Search Results

The Aerin Console is an electrosurgical system intended to generate radiofrequency electrical current for the use of an Aerin Medical Stylus. The Aerin Console is indicated for use in small clinic, office or hospital environments.

The Aerin Console is a radio-frequency (RF) generator designed to be used with an Aerin Medical Stylus (RhinAer Stylus, K221907 and VivAer, K200300) to deliver bipolar RF energy to tissue. The Aerin Console consists of an RF generator, a power cord, and a foot switch. It incorporates user interface software to control, monitor and regulate RF power delivery to soft tissues via a cable-connected electrosurgical hand piece and electrode.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the "Aerin Console." A 510(k) submission generally focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and performance studies like those typically seen for novel AI/ML devices or those requiring clinical studies.

Based on the provided text, there is no information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria related to AI/ML or diagnostic accuracy. The device is an electrosurgical system (RF generator), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The document states:

• "Clinical testing was not necessary for this device."
• The comparison focuses on technological characteristics (design, energy type, temperature, power, stylus compatibility) to a predicate device.
• The non-clinical tests listed are for electrical safety, EMC, software validation (IEC 62304), and device security (IEC 81001-5-1). These are related to the hardware and software's safe operation, not its performance in a diagnostic or AI-assisted task.

Therefore, most of the requested information (points 1-9) which pertain to the performance evaluation of a diagnostic device, especially one involving AI/ML and human interpretative performance, cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract the relevant information from the document as it applies to the device described:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria (Implicitly based on comparison to predicate and safety standards):
     • Compliance with electrical safety, EMC, software validation, and device security standards.
     • Performance characteristics (design, energy type, temperature range, output power, stylus compatibility) substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
   • Reported Device Performance (from "Summary of non-clinical test"):
     • Complies with:
       • ISO 60601-1 (Electrical Safety)
       • ISO 60601-1-2 (EMC)
       • IEC 60601-4-2 (EMC)
       • 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B (FCC, unintentional radiators)
       • 47 CFR Part 27 (FCC, wireless (likely related to EMC, but could imply wireless comms are part of device))
       • IEC 62304 (Software validation)
       • IEC 81001-5-1 (Device Security)

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML diagnostic device, and no test set in the context of diagnostic performance (e.g., images for classification) is mentioned. The "tests" refer to compliance with engineering standards.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for diagnostic purposes is not established for this device.

4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No, explicitly stated "Clinical testing was not necessary for this device."

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a hardware device with controlling software, not a standalone algorithm for diagnostic interpretation.

7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable for diagnostic performance. Ground truth for engineering tests (e.g., electrical safety) is defined by the standards themselves.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not use a training set for machine learning.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission for an electrosurgical generator, focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards for hardware and control software. It does not contain the kind of information typically associated with the performance evaluation of AI/ML diagnostic devices.

Ask a specific question about this device