Search Results

The Venus Versa System is a multi-application device intended to be used in aesthetic procedures. The SR515 and SR580 IPL applicators are indicated for the following:

Treatment of benign pigmented epidermal and cutaneous lesions including: hyperpigmentation, melasma, ephelides (freckles), lentigines, nevi, and cafe-au-lait macules.

Treatment of benign cutaneous vascular lesions including port wine stains, hemangiomas, facial, truncal and leg telangiectasias, rosacea, angiomas, poikiloderma of civatte, leg veins and venous malformations.

The HR650, HR690, HR650XL, and HR690XL IPL applicators are indicated for the removal of unwanted hair and to effect stable long-term or permanent hair reduction for skin types I-IV. Permanent hair reduction is defined as the longterm stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing when measured at 6, 9, and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regimen.

The Venus Concept ACDUAL applicator is intended to be used for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

The Diamondpolar and Octipolar applicators are non-invasive devices intended for use in dermatologic and general surgery procedures for the non-invasive treatment of moderate to severe facial wrinkles and rtides in Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV.

The Viva applicator is intended for dermatological procedures requiring ablation and resurfacing of the skin.

The Venus Versa System is comprised of a console (controller/CPU) and ten detachable handpieces (applicators). The system can deliver three types of energies to the patient's skin using the associated applicators:

• Intense Pulsed Light (IPL); ●
• Radiofrequency (RF); .
• Magnetic Pulse (MP2). .

The following ten handpieces are included with the device system: SR515, SR580, HR650, HR690, HR650XL, HR690XL, ACDUAL, Diamondpolar, Octipolar, and Viva.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Venus Versa System. This type of submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific clinical acceptance criteria through a standalone study with a predefined ground truth and expert adjudication. Therefore, much of the requested information (like specific acceptance criteria based on clinical efficacy, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert qualifications, or MRMC comparative effectiveness studies) is not typically found or required in a 510(k) summary for this class of device and type of submission.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and bench testing (system verification testing) rather than clinical performance data against specific endpoints.

Here's an analysis of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria described are largely related to technical specifications and safety, not clinical efficacy. The reported performance refers to the device meeting these technical specifications.

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

The document does not describe "test sets" in the context of clinical data for performance evaluation. The "testing" mentioned refers to engineering and safety verification on the device itself. Therefore, specific sample sizes for clinical test sets or data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) are not applicable to the information provided for this 510(k) submission.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes technical verification and safety testing, not clinical studies requiring expert-established ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a clinical test set requiring adjudication.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and safety (bench testing), not comparative clinical efficacy with human readers.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop)

This information is not applicable as the Venus Versa System is a physical device (multi-application aesthetic system), not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its operation, not an "algorithm only" in the sense of AI.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation described would be engineering and manufacturing specifications/standards. For example, the "truth" for fluence measurement is the expected fluence value, and the "truth" for biocompatibility is conformance to ISO 10993-5. There is no clinical or pathological "ground truth" established from patient data mentioned in this submission for proving performance.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as the device is a physical system, not a machine learning model.

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

This information is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

Summary of Device Acceptance and Study:

The Venus Versa System gained acceptance (clearance) through the 510(k) pathway by demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. The "study" proving this involves:

• Comparison of Technical Characteristics: Showing that the Venus Versa System's intended use, indications for use, technological characteristics (energy type, IPL spectrum, frequency, spot size, pulse duration, energy density), and principles of operation are similar to its predicate devices, with minor differences that do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.
• Bench Testing / System Verification: Conducting a series of engineering, safety, and performance evaluations on the device itself. This included:
  • Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) testing.
  • Electrical Safety testing.
  • Biocompatibility testing of patient-contacting materials.
  • Validation of cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization parameters.
  • Software validation.
  • Specific system verification for each applicator type (IPL, Bipolar RF & PMF, Fractional RF) to ensure measured outputs (e.g., fluence, RF voltage, output power, temperature) met predefined technical specifications and expected values.

