K180894 · Levita Magnetics International Corp · PNL · Sep 19, 2018 · General, Plastic Surgery
Device Facts
Record ID
K180894
Device Name
Magnetic Surgical System
Applicant
Levita Magnetics International Corp
Product Code
PNL · General, Plastic Surgery
Decision Date
Sep 19, 2018
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 878.4815
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Therapeutic, Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K180894 · Sep 19, 2018
Magnetic Surgical System
Levita Magnetics International Corp
Retrospective medical record/chart review
A retrospective study of 73 patients was used to support the safety and effectiveness of the device for liver retraction in bariatric procedures, supplementing prospective clinical data.
Magnetic Liver Retraction: An Incision-Less Approach for Less Invasive Bariatric Surgery; Retrospective single arm study; Follow-up/Duration: Mean follow-up: 2.2 months (range: 0.5-9 months); Study Period: October 2016 - August 2017
Patients undergoing bariatric procedures; Sample Size: 73; Number of Sites: 1
Not applicable for this study
Successful completion of laparoscopic bariatric surgery, mean operative times, intraoperative complications, morbidity and mortality
Indications for Use
To grasp, hold, retract, or manipulate soft tissue and organs.
Device Story
System comprises sterile, single-use Magnetic Grasper Device and non-sterile, reusable external Magnetic Controller. Grasper inserted via ≥10 mm laparoscopic port; jaws actuated via pistol-grip handle. Once attached to target tissue (gallbladder or liver), grasper detaches from delivery shaft. External Magnetic Controller placed on patient skin; magnetic field attracts/holds internal grasper to manipulate tissue. Used in OR by surgeons. Eliminates need for additional trocar/incision for traditional liver retractor. Benefits include reduced port technique, improved visualization, and access during bariatric/cholecystectomy procedures.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical data from two studies (n=103 total) supported expanded indications. Retrospective study (n=73) and prospective single-arm study (n=30) evaluated liver retraction in bariatric procedures. Primary endpoint: successful liver retraction without requiring additional instruments. Results: 100% success rate in achieving adequate exposure; no severe/serious device-related adverse events; no device failures/malfunctions. Mean BMI 41.5-43.6 kg/m2. Minor AEs (petechiae, abrasions) resolved without sequelae.
Technological Characteristics
System consists of hand-held Magnetic Grasper and external Magnetic Controller. Patient-contacting materials meet ISO 10993-1 biocompatibility. Principle of operation: magnetic attraction between internal grasper and external controller. No changes to magnetic field strength, materials, or design from predicate. Reusable controller; single-use grasper. No software/electronics.
Indications for Use
Indicated for grasping and retracting the gallbladder in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the liver in bariatric procedures to facilitate surgical site access/visualization. Indicated for patients with BMI 20-60 kg/m2.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A magnetic surgical instrument system is a prescription device used in laparoscopic surgical procedures consisting of several components, such as surgical instruments, and a magnetic controller. The magnetic controller is provided separately from the surgical instrument and is used outside the patient. The external magnetic controller is magnetically coupled with the internal surgical instrument(s) at the surgical site to grasp, hold, retract, mobilize, or manipulate soft tissue and organs.
Special Controls
In combination with the general controls of the FD&C Act, the Magnetic Surgical Instrument System is subject to the following special controls:
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) In vivo performance data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must demonstrate the ability of the device to grasp, hold, retract, mobilize, or manipulate soft tissue and organs.
(2) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the system performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
(i) Magnetic field strength testing characterization to identify the distances from the magnet that are safe for patients and users with ferromagnetic implants, devices, or objects.
(ii) Ability of the internal surgical instrument(s) to be coupled, de-coupled, and re-coupled with the external magnet over the external magnet use life.
(3) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(4) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device components that are patient-contacting.
(5) Methods and instructions for reprocessing reusable components must be validated.
(6) Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating continued sterility of the device or the sterile components and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
(7) Training must be developed and validated by human factors testing and analysis to ensure users can follow the instructions for use to allow safe use of the device.
(8) Labeling must include:
(i) Magnetic field safe zones.
(ii) Instructions for proper device use.
(iii) A screening checklist to ensure that all patients and operating staff are screened from bringing ferromagnetic implants, devices, or objects near the external magnet.
(iv) Reprocessing instructions for any reusable components.
(v) Shelf life.
(vi) Use life.
