Search Results

RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece of RFMagik are intended for use in dermatologic and general surgical procedures for electrocoagulation and hemostasis.

RFMagik is a medical device combined with RF current, to function as an electrosurgical device for use in dermatology and general surgical procedures. It is possible to select and change modes, parameters, outputs, etc. using the panel on the main body. It consists of the main device, LCD screen, two handpieces, single use electrodes, electrode pad, NE pad cable, food switch.

There are three handpieces. RO handpiece, AGNES (F) RF handpiece and AGNES (B) RF handpiece that delivers RF energy through the disposable electrode in the handpiece.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for an RF Electrosurgical Device (RFMagik). It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance results, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, or clinical study details. The section on "Clinical Testing" explicitly states: "Clinical testing is not a requirement and has not been performed."

The document focuses on:

• Regulatory details: Device classification, product codes, indications for use.
• Technological comparison: Detailed comparison of the subject device (RFMagik) with a primary predicate device (RFMagik Lite) and a reference device (AGNES). This comparison highlights similarities and differences in handpieces, electrodes, output power, etc., and explains why these differences do not affect substantial equivalence.
• Non-clinical testing: Biocompatibility, sterility, shelf-life, and performance bench testing. An "Ex Vivo Study" was conducted on tissue types (liver, skin, muscle) for thermal testing.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for the test set, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC study details, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, or how training ground truth was established. This information is typically found in specific study reports or sections of a 510(k) submission that go beyond what is published in the clearance letter itself.

The document indicates that the substantial equivalence was primarily demonstrated through bench testing and comparison to predicate devices, rather than clinical trials or extensive human-in-the-loop performance studies.

Summary of what CANNOT be provided from the given document:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: Not present.
2. Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No clinical test set. Ex vivo study mentioned, but specific sample sizes are not detailed.
3. Number of experts and qualifications for ground truth: Not applicable as no clinical study with expert ground truth review was performed.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not conducted.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable as this is a physical electrosurgical device, not an AI algorithm.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not applicable for a clinical study. Ex vivo study used physical tissue, but no "ground truth" akin to medical image labeling.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable as there is no mention of an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device