Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Devices And Aesthetics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers decision on 'Avagon Pro' body‑sculpting device for aesthetics; legal staff recommends formal advisory opinion
Summary
Board discussion flagged a multi‑mode body‑sculpting and facial rejuvenation device as likely outside the board's scope for body treatments and recommended a formal 'public advisory' request for a written opinion to protect consumers and the board.
The Cosmetology and Barber Examiners Board discussed a licensee’s inquiry about a multi‑technology device (described in materials as the Avagon Pro) that combines cavitation, radio‑frequency (bipolar and tripolar RF), vacuum therapy and infrared light for body sculpting and facial rejuvenation. Board legal counsel and members agreed a decision requires more research; they suggested the licensee may request a formal advisory (public opinion) from the department for a documented legal response.
What the board heard Legal counsel summarized the device as a “5‑in‑1” system whose handpieces are designed for both body‑contouring (fat breakdown/cavitation) and facial tightening (radio frequency). Counsel noted that body treatments intended to break down adipose tissue occur below the top layers of the skin and are commonly regulated as medical interventions in many jurisdictions. The board’s regulatory authority covers services limited to the epidermis/dermis (skin surface and superficial layers) and not procedures targeting subcutaneous fat.
Board concerns and discussion Board members said the facial RF components (tri‑ or bipolar RF) sounded more closely aligned to licensed aesthetics work when the treatment is noninvasive and limited to skin tightening in the dermis. However, the panel agreed that cavitation and other modalities targeting adipose tissue likely fall outside a cosmetology/aesthetics license and may be better categorized under medical/regulatory oversight (for example by nurses, physician assistants, or medical boards) in many cases.
Legal options and next steps Counsel advised that the board could issue a general, cautious response on the record but recommended the licensee file a formal advisory‑opinion request (a public opinion request through the department). That process would trigger deeper legal and technical review, produce an official memo, and carry a fee to cover the department’s research; it would also give the board stronger legal protection if the device’s manufacturer or subsequent events raise follow‑up questions.
No regulatory change was adopted at the meeting. The board did not approve the device for use by aestheticians at this time and encouraged the inquiring licensee to pursue the formal advisory option if a definitive, documented determination is required.
Ending Board staff said they would share the conversation’s summary with the licensee and that a formal advisory opinion is the recommended route for a binding departmental response.