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On the left is the Department of Health & Human Services logo. To the right of that is the FDA logo, with the letters "FDA" in a blue square. To the right of the blue square is the text "U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION" in blue.
September 19, 2018
Levita Magnetics International Corp. % Cindy Domecus Principal, Domecus Consulting Services LLC Domecus Consulting Services LLC 1171 Barroilhet Drive Hillsborough, California 94010
Re: K180894
Trade/Device Name: Levita Magnetic Surgical System Regulation Number: 21 CFR 878.4815 Regulation Name: Magnetic Surgical Instrument System Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: PNL Dated: August 6, 2018 Received: August 7, 2018
# Dear Cindy Domecus:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. Although this letter refers to your product as a device, please be aware that some cleared products may instead be combination products. The 510(k) Premarket Notification Database located at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm identifies combination product submissions. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part
{1}------------------------------------------------
801); medical device reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803) for devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see https://www.fda.gov/CombinationProducts/GuidanceRegulatoryInformation/ucm597488.htm); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (OS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for devices or current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm.
For comprehensive regulatory information about mediation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/) and CDRH Learn (http://www.fda.gov/Training/CDRHLearn). Additionally, you may contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE) to ask a question about a specific regulatory topic. See the DICE website (http://www.fda.gov/DICE) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely,
# David-Krause -S
for Binita S. Ashar, M.D., M.B.A., F.A.C.S. Director Division of Surgical Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
#### DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration
## Indications for Use
Form Approved: OMB No. 0910-0120 Expiration Date: 06/30/2020 See PRA Statement below.
510(k) Number (if known)
#### K180894
Device Name
Magnetic Surgical System
#### Indications for Use (Describe)
The Magnetic Surgical System is designed to grasp and the fundus of the gallbladder in laparoscopic cholecystectorny procedures and the liver in bariatric procedures to facilitate access and visualization of the surgical site. The device is indicated for use in patients with a BMI range of 20-60 kg/m2.
Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable)
> Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D)
Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C)
#### CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
#### *DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW!*
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
> Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
{3}------------------------------------------------
## 510(k) Summary
This summary is being submitted in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR 807.92.
## 510(k) Owner Information:
Levita Magnetics International Corp. 1430 S. Amphlett Blvd, Suite 240 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: 650-241-0320 Fax: 650-241-1825
## Submission Correspondent:
Cindy Domecus, R.A.C. (US & EU) Principal, Domecus Consulting Services LLC Regulatory Consultant to Levita Magnetics Email: domecusconsulting@comcast.net Phone: (650) 343-4813
### Device Information:
| Trade Name: | Levita Magnetic Surgical System |
|---------------|-------------------------------------|
| Common Name: | Magnetic Surgical System |
| Regulation: | 21 CFR 878.4815 |
| Device Type: | Magnetic Surgical Instrument System |
| Device Class: | II |
| Product Code: | PNL |
### Predicate Device:
Levita Magnetic Surgical System, DEN150007 and K171429
### Date Prepared:
September 18, 2018
### Device Description:
The Levita Magnetic Surgical System is composed of two hand-held instruments, the Magnetic Grasper Device and external Magnetic Controller.
The Magnetic Grasper Device (sterile, single use), comprised of a distal Detachable Grasper attached to a Delivery/Retrieval shaft with Handle, is actuated via its pistol-grip Handle with two distinct scissor-type motions to open and close the Detachable Grasper jaws. Once the Magnetic Grasper Device is inserted
Levita Magnetics International Corp.
{4}------------------------------------------------
through a compatible ≥ 10 mm laparoscopic port and the Detachable Grasper is attached to the desired tissue, the Detachable Grasper can be detached from the Delivery/Retrieval Shaft and controlled externally using the Magnetic Controller. Traction of the tissue is maintained through the magnetic field attraction between the Detachable Grasper and the Magnetic Controller.
The Magnetic Controller (non-sterile, reusable) is a single unit with handles that is held external to the body and emits a magnetic field that attracts the Detachable Grasper. Once the Detachable Grasper is attached to the desired tissue and detached from the Delivery/Retrieval Shaft, the Magnetic Controller is placed external to the body to magnetically attract the Detachable Grasper to manipulate the target tissue. Adjusting the distance between the Magnetic Controller and the Detachable Grasper will modulate the magnetic attraction used for tissue retraction/mobilization. If desired, the user can connect the Magnetic Controller to a commercially available surgical support arm that is compatible with its arm mount.
