Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(272 days)
LightLas 577/670 is an ophthalmic laser instrument intended for use by ophthalmologists. The 577 mm wavelength laser is indicated for retinal and pan-retinal photocoagulation. endophotocoagulation, macular photocoagulation to treat leaking vessels. and laser trabeculoplasty. The 670 mm wavelength laser is indicated for retinal and pan-retinal photocoagulation.
LightLas577/670 Multi-Wavelength Medical Laser System consists of a Laser Console where the Laser is housed along with the Electronic Control system and Power Supplies and various Laser Delivery Units (LDU's). The LDU's include: Slitlamp Integrated into CSO model SL980. (K992836) . Sirilamp Attachment for CSO model SL990 (K992836) and other Haag Streit clones. . Sittlamp Attachment for Zeiss model SL30 Stitlamp (K862004) . Laser Indirect Ophthalmoscope (LIO) using a Heine Omega 500. (K123316) ● . Laser Indirect Ophthalmoscope (LIO) using a Keeler All pupil II (K854244) 0 . Endophotocoagulation Handpieces (K122905) The LightLas 577/670 Multi-Wavelength Medical Laser System may be used at either the 577 nm wavelength or the 670 nm wavelength. The 577 nm wavelength source can be delivered through both output ports (Ports 1 and 2) of the laser console, while the 670 mm wavelength source is delivered through Port 1 only. Users may choose either wavelength from a LCD touch screen, and only one output port and one wavelength may be selected for use at a time. Laser wavelength selection of the system is indicated on the panel and controlled by system software.
The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the LightLas577/670 Multi-Wavelength Medical Laser System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through technical comparison and compliance with recognized standards. It does not contain information about clinical studies with acceptance criteria or reported device performance in those terms.
Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance from this document.
However, based on the provided text, here's what I can extract regarding the study information (or lack thereof):
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
- Not applicable. The document does not describe specific acceptance criteria tied to clinical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) or present reported device performance against such criteria. The "Performance Data" section indicates compliance with recognized standards (IEC, ISO) and successful bench testing, which are engineering/safety criteria, not clinical performance metrics.
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
- No information provided. The document does not refer to a "test set" in the context of clinical data, nor does it mention sample sizes or data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The "test results" mentioned refer to bench testing.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:
- No information provided. Since no clinical test set is described, there's no mention of experts or expert consensus for ground truth.
4. Adjudication Method:
- No information provided. No clinical test set means no adjudication method is mentioned.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:
- No MRMC study was done or reported. The document does not mention any studies involving human readers, AI assistance, or comparative effectiveness.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:
- Not applicable. This device is a laser system, not an AI algorithm. "Standalone performance" as typically applied to algorithms is not relevant here.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used:
- Not applicable. For the bench testing mentioned, ground truth would be established by validated measurement equipment and engineering standards, not clinical outcomes or pathology.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set:
- Not applicable. This device is a laser system and does not involve AI models that require training sets.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:
- Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI model.
Summary of Device Evaluation from the Text:
The device's safety and effectiveness were evaluated through:
- Bench testing: This involved assembly, testing, calibration, and alignment of the laser console and delivery units. The results demonstrated compliance with specifications and requirements.
- Compliance with recognized consensus standards: IEC60601-1, IEC60601-1-1, IEC60601-1-2, IEC60825-1, IEC60601-1-4, IEC60601-2-22, and ISO14971.
The conclusion drawn from this evaluation was that the "LightLas 577/670 Multi-Wavelength Medical Laser System demonstrate that the device is as safe, as effective, and performs as well as the legally marketed device." This statement refers to demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device (K103547) based on technical characteristics, intended use, and compliance with general safety and performance standards for ophthalmic lasers, rather than presenting a clinical study with performance metrics against acceptance criteria.
Ask a specific question about this device
(88 days)
The Ceralas G is intended to be used as a surgical instrument for photocoagulation of ocular tissue as well as ablation of tissue of the iris and trabeculum. It is already cleared for photocoagulation of retinal tissue.
