Search Results

The Medical RF is a non-invasive device intended for use in Dermatologic and General Surgical non-invasive treatment procedures of wrinkles and rhytides for I to IV Fitzpatrick Skin Types

The Medical RF is a non-invasive device intended for use in Dermatologic and General Surgical non-invasive treatment procedures of wrinkles and rhytides for I to IV Fitzpatrick Skin Types. The mechanism of action of the Subject Device involves the delivery of thermal energy to the subcutaneous tissue and the deep dermis. The Device utilizes the electromagnetic waves originated from two poles: a single electrode on the handpiece that contacts the skin and a grounding reference plate (monopolar RF), or two electrodes of the handpiece placed over the treatment area (bipolar RF). Medical RF is equipped with three types of handpieces: Two monopolar handpieces (small and medium) and one bipolar handpiece; all of them contain a sensor temperature used by the DTC (Derma Temperature Control) technology. The DTC is an innovative system that instantly detects the temperature of the skin and regulates the power emissions to maintain (at the same value) the transferred temperature of RF during the treatment. The DTC system allows the operator to know the real-time temperature of the skin surface, there is no further need to manually regulate the power according to the temperature changes during the treatment session. DTC technology ensures the safety and effective functioning of the Subject Device. The user always knows the real-time temperature on the skin during the treatment and does not have to manually change the power emissions in relation to the patient's perception of heat, thereby improving the efficacy of the treatment. The Subject Device is recommended to be used by trained and qualified personnel only and includes a dedicated software (interface RS-232), installed by the manufacturer in the device's memory.

I am unable to provide a comprehensive answer to your request because the provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (Medical RF) and states that "Results of the clinical testing demonstrated that the Subject Device is safe and effective for its intended use." However, the document does NOT contain a table of acceptance criteria, nor does it explicitly detail the study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the format you've requested.

Here's what I can extract from the provided text and why I cannot complete the table or provide all the requested details of a study that proves device meets criteria:

Device: Medical RF

Intended Use: Non-invasive device intended for use in Dermatologic and General Surgical non-invasive treatment procedures of wrinkles and rhytides for I to IV Fitzpatrick Skin Types.

What the document does describe related to performance (but not as formal acceptance criteria table):

• Clinical Evaluation: A clinical study was conducted.
• Success Metric: "Any wrinkle score improvement (downgrade score >1) following the last treatment and at the follow-up visit, relative to pre-treatment wrinkle (baseline) score, was considered a success."
• Result: "Analysis of photographic results reveals improvements in facial wrinkles (downgrade of at least 1 score, according to the Fitzpatrick scale) in all (100%) patients according to the clinical assessment."
• Statistical Significance: "Score differences were found to be statistically significant while comparing baseline scores to the scores obtained at the end of treatment (p<0.05) and at the follow-up visit (p<0.05), thus confirming the treatment efficacy."
• Safety: "The study revealed no adverse events during the follow up of 4 to 6 months after the conclusion of the treatment." and "Almost all patients marked the pain level with a 0 or 1 score, which corresponds to a slight sensation of discomfort and/or pain." and "The results obtained showed improvement in the appearance of wrinkles. The study confirms that treatment using the Medical RF system is safe and effective for the improvement of wrinkles and rhytides."

Based on the provided text, I cannot generate the requested table of acceptance criteria or fully address all aspects of the study that proves the device meets them because this information is not present in the document. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, supported by clinical performance results.

Here's what I can provide based on the given text, and what is explicitly missing:

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

Missing: The document does not explicitly state these as pre-defined "acceptance criteria" with specific numerical targets (e.g., "minimum 80% of patients must show wrinkle improvement"). Instead, it reports the observed performance and concludes efficacy and safety.

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

• Sample Size: 40 samples (two samples from each of the 20 patients).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). It is a clinical evaluation of the device.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Implied prospective as it's a "clinical evaluation" conducted to gather performance data for the submission.

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

• Number of Experts/Physicians: Two physicians.
• Qualifications: Not explicitly stated beyond "physicians."

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

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated. The assessment was done "by the doctors, following the examination of the treated areas and the related photos." It does not mention a consensus or adjudication process if their assessments differed.

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

• MRMC Study: No. This device is a treatment device (Medical RF), not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging device. The clinical study described evaluates the device's effect on wrinkles, not human reader performance.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable. This is a medical device for treatment, not an algorithm, and it requires clinical application by trained personnel. While it has an internal "DTC system" (Derma Temperature Control), the "standalone" concept as applied to AI algorithms doesn't fit here.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Expertise-based assessment using standardized scales:
  • Wrinkle assessment: "Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Assessment (for I to IV Fitzpatrick Skin Types) or Glogau scale."
  • Assessment performed by "the doctors" based on examination and "related photos, before and after treatments."
  • Pain assessment: Patient self-reported on a "0 to 4 scale."
  • Side effects: "visually assessing skin responses."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable/Not provided. This is a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm whose performance depends on a training set. The device has internal software, but the document does not describe "training" in the context of machine learning.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable/Not provided (as per point 8).

In summary, the provided document focuses on the safety and effectiveness of a non-invasive RF device for wrinkle treatment, demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on its technological characteristics and a clinical study. It does not provide the kind of detailed AI/ML model validation information you've requested.

Ask a specific question about this device