Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K193446
    Device Name
    Bare: 808
    Date Cleared
    2020-03-10

    (89 days)

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

    K170626

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

    The hair removal single (HRS) and hair removal moving (HRM) mode are intended for permanent reduction in hair regrowth defined as long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing when measured at 6,9, and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regimen. Use on all skin types (Fitzpatrick I-VI) including tanned skin.

    Device Description

    The Bare : 808 Laser is a microprocessor-controlled, user friendly, sealed diode laser system that produces a wavelength of 808nm with a maximum energy of 120Jcm2. The system incorporates a diode laser within each hand piece, and the energy is delivered from the hand piece directly to the desired target. The Bare: 808 Laser consists of a console, a touch screen user interface, a footswitch and 1 handpiece.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) Summary for the Bare: 808 Laser System (K193446), a device intended for permanent hair reduction.

    Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the study:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

    The document explicitly states that a human clinical study was not required because the device is considered substantially equivalent to predicate devices. Therefore, there is no direct table of acceptance criteria for diagnostic/performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity) derived from a clinical study for the Bare: 808 device itself.

    Instead, the "Performance Data" section lists compliance with relevant IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standards for electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility as the acceptance criteria for these aspects. The reported performance is that the device was tested and complied with these standards.

    Acceptance Criteria (Performance Data)Reported Device Performance
    IEC 60601-1:2005 (Third Edition) + CORR.1:2006 + CORR.2:2007 + A1:2012 (or IEC 60601-1:2012 reprint): Test for Medical Electrical equipment was performed for General Requirements for basic safety and essential performance.Complied
    IEC 60601-1-2:2014, EN 60601-1-2:2015 Test for Medical Equipment for General Requirements for basic safety and essential performance: electromagnetic compatibilityComplied
    IEC 60601-2-22:2007 + A1:2012: Test for Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of surgical, cosmetic, therapeutic and diagnostic laser equipmentComplied

    For its intended use and indications for use, the acceptance criterion implicitly is substantial equivalence to the predicate device (Soprano Ice K140009), meaning it performs as safely and effectively. The document provides a comparison table of technical specifications between the Bare: 808 and the predicate device to demonstrate this equivalence, rather than a direct performance metric.

    CharacteristicBare : 808 (K193446)Soprano Ice (K140009)**Conclusion of Equivalence
    Intended UseSame as predicateSubstantially equivalent
    Indication for UseSame as predicateSubstantially equivalent
    Wavelength (nm)808810Similar
    Laser MediaSolid StateSolid StateSimilar
    ModesHRS, HRMHR, SHRSimilar
    Energy Density (Fluence)2-120 (HRS), 2-20 (HRM)2-120 (HR), 2-20 (SHR)Similar
    Spot Size (mm)14 x 1412 x 10, 20 x 10Similar
    Pulse Width (msec)15-400 (HRS), 15-266 (HRM)5-200Similar
    Repetition Rate (Hz)3-103-10Similar
    Delivery DevicesNonsterile, Reusable, cleanableNonsterile, Reusable, cleanableSimilar

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

    • No clinical test set was used for the K193446 submission. The document states: "A human clinical study was not required as the device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."
    • Data provenance for a clinical test set is therefore not applicable to this submission. The performance data provided is related to engineering and safety standards compliance.

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

    • Not applicable, as no clinical test set was required or used.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set:

    • Not applicable, as no clinical test set was required or used.

    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:

    • No MRMC study was done, as this device is a laser system for hair removal, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

    • Not applicable, as this device is a laser system, not an algorithm.

    7. The type of ground truth used:

    • The "ground truth" for this submission primarily relies on compliance with established international safety and performance standards (IEC) for medical electrical equipment and laser devices, as well as the technical specifications and intended use of a legally marketed predicate device to establish substantial equivalence.

    8. The sample size for the training set:

    • Not applicable, as this is a hardware laser device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set in the typical sense. Any internal development or testing would relate to engineering validation, not an AI training set.

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

    • Not applicable, as it's not an AI/ML device requiring a training set with established ground truth.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1