The Ceralas G is a complete self-contained compact surgical laser that utilizes a neodymium-doped vttrium aluminum garnet ("Nd:YAG") crystal. The Ceralas G has already been cleared by FDA (K954834) for use as a surgical instrument for photocoagulation of retinal tissue using a hand held fiber optic delivery system. The purpose of this submission is to extend the indications for use of the cleared laser to include photocoagulation of ocular tissue and ablation of tissue of the iris and trabeculum. As explained in this 510(k) notice, the Ceralas G can be attached using an adaptor provided by the Company, without hardware modification, to the Carl Zeiss (K874160 and K925641) or Haag-Streit (K792083) slit lamps, and to the Keeler indirect ophthalmoscopes (K854244 and K942104). No hardware changes have been made to the originally cleared Ceralas G laser. Only certain minor software modifications are required to use the slit lamp as a delivery system. Use of the Ceralas G laser with slit lamps and indirect ophthalmoscopes permits photocoagulation of ocular tissue and ablation of tissue of the iris and trabeculum with the Ceralas G laser. The CeramOptec fiber optic laser delivery system intended for use with the Ceralas G Nd:YAG Laser System has already received clearance from FDA (K935747).
1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Intended Use: Photocoagulation of ocular tissue and ablation of tissue of the iris and trabeculum. | The Ceralas G is cleared for these expanded indications for use. |
| Compatibility with Delivery Systems: Compatibility with Carl Zeiss and Haag-Streit slit lamps, and Keeler indirect ophthalmoscopes. | The Ceralas G can be attached to these slit lamps and indirect ophthalmoscopes using an adaptor, without hardware modification. Minor software modifications are required. |
| Similar Treatment Beam Wavelengths: Wavelength of 532 nm (for photocoagulation of ocular tissue). Wavelength within ~3 nm of predicate for ablation of iris/trabeculum. | For photocoagulation, the Ceralas G operates at 532 nm, similar to Biovision and Zeiss Lasers. For iris/trabeculum ablation, the Ceralas G operates at 532 nm, which is within 3 nm of the HGM Laser's largest line at 514 nm (within its 488-529 nm range). |
| Similar Treatment Beam Power Outputs: Power outputs in ranges comparable to predicate devices. | For photocoagulation, Ceralas G provides 0.1 - 3 W, similar to Biovision (0.1 - 3 W), Zeiss (0.1 - 1 W), and Coherent (0.1 - 4 W Argon, 0.05 - 170 W Dye). For iris/trabeculum ablation, Ceralas G provides 0.1 - 3 W, similar to HGM (0.1 - 1 W). |
| Similar Pulsed Mode Exposure Duration: Exposure durations in ranges comparable to predicate devices. | Ceralas G has a pulsed mode exposure duration of 0.1 - 1 sec. This is comparable to Biovision (0.01 - 3 sec), Zeiss (0.01 - 0.5 sec), Coherent (0.01 - 5 sec), and HGM (0.01 - 0.5 sec). |
| Safety and Effectiveness (Clinical Equivalence): No new issues of safety or effectiveness raised by differences in technical characteristics compared to predicate devices. | The submission argues that minor differences in wavelength and power do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns due to: 1) shared delivery systems, 2) close similarity to relevant predicates for specific applications, and 3) user manual instructions for safe power/exposure duration titration. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
This document does not describe a test set or data provenance in the context of a clinical study or performance evaluation with human subjects or real-world data. The submission focuses on technical equivalence by comparing the Ceralas G's specifications and intended use to existing predicate devices.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:
Not applicable. No ground truth was established by experts for a test set in this submission. The "ground truth" here is the established safety and effectiveness of the existing predicate devices.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
Not applicable. No test set requiring expert adjudication is described.
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/software device and no MRMC study was performed.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. This is a laser device, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used:
The "ground truth" used in this 510(k) submission is the established safety and effectiveness of the identified predicate devices. The argument for substantial equivalence relies on demonstrating that the Ceralas G operates with similar technical characteristics and has the same intended use as these legally marketed devices, and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:
Not applicable. This document describes a medical device, not a machine learning algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set."
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:
Not applicable. As there is no training set for a machine learning algorithm, there is no ground truth to be established for it.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1