# Indications for Use:
The Magnetic Surgical System is designed to grasp and retract the body and the fundus of the gallbladder in laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures and the liver in bariatric procedures to facilitate access and visualization of the surgical site. The device is indicated for use in patients with a BMI range of 20-60 kg/m².
# Comparison of Intended Use, Indications for Use and Technological Characteristics with the Predicate Device:
The subject and the predicate devices are identical as magnetic surgical instrument systems used to grasp, hold, retract, or manipulate soft tissue and organs. The subject device differs from the predicate device by only a modification to the Indications for Use and the associated changes to the labeling. The technological characteristics otherwise remain the same. Results of clinical testing demonstrated that the differences in the indications for use do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness, and, therefore, the subject device has the same intended use as the predicate device.
| | Subject Device | Predicate Device |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Intended Use | To grasp, hold, retract, or manipulate<br>soft tissue and organs. | Same, as demonstrated by clinical<br>testing |
| Indications for use | The Magnetic Surgical System is<br>designed to grasp and retract the body<br>and the fundus of the gallbladder in<br>laparoscopic cholecystectomy<br>procedures and the liver in bariatric<br>procedures to facilitate access and<br>visualization of the surgical site. The | The Magnetic Surgical System is<br>designed to grasp and retract the<br>body and the fundus of the<br>gallbladder in laparoscopic<br>cholecystectomy procedures to<br>facilitate access and visualization<br>of the surgical site. The device is |
# Comparison of Intended Use and Indications for Use
{5}------------------------------------------------
| device is indicated for use in patients | indicated for use in patients within |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| with a BMI range of 20-60 kg/m². | a BMI range of 20 to 34 kg/m². |
The subject and predicate device share identical technological elements:
- The device description remains unchanged. Both devices are composed of two hand-held instruments: a Magnetic Grasper Device comprised of a Detachable Grasper and a Delivery/Retrieval Shaft and an external Magnetic Controller.
- . The principles of operation remain unchanged. For both devices, the Magnetic Grasper Device is actuated manually using the handle of the Delivery/Retrieval Shaft to grasp and release tissue; and the Detachable Grasper is controlled manually by the handle or the external Magnetic Controller to retract tissue.
- The design, features and materials remain unchanged. The patient-contacting materials of the Magnetic Grasper Device meet biocompatibility requirements per applicable sections of ISO 10993-1. The Magnetic Controller is not patient-contacting.
As such, the design, materials and function of the subject Magnetic Surgical System are substantially equivalent to the predicate Magnetic Surgical System.
## Performance Data:
There were no technological changes to the subject device, thus no bench, electromagnetic compatibility testing, sterilization testing or biocompatibility testing was required.
Clinical performance data demonstrated the subject device is as safe and effective as the predicate device for liver retraction during laparoscopic bariatric procedures in patients with BMI range of 20-60 kg/m².
# Special Controls:
The Magnetic Surgical System is subject to the special controls described in §21 CFR 878.4815. These special controls are stated below. Compliance with these requirements has been met as noted in the italicized text below each requirement.
- (1) In vivo performance data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must demonstrate the ability of the device to grasp, hold, retract, mobilize or manipulate soft tissue and organs.
Clinical performance data from two separate studies totaling 103 subjects was provided to address this special control. A retrospective clinical study of 73 subjects with ten participating surgeons was conducted at the Duke Center for Metabolic and Weight Loss Surgery, and a
Levita Magnetics International Corp.
{6}------------------------------------------------
prospective clinical study of 30 subjects with three participating surgeons was conducted at Hospital La Florida in Santiago, Chile.
As shown in the two study summary tables below (Table B), the device was successfully used for retraction of the liver using a reduced port technique in all 103 total subjects evaluated. Results of both clinical studies demonstrated that the device could be used to grasp and retract the liver in laparoscopic bariatric procedures in a safe and effective manner. There were no cases of severe or serious adverse events related to the device and no cases of device failure or malfunctions reported in either study. In both studies, the device was able to adequately grasp and retract the liver to achieve an effective exposure of the target tissue and perform the bariatric procedure. Also, in both studies, overall procedure times were similar to published averages, and it was not necessary to use another instrument to retract the liver during the procedure. All 103 cases were performed using a reduced port technique, avoiding an incision for a liver retractor.
