction of the collagen and subsequently results in destruction of the adipose tissue. The destroyed adipose tissue is cleared via an inflammatory response.
Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the acceptance criteria and study details:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document describes the device's performance in terms of waist circumference reduction. It does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in a quantitative format for the primary effectiveness endpoint (waist circumference reduction). However, it reports the study outcome, which implicitly serves as the performance achieved.
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Significant waist circumference reduction | Mean waist circumference reduction of 3.05 ± 5.95 cm (p<0.0001) from baseline at 12 weeks follow-up. |
| Acceptable safety profile | Adverse events reported: erythema, ecchymosis, and dysesthesia. All resolved during the course of the study without treatment. No serious adverse events (SAEs) or unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs) related to treatment. |
| Acceptable patient tolerance | Mean pain score for the treated population was 7.35. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
- Test Set Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the number of subjects in the clinical study. It refers to "the subjects" and "the treated population" but doesn't give a specific 'n'.
- Data Provenance: Prospective, single-center study conducted at UltraLaser Center, Monterrey, Mexico.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications:
The document describes a clinical study for waist circumference reduction, which uses objective physical measurements (waist circumference) as the primary endpoint. This generally does not involve "experts" establishing a subjective ground truth in the same way an imaging study would require radiologists. The measurements would typically be taken by trained clinical staff. No specific number of experts or their qualifications are mentioned for establishing the ground truth of waist circumference measurements.
4. Adjudication Method (for the test set):
Since the primary endpoint is waist circumference reduction, which is an objective measurement, an adjudication method for subjective interpretation (like 2+1 or 3+1 for imaging reads) is not applicable or described. Data collection and analysis would follow standard clinical trial protocols.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study described is a clinical trial evaluating the device's effectiveness in reducing waist circumference and its safety, not comparing human readers' performance with and without AI assistance.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
This question is not applicable to the LIPOcel device. The LIPOcel is a medical device that delivers High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) energy to disrupt subcutaneous adipose tissue for non-invasive waist circumference reduction. It is not an AI algorithm or software that performs diagnostic or interpretive tasks. The study evaluates the physical device's direct therapeutic effect on patients.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:
The ground truth used for effectiveness was objective physical measurements (waist circumference reduction) from patients treated with the device. Safety was assessed through the reporting of adverse events and participant pain scores.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:
This question is not applicable. The LIPOcel is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a "training set." The clinical study evaluated the device's performance directly on patients.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:
This question is not applicable, as there is no "training set" for an AI algorithm.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1