K183029 · Medacta International S.A. · HSX · Jan 30, 2019 · Orthopedic
Device Facts
Record ID
K183029
Device Name
MOTO Partial Knee System
Applicant
Medacta International S.A.
Product Code
HSX · Orthopedic
Decision Date
Jan 30, 2019
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 888.3520
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Therapeutic
Indications for Use
The MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System is designed for cemented use in partial knee arthroplasty, if there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components. Partial replacement of the articulating surfaces of the knee is indicated when only one side of the joint is affected due to the compartmental primary degenerative or posttraumatic degenerative disease, previous tibial condyle or plateau fractures, deformity or revision of previous arthroplasty.
Device Story
MOTO Lateral Partial Knee System is a cemented unicompartmental knee prosthesis for partial knee arthroplasty. System comprises a CoCrMo femoral component, a Ti-6Al-4V metal baseplate, and a fixed UHMWPE tibial insert. Components are implanted by orthopedic surgeons to replace articulating surfaces in one knee compartment affected by degenerative disease, fractures, or deformity. Device provides mechanical stability via a snapping mechanism between the insert and baseplate, and fixation pegs/keel on the tray. System is provided sterile for single use. Clinical benefit includes restoration of joint function and reduction of pain associated with compartmental knee disease.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical studies were conducted. Substantial equivalence is supported by bench testing, including fatigue endurance, comparative coverage, contact area/pressure analysis, and mechanical shear/draw testing of the locking mechanism, performed according to ASTM and ISO standards.
Technological Characteristics
Materials: Co-Cr-Mo (ISO 5832-4) femoral component, Ti-6Al-4V (ISO 5832-3) tibial tray, UHMWPE (ISO 5834-2 Type 1) insert. Fixed-bearing design. Cemented fixation. Sterilization: Gamma irradiation (femoral/tray) and Ethylene Oxide (insert).
Indications for Use
Indicated for patients requiring partial knee arthroplasty due to compartmental primary degenerative or posttraumatic degenerative disease, previous tibial condyle or plateau fractures, deformity, or revision of previous arthroplasty, provided there is sufficient sound bone to support components.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A knee joint femorotibial metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace part of a knee joint. The device limits minimally (less than normal anatomic constraints) translation in one or more planes. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a femoral condylar resurfacing component or components made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a tibial component or components made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and are intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image contains the logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On the left, there is the Department of Health & Human Services logo. To the right of that is the FDA logo, which is a blue square with the letters "FDA" in white. To the right of the blue square is the text "U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION" in blue.
Medacta International SA % Chris Lussier Director, Quality and Regulatory Medacta USA 3973 Delp Street Memphis, Tennessee 38118
January 30, 2019
Re: K183029
Trade/Device Name: MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3520 Regulation Name: Knee Joint Femorotibial Metal/Polymer Non-Constrained Cemented Prosthesis Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: HSX Dated: October 24, 2018 Received: November 1, 2018
Dear Chris Lussier:
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
{1}------------------------------------------------
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 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.html; good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) 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,
# Daniel S. Ramsey -S 2019.01.30 15:53:50 -05'00'
FOR Mark N. Melkerson Director Division of Orthopedic Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
## Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known)
## K183029
Device Name MOTO Lateral Partial Knee System
## Indications for Use (Describe)
The MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System is designed for cemented use in partial knee arthroplasty, if there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components. Partial replacement of the articulating surfaces of the knee is indicated when only one side of the joint is affected due to the compartmental primary degenerative or posttraumatic degenerative disease, previous tibial condyle or plateau fractures, deformity or revision of previous arthroplasty.
Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable)
[X] 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."
Form Approved: OMB No. 0910-0120 Expiration Date: 06/30/2020 See PRA Statement below.
:
{3}------------------------------------------------
## 510(k) Summary
#### I. Submitter
Medacta International SA Strada Regina 6874 Castel San Pietro (CH) Switzerland Phone (+41) 91 696 60 60 Fax (+41) 91 696 60 66
Contact Person: Stefano Baj, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Medacta International SA Date Prepared: October 24, 2018
#### II. Device
| Device Proprietary Name: | MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Common or Usual Name: | Unicompartmental Knee prosthesis |
| Classification Name: | Knee joint femorotibial metal/polymer/ non-constrained<br>cemented prosthesis |
| Primary Product Code: | HSX |
| Regulation Number: | 21 CFR 888.3520 |
| Device Classification | II |
#### III. Predicate Device
Substantial equivalence is claimed to the following devices:
- JOURNEY Unicondylar Femoral Implant K073175, Smith & Nephew INC .; ●
- JOURNEY Unicondylar Tibial Baseplates K102069, Smith & Nephew INC .; ●
- ZIMMER Unicompartimental Knee System - K033363, Zimmer, INC .; and
- MOTO™ Partial Knee System K162084, Medacta International SA. ●
#### IV. Device Description
The MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System is designed for cemented use in partial knee arthroplasty, if there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components. Partial replacement of the articulating surfaces of the knee is indicated when only one side of the joint is affected due to the compartmental primary degenerative or posttraumatic degenerative disease, previous tibial condyle or plateau fractures, deformity or revision of previous arthroplasty.
MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System design is characterized by:
- a femoral component designed to anatomically fit the lateral femoral condyle
- a tibia component, designed to anatomically fit the lateral tibial condyle
- a fixed tibia insert, with a flat articulating surface with rounded border
{4}------------------------------------------------
MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System has been designed in cemented version only. The femoral component is made of cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (Co-Cr-Mo per ISO 5832-4), and the tibial component consists of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE per ISO 5834-2 Type 1) insert, and a metal baseplate component (Ti-6Al-4V per ISO 5832-3). The MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System implants are offered sterile (via gamma irradiation for the femoral and tibial tray components and ethylene oxide for the tibial insert components), are intended for single use only, and may not be re-sterilized
The Lateral Femoral Component (cemented) is symmetrically shaped (suitable for both left and right side) and designed with two (2) fixation pegs for all the sizes. It is available in seven (7) sizes (1 - 7).
The Lateral Fixed Tibial Insert has a fixed design, is symmetrically shaped (suitable for both left and right side) and is available in eight (8) sizes (1 – 8). Each size is offered in six (6) levels of thickness (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 mm). It is fixed through a snapping mechanism with baseplate.
The Lateral Fixed Tibial Tray (cemented) has a fixed bearing design with one (1) triangular keel and two (2) 'mushroom' shaped pegs to ensure primary stability. Available in eight (8) sizes (1 - 8), the Lateral Fixed Tibial Tray is offered in both Right Lateral (RL) and Left Lateral (LL) options for each size.
#### V. Indications for Use
The MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System is designed for cemented use in partial knee arthroplasty, if there is evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components. Partial replacement of the articulating surfaces of the knee is indicated when only one side of the joint is affected due to the compartmental primary degenerative or posttraumatic degenerative disease, previous tibial condyle or plateau fractures, deformity or revision of previous arthroplasty.
## Discussion:
The Indications for Use Statement is identical to the predicate device MOTO™ Partial Knee System (K162084). It is also similar to the other predicate devices IFU: the only difference is that the subject device calls out the requirements for "evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components", and the predicate device cites specific example of degenerative joint disease ("osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, or avascular necrosis"). These differences do not create new intended uses for the subject device; the subject and predicate devices are all prostheses intended for use in knee arthroplasty.
{5}------------------------------------------------
#### VI. Comparison of Technological Characteristics
The design features, and materials of the subject devices are substantially equivalent to those of the predicate devices. The tables below compare characteristics of the subject and predicate devices.
| Feature | MOTO™ Lateral<br>Partial Knee System -<br>Anatomical Femoral<br>Component | MOTO™ Partial<br>Knee System -<br>Anatomic Femoral<br>Component<br>(K162084) | Smith & Nephew<br>Journey<br>(K073175) | Zimmer UNI<br>(K033363) |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Sizes | 7 sizes<br>(Size 1 -7) | 10 sizes<br>(Size 1-10) | Same | 7 sizes<br>(Size A - G) |
| Configuration | LLRL | RM and LM | RM/LL and LM/RL | RM/LL and<br>LM/RL |
| Material | CoCrMo - ISO 5832-4 | Same | Same<br>(with an oxinium<br>oxidized zirconium<br>coating) | Same |
| Cemented? | Cemented | Same | Same | Same |
| Device Usage | Single Use | Same | Same | Same |
| Sterility | Provided sterile via<br>Gamma Radiation | Same | Same | Same |
| Shelf Life | 5 Years | Same | Same | > 5 Years |
| Stabilization<br>pegs | 2 Pegs | 2 pegs for sizes 1-7<br>and 3 pegs for<br>sizes 8-10 | Same | Same |
| Feature | MOTO™ Lateral Partial<br>Knee System - Fixed Tibial<br>Insert | MOTO™ Partial Knee<br>System - Fixed Tibial<br>Insert (K162084) | Zimmer UNI<br>(K033363) |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Sizes | 8 sizes (from 1 to 8) | Same | 6 sizes (from 1 to 6) |
| Thickness | Each size is offered in 6<br>levels of thickness (8, 9, 10,<br>11. 12, 14 mm) | Same | Same |
| Material | UHMWPE (ISO 5834 -2)<br>Type 1 | Same | Same |