The reported clinical performance data from the retrospective study and prospective study demonstrate that the device performs as intended to grasp, hold, and retract the liver under anticipated conditions of use.
| Study Name/Description | Prospective Study of Liver Mobilization with the Levita Magnetic Surgical<br>System |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Objective/Type of Study | A prospective, single arm, open label study to evaluate the safety and<br>effectiveness of the Levita Magnetic Surgical System in patients undergoing<br>bariatric procedures |
| Number of sites/Number<br>of investigators/ Number<br>of patients/Follow-up<br>time points | 1 site, 3 investigators, 30 patients treated, follow-up at hospital discharge, 7-<br>and 30-days post-procedure |
| Inclusion/Exclusion<br>Criteria | Inclusion criteria included: subject is scheduled to undergo elective<br>bariatric procedure such as Sleeve Gastrectomy, Gastric By Pass,<br>Duodenal Switch or Bariatric Revisional SurgeryExclusion criteria included: signs of hepatic abnormality (e.g.: cirrhosis,<br>liver failure, increase in liver enzymes, etc.), impaired coagulation,<br>American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV, subjects<br>with pacemakers, defibrillators, or other electromedical implants |
| Procedure | Use of the subject device during laparoscopic bariatric procedures using<br>reduced port technique, avoiding an incision for a liver retractor |
| Study Endpoints | Ability to adequately retract the liver to achieve an effective exposure of<br>the target tissue. Adequate mobilization was not achieved if it was<br>necessary to use another instrument to retract the liver during the<br>procedure. |
#### Table A. Summary of Prospective Study
{7}------------------------------------------------
| | | • All adverse events were captured and reported. Adverse events were<br>further summarized by relatedness to the device and/or procedure,<br>seriousness and level of severity. |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Patient Demographics | Female: | 28 (93%) |
| | Age, mean: | 43 |
| | BMI, mean (range): | 41.5 kg/m² (33.6-58.2 kg/m²) |
| Summary of Results | Safety: No cases of severe or serious adverse events related to the device.<br>No cases of device failure or malfunctions. | |
| | Effectiveness: In all cases, the MSS was able to adequately retract the liver to<br>achieve an effective exposure of the target tissue and perform the bariatric<br>procedure. It was not necessary to use another instrument to retract the<br>liver during the procedure. | |
| | Procedure Times: Mean time to place the grasper on the liver was 1 minute<br>2 seconds; Mean time to couple the Detachable Grasper with the Magnetic<br>Controller was 1 minute and 10 seconds; Mean overall procedure time was<br>55 minutes. For sleeve gastrectomy, the average was 44 minutes and for<br>gastric by-pass and revisional surgery, the average was 1 hour 32 minutes. | |
| Summary of Adverse<br>Events | Twelve (12) AEs were categorized as definitely device-related. Six (6) of<br>these were internal mild petechiae noted during the procedure. Internal<br>mild petechiae was noted as resolved based on physical examination at<br>follow up (i.e., normal external abdominal wall appearance and<br>asymptomatic subject). The other six (6) adverse events were minor liver<br>capsule abrasion, without bleeding or clinically relevant concern, observed<br>at the procedure. All minor abrasions were noted as resolved based on<br>asymptomatic subject at follow up. All device-related events were<br>categorized as mild and all resolved with no reports of clinical sequelae. | |
# Table B. Summary of Retrospective Study
| Study Name/Description | Magnetic Liver Retraction: An Incision-Less Approach for Less Invasive<br>Bariatric Surgery |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Objective/Type of Study | A retrospective single arm study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of<br>the Levita Magnetic Surgical System in patients undergoing bariatric<br>procedures |
| Number of sites/Number<br>of investigators/ Number<br>of patients/Follow-up<br>time points | 1 site, 10 investigators, 73 patients treated, mean follow-up: 2.2 months<br>post-procedure (range: 0.5-9 months) |
| Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria | Inclusion criteria included: Consecutive bariatric procedure patients between October 2016 and August 2017 Exclusion criteria: None reported |
| Procedure | Use of the subject device during laparoscopic bariatric procedures using reduced port technique, avoiding an incision for a liver retractor |
| Study Endpoints | The study manuscript described results on the following parameters: Successful completion of laparoscopic bariatric surgery using the Magnetic Surgical System Mean operative times Intraoperative complications, morbidity and mortality at follow-up were captured and reported. Complications were further summarized by relatedness to the device. |
| Patient Demographics | Female: 59 (81%)<br>Age, mean: 43<br>BMI, mean (range): 43.6 kg/m² (18.3-67.7 kg/m²) |
| Summary of Results | Safety: No cases of severe or serious adverse events related to the device were reported.<br><br>Effectiveness: In all cases, the MSS was able to adequately retract the liver to achieve an effective exposure of the target tissue and perform the bariatric procedure. It was not necessary to use another instrument to retract the liver during the procedure.<br><br>Procedure Times: The average operative times were: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 68 min.; laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 134 min.; laparoscopic duodenal switch, 240 min.; laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, 75 min., revision, 167 min. |
| Summary of Adverse Events | Two patients experienced minor thirty-day morbidities (nausea/emesis and transient ischemic attack), neither of which were attributed to the device and did not require further interventions. There were no thirty-day mortalities. None of the patients experienced any liver-related complications and no skin compression damage was observed at the site of placement of the external magnet. |
Levita Magnetics International Corp.