In essence, the "acceptance criteria" were regulatory requirements for safety and performance equivalence to predicate devices, and the "study" was a combination of documentation outlining feature similarity and rigorous engineering verification testing. Clinical efficacy for specific indications, while implied by equivalence to predicates, was not proven through new clinical trials with patient cohorts described in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Venus Versa System is a multi-application device intended to be used in aesthetic procedures.

The SR515 and SR580 IPL applicators are indicated for the following:

· Treatment of benign pigmented epidermal and cutaneous lesions including: hyperpigmentation, melasma, ephelides (freckles), lentigines, nevi, and cafe-au-lait macules.

· Treatment of benign cutaneous vascular lesions including: port wine stains, hemangiomas, facial, truncal and leg telangiectasias, rosacea, angiomas, poikiloderma of civatte, leg veins and venous malformations. The HR650 and HR690 IPL applicators are indicated for the removal of unwanted hair and to effect stable long-term or permanent hair reduction for skin types I-IV. Permanent hair reduction is the long-term stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing when measured at 6, 9, and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regimen.

The Venus Versa System is comprised of a console (controller/CPU) and applicators that deliver Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) optical energy to the treatment area. Four IPL handpieces (SR515, SR580, HR650, HR690) are included with the device system. The Versa device provides individual adjustment of light fluency and pulse duration, and has integrated skin cooling features. Using the IPL applicators, the light energy delivered to the patient's skin is used to treat various conditions via the mechanism of selective photothermolysis.

The provided text is related to a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Venus Versa System", an Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) device used in aesthetic procedures. This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than providing a detailed clinical study report with acceptance criteria and performance metrics for a specific AI/ML medical device.

Therefore, I cannot fully address your request to "Describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of an AI/ML device, as this document does not contain that type of information. Specifically, it does not include:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML model.
• Sample sizes for test sets used for AI/ML model validation.
• Information about data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for AI/ML data.
• Number of experts and their qualifications for establishing ground truth for AI/ML test sets.
• Adjudication methods for AI/ML test sets.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies for AI+human vs. human-only.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance metrics for AI/ML.
• Type of ground truth used for AI/ML (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for training sets for an AI/ML model.
• How ground truth for a training set was established for an AI/ML model.

However, based on the provided text, I can infer some aspects related to general device performance and regulatory acceptance for a non-AI/ML device.

The document describes the regulatory review for the Venus Versa System, focusing on its substantial equivalence to predicate IPL devices. The "performance data" mentioned is primarily related to engineering and safety standards, rather than clinical efficacy studies with specific acceptance criteria for diagnostic or therapeutic accuracy in the way an AI/ML device would be evaluated.

Here's what can be extracted from the document regarding performance and "acceptance":

General Device Performance and Acceptance (as presented in this document for a non-AI/ML device):

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by compliance with recognized standards and the demonstration that the device's technological characteristics and performance are "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, and that it "performs as intended for the indicated uses."

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred from the document for this non-AI/ML device):

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

• Not Applicable / Not provided for clinical performance: This document does not describe a clinical study with a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML model for accuracy evaluation. The "testing" mentioned refers to engineering and safety compliance tests, and the "sample size" for such tests is typically governed by engineering standards (e.g., number of units tested for electrical safety or energy output consistency).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable.

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

• Not Applicable: This document does not describe the establishment of ground truth for a clinical test set as would be done for an AI/ML device.

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

• Not Applicable: This document does not describe this type of clinical adjudication process.

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 an IPL system, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool.

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

• Not Applicable: There is no AI algorithm being evaluated for standalone performance.

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

• Not Applicable: As there is no AI/ML model here, there is no need for this type of clinical "ground truth." The "ground truth" for the engineering tests would be the established specifications and regulatory standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set mentioned.

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

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set ground truth to establish.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter and summary for a non-AI/ML medical device (IPL system). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through technological comparison and compliance with engineering and safety standards, rather than clinical performance based on AI model evaluation and ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Multifunctional Series device (inclusive of the handpiece used to deliver pulsed-light energy) are indicated for use in surgical, aesthetic and cosmetic applications in hair removal, moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris, and benign cutaneous vascular lesions.