| Device Usage | Single Use | Same | Same |
| Sterility | Provided sterile via Ethylene<br>Oxide | Same | Same |
| Shelf Life | 5 years | Same | > 5 years |
{6}------------------------------------------------
Medacta International SA
| Feature | MOTO™ Lateral<br>Partial Knee<br>System - Fixed<br>Tibial Tray | MOTO™ Partial<br>Knee System -<br>Fixed Plus Tibial<br>Tray (K162084) | Smith &<br>Nephew<br>Journey<br>(K102069) | Zimmer UNI<br>(K033363) |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Sizes | 8 sizes<br>(from 1 to 8) | Same | 6 sizes | 6 sizes<br>(from 1 to 6) |
| Configurations | RL and LL | RM and LM | RM/LL and<br>LM/RL | RM and LM |
| Material | Ti-6Al-4V<br>(ISO 5832-3) | Same | Same | Ti-6Al-4V with<br>PMMA precoat |
| Cemented? | Cemented | Same | Same | Same |
| Device Usage | Single Use | Same | Same | Same |
| Sterility | Provided sterile via<br>Gamma Radiation | Same | Unknown | Same |
| Shelf Life | 5 years | Same | Unknown | > 5 years |
| Stabilization | Stabilized with 1 keel<br>and 2 pegs | Same | Same | Same |
| Fixed Bearing? | Fixed bearing | Same | Same | Same |
The fundamental scientific technology of the modified devices has not changed relative to the predicate devices. The safety and effectiveness of the subject devices is adequately supported by the substantial equivalence information, materials information, and analysis data provided within this Premarket Notification.
Due to the extensive history of use in currently marketed medical devices, biocompatibility testing conducted on the predicate device [ MOTO™ Partial Knee System (K162084)] for the same materials supports the biological safety of the MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System.
#### VII. Performance Data
Testing was conducted according to written protocols with acceptance criteria that were based on standards. The following mechanical studies were performed in support of a substantial equivalence determination:
- A Non-Clinical Studies: DESIGN VALIDATION
- · Validation Cadaveric Workshop according to Instrument evaluation form dated 16-Dec-16
- Design Validation Report
{7}------------------------------------------------
## CHARACTERIZATION TESTING
- Fatigue Endurance Test of the Posterior Condyle according to Medacta Test Protocol . 07.09.455/Rev.0, Dated 09.Feb.2018 and EndoLab Report IL test 167.180320.20.838 rev.0, dated 03.May.2018. Test Report A1, rev.0
- Comparative Coverage Test of the Moto Lateral Femoral Component. Test Report A2, ● rev.0
- Rationale to Demonstrate Lateral Tibial Tray Conservative Design in Comparison with . the Medial Tibial Tray in Terms of Mechanical Resistance according to ASTM F1800:12 and ASTM F1814-97a. Test Report B1, rev.0.
- Comparative Coverage Test of the Moto Lateral Tibia Tray. Test Report B2, rev.0. ●
- o Rationale to Demonstrate Moto Lateral Conservative Design in Terms of Contact Area and Pressure in Comparison with the Medial Implant according to Test Reports C1 rev.0, C2 rev.0, C4 rev.0 already provided in the Original Submission MOTO™ Partial Knee System (K162084) and the Test Report D7 rev.0 already provided as per Additional Information request of that same submission.Rationale C1, rev 0.
- Static ML/LM Shear and AP/PA Draw Test of the Insert-Tray Clipping System according to Guidance Document for Testing Non-Articulating, Mechanically Locked, Modular Implant Components; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Knee Joint Patellofemorotibial and Femorotibial Metal/ Polymer Porous-Coated Uncemented Prosthesis, Guidance for Industry and FDA; ASTM F2083:12; ASTM F1223:08; ASTM 1814:15. Test Report C2 rev.0.
- . Lateral Femoral Component – Fixed Tibia Insert, Range of Motion, according to Standard ISO 21536 and ASTM 2083. Test Report C3, rev.0.
## PYROGENICITY:
- Bacterial endotoxin test (LAL test) according to European Pharmacopoeia \$2.6.14 (which is equivalent to USP chapter <85>)
- Pyrogen test according to USP chapter <151> for pyrogenicity determination.
- A Clinical Studies:
- No clinical studies were conducted. ●
## VIII. Conclusion:
Based on the above information, the MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System can be considered substantially equivalent to the identified predicate devices.
Substantial equivalence has been demonstrated through a comparison of intended use, design and technological characteristics, as well as performance evaluations. The MOTO™ Lateral Partial Knee System implants are as safe and effective as the predicate devices JOURNEY Unicondylar Femoral Implant (K073175); JOURNEY Unicondylar Tibial Baseplates (K102069); ZIMMER Unicompartimental Knee System (K033363) and MOTO Partial Knee System (K162084).
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.