{8}------------------------------------------------
- (2) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the system performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
- (a) Magnetic field strength testing characterization to identify the distances from the magnet that are safe for patients and users with ferromagnetic implants, devices or objects.
Levita Magnetics International Corp.
б
{9}------------------------------------------------
- (b) Ability of the internal surgical instrument(s) to be coupled, de-coupled, and recoupled with the external magnet over the external magnet use life.
The modifications that are the subject of this submission do not change the magnetic field strength or coupling of the internal surgical instrument with the external magnet. Therefore, previously conducted nonclinical performance testing that demonstrated that the device performs as intended under the anticipated conditions of use applies here.
- (3) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
The modifications that are the subject of this submission do not change any aspect of the device. Therefore, previously conducted testing that demonstrated that the device is biocompatible applies here.
- (4) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device components that are patientcontacting.
The modifications that are the subject of this submission do not change any aspect of the device. Therefore, previously conducted testing that demonstrated the sterility of the device applies here.
- (5) Methods and instructions for reprocessing reusable components must be validated.
The modifications that are the subject of this submission do not change any aspect of the device. Therefore, previously conducted testing that validated the methods and instructions for reprocessing reusable components applies here.
- (6) Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating continued sterility of the device or the sterile components and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
The modifications that are the subject of this submission do not change any aspect of the device. Therefore, previously conducted testing that validated the shelf life of the device applies here.
- (7) Training must be developed and validated by human factors testing and analysis to ensure users can follow the instructions for use to allow safe use of the device.
A training program for use of the Magnetic Surgical System in the predicate indication to grasp and retract the gallbladder in laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures was developed and underwent a human factors validation in support of the original marketing authorization for the device. An analysis was performed to determine if the revision to the Indications for Use to also include use of the device to grasp and retract the liver in bariatric procedures and in patients with a higher BMI required either a revision to the training program and/or a new human factors validation of the training program. The training program was updated to reflect the revised Indications for Use and accompanying labeling that is specific to the liver; however, these changes do not require a new human factors validation of the training for the following reasons: 1) the device design is unchanged, 2) the evaluation of Known Use Problems identified
{10}------------------------------------------------
no new use problems for the revised indication, 3) analysis of Hazards and Risks Associated with Use of the Device determined the use-related hazards and mitigations are unchanged, and 4) the Critical Tasks and Critical Task Errors are the same for grasping and retracting the gallbladder and the liver. This assessment is supported by the clinical performance data from the two clinical studies (involving a total of 13 surgeons using the device in a total of 103 subjects) submitted in support of the revised Indications for Use. The validated user training program updated for the additional indication was used to train the investigators participating in the prospective study. The study results met all predefined safety and effectiveness endpoints and demonstrated that the device can be used to grasp and retract the liver in laparoscopic bariatric procedures in a safe and effective manner. Therefore, previously conducted human factors testing which validated that users can follow the instructions to allow safe use of the device applies to the revised Indications for Use and physician training is still recommended as a risk control measure.
- (8) Labeling must include:
- (a) Magnetic field safezones.
- (b) Instructions for proper device use.
- (c) A screening checklist to ensure that all patients and operating staff are screened from bringing ferromagnetic implants, devices or objects near the external magnet.
- (d) Reprocessing instructions for any reusable components.
- (e) Shelf life.
- (f) Use life.
The labeling complies with the special controls stated above.
# Conclusion:
The Magnetic Surgical System has the same intended use as the predicate device as demonstrated by data from clinical studies to support the safety and effectiveness for the new indications compared to the predicate device. In addition, it has the same technological characteristics. Therefore, the Magnetic Surgical System is substantially equivalent to the cleared predicate device.
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.