The Multifunctional Series device are intense pulsed light system which delivers intense pulsed light at a wavelength ranging from 530nm-1200nm. Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) systems work on the principles of selective thermolysis. That is, causing thermal damage to target chromophores by using light of appropriate wavelength in pulses that exceeds the chromophores" thermal relaxation time but sparing normal skin by limiting the pulse width below the thermal relaxation time for skin. IPL. Systems are different from lasers in that they deliver many wavelengths in each pulse of light instead of just one wavelength. Generally, IPL enhances penctration without using excessive energy levels and enables targeting of specific chromophores. Based on this, The Multifunctional Series device (inclusive of the handpiece used to deliver pulsed-light energy) are indicated for use in surgical, aesthetic applications in hair removal, acne, and blood vessel lesions. The proposed device includes four models as Aeslight-S3D, HONKON-S3C. HONKON-M40e+ and HONKON-M80e+.

The provided 510(k) summary (K131859) describes a Substantial Equivalence (SE) determination for the Multifunctional Series IPL device. This type of submission relies on comparing the new device to existing legally marketed predicate devices rather than conducting new clinical studies to prove efficacy and safety from scratch.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and supporting evidence:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this 510(k) submission are based on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices. This means that the proposed device must be as safe and effective as the predicate device(s) and have similar technological characteristics and intended use. The "acceptance criteria" are therefore represented by the characteristics of the predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is the specification of the proposed device, which is considered acceptable if it falls within a similar range or has slight differences that do not affect safety or effectiveness.

Below is a combined table summarizing the key performance parameters of the proposed device (Multifunctional Series) and its two primary predicate devices (Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) Systems (K122995) and IPULSELIGHT IPL SYSTEM (K093627)). The "Remark" column indicates if the characteristic is considered "Substantially Equivalent" (SE) or subject to "Analysis," which then details why the difference is deemed acceptable.

Table 1: Multifunctional Series Device Performance vs. Predicate Devices

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

This is a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence, not a de novo clinical study for device performance validation. Therefore, there is no specific "test set sample size" as would be associated with a typical clinical trial evaluating a new device's performance. The study described is a "Bench Test" outlined in item 7: "Bench tests were conducted to verify that the proposed device met all design specifications as was Substantially Equivalent (SE) to the predicate device."

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of a clinical test set. The "samples" would be the device itself and its components tested against design specifications and international standards.
• Data Provenance: The bench tests were conducted by the manufacturer, Beijing Honkon Technologies Co., Ltd., which is based in Beijing, P.R. China. The data would be considered retrospective in the sense that it's a comparison to already approved predicate devices and adherence to established standards rather than data from a prospective clinical trial.

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

Since there was no clinical "test set" in the traditional sense as part of this 510(k) submission, no experts were explicitly used to establish ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for proving substantial equivalence lies in the established safety and effectiveness profiles of the legally marketed predicate devices and the international standards (IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2) that the proposed device complies with.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As noted above, there was no clinical test set requiring expert adjudication for establishing ground truth. The "adjudication" in a 510(k) process is the review by the FDA to determine if substantial equivalence has been demonstrated.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically used for diagnostic devices or those requiring human interpretation of results, and it's not a standard requirement for IPL devices seeking 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence to existing devices for aesthetic applications. Therefore, there is no reported effect size for how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This device is an Intense Pulsed Light system, a physical medical device, not a software algorithm. Therefore, "algorithm only" performance is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this 510(k) submission is established by:

• Predicate Device Equivalence: The safety and effectiveness established for the legally marketed predicate devices (K122995 and K093627). The proposed device is deemed substantially equivalent because its technological characteristics and intended use are highly similar, and any minor differences are argued not to affect safety or effectiveness.
• Compliance with International Standards: Adherence to recognized consensus standards for medical electrical equipment (IEC 60601-1 and IEC 60601-1-2). These standards provide a benchmark for fundamental safety and essential performance.

In essence, the "ground truth" is that the predicate devices are safe and effective, and the new device is sufficiently similar to share that "truth."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set. The submission is for a physical IPL device based on established technology.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set, there is no ground truth established for one.

Ask a specific question about this device