Search Results

Aesthetic body contouring

The MicroAire PAL® Aspiration System provides an adjustable vacuum source that drives the suction of tissue during suction-assisted aesthetic body contouring procedures. The PAL Aspiration System features a modular style PAL® Aspiration Pump (ASP-PUMP-120/240) unit with a separate, stackable PAL® Aspiration Pump Console (ASP-UI) which provides organizational modularity and ease of transport within the medical facility. Communication between the units is achieved via the Aspiration Pump Cable (ASP-CBL). The PAL Aspiration Pump utilizes a dual-piston pump as a vacuum source that delivers 0-29 inHg and drives the suction of tissue. The PAL Aspiration Pump also features a multi-socket outlet (MSO) to provide power to up to four devices using the AC Power Cord Jumper Cable (ASP-CORD), eliminating extra power cords for better cable organization. The PAL Aspiration Pump Console is an electronic control system which allows the operator to digitally set and visualize the vacuum level. It also provides the status of basic pump operations, sends the Pump's ON/OFF signal, and provides receptacles for the connection of the Aspiration Pump Cable and optional accessories. The Aspiration Foot Switch (ASP-FOOT) and the 5020 to Aspiration Pump Cable (5020-ASP) are optional accessories which provide the operator with additional Aspiration Pump ON/OFF control options. The PAL Aspiration Pump requires a Biofilter (ASP-FLTR2), which prevents the ingress of vapor particulate into the motor. The Biofilter is a non-sterile filter assembly with vacuum tubing placed on the vacuum inlet. Connection to a system of generic collection canisters (sold separately) is expected for the PAL Aspiration System to function as intended. Additional Vacuum Tubing (ASP-TUBING) can be used to replace existing Biofilter tubing as needed.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the MicroAire PAL® Aspiration System, which is a medical device. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way a clinical trial or algorithm validation study would for AI/ML devices.

Therefore, much of the requested information cannot be found in this type of regulatory submission. The device is a physical suction system, not an AI/ML device, which explains the absence of data related to AI/ML specific criteria.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing the points where information is available:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria alongside reported device performance in a quantitative manner for specific benchmarks. Instead, it states that "The PAL Aspiration System passed all non-clinical bench testing, supporting its safety and effectiveness, and its substantial equivalence to the predicate device."

It lists several voluntary consensus standards and FDA Guidance documents that the device complies with, which implicitly define the acceptance criteria for various aspects:

Note on "Maximum Vacuum" and "Maximum Flow Rate": While these are reported as characteristics in Table A, they are presented as comparative figures to the predicate device, not necessarily as acceptance criteria that were quantitatively "met" against a pre-defined threshold.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not applicable and not provided. The testing described is non-clinical bench testing of a physical device, not a study involving patient data or a "test set" in the context of AI/ML or clinical trials.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not applicable and not provided. As above, there is no "test set" requiring expert-established ground truth in the context of this device's non-clinical bench testing.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. The device is a suction lipoplasty system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or treatment system.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. The device is a physical system, not an algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. For non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" would be established by validated measurement equipment and adherence to engineering specifications and international standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not provided. There is no "training set" for this type of device.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PAL® Infiltration System is indicated for the purpose of aesthetic body contouring.

The MicroAire® Power Assisted Liposuction (PAL®) Infiltration System is a medical device intended for aesthetic body contouring. The PAL Infiltration System is a stand-alone peristaltic Infiltration Pump, with the ability to control ON/OFF function to the PAL Handpiece (sold separately), the Infiltration Pump, or a Foot Switch (INF-FOOT-1) depending on the doctor's preference.

The PAL® Infiltration System is comprised of the following components that are subject to this 510K:

• INF-PUMP PAL Infiltration Pump
• Accessories
  • o PAL-INF-1600 Infiltration Tubing
  • o PAL-INF-XXXXX Single-Use Infiltration Cannulas
  • o PAL-INF-RXXXXX Multi-Use Infiltration Cannula
  • o INF-CBL-5020, Infiltration Pump to 5020 Console Connector Cable
  • o INF-FOOT-1, Infiltration Foot Switch

The provided document is a 510(k) Pre-Market Notification for a medical device (MicroAire PAL Infiltration System). This type of submission focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving novel safety and effectiveness through clinical trials or performance studies with acceptance criteria in the typical sense of AI/algorithm performance.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design for proving device performance (especially related to AI/algorithms), sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, is not applicable to this type of regulatory submission.

The document describes engineering and biocompatibility testing, primarily against established standards, to demonstrate that the new device performs similarly and is as safe as its predicate. It does not involve AI, image analysis, or diagnostic/prognostic output that would require the typical performance study elements you've listed.

Here's a breakdown based on the document's content, explaining why your specific questions are not directly answerable in this context:

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

• Not Applicable in the AI/algorithmic sense. The "acceptance criteria" here are met through demonstrating compliance with recognized standards (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, IEC 60601 for electrical safety) and internal specifications for functional parameters (e.g., flow rate). The document states: "Results confirm that the design inputs and performance specifications for the device are met. The PAL Infiltration System passed the testing in accordance with internal requirements, national standards, and international standards shown below, supporting its safety and effectiveness, and its substantial equivalence to the predicate device."
• Reported Performance (Functional, not diagnostic):
  • Infiltration Pump Flow Rate: "meets internal specifications" (No specific numerical target or range is given in the public summary, only that it passed).
  • Biocompatibility: Passed Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Pyrogenicity, Acute Systemic Toxicity per ISO 10993-5, -10, -11, and USP .
  • Electrical Safety: Passed per IEC 60601-1.
  • Electromagnetic Disturbance (EMD) testing: Passed per IEC 60601-1-2.
  • Transportation Testing: "Demonstrates package integrity maintained" per ASTM D4169.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

• Not Applicable. This device is a mechanical pump and associated cannulas/tubing. Performance testing refers to engineering tests on a limited number of manufactured units or materials, not a "test set" of patient data for an algorithm. There is no patient data involved in these performance tests.

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

• Not Applicable. No "ground truth" in the clinical/interpretive sense is established as there's no AI or diagnostic component.

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

• Not Applicable. No clinical/interpretive test set or adjudication is relevant here.

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 is not an AI-assisted device.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI device.

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

• Not Applicable. No ground truth for clinical outcomes in this context. Performance is measured against engineering specifications and international standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. No training set, as there is no AI/machine learning component.

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

• Not Applicable. No training set or associated ground truth.

In summary: The provided document is a direct FDA 510(k) submission that demonstrates substantial equivalence for a physical medical device (an infiltration pump) through engineering and biocompatibility testing against established standards, not through AI/algorithm performance studies or clinical trials involving patient data analysis. Your questions are tailored for AI/ML device submissions, which is a different regulatory pathway and type of evidence.

Ask a specific question about this device