K251214 · Miach Orthopaedics, Inc. · QNI · Jan 13, 2026 · Orthopedic
Device Facts
Record ID
K251214
Device Name
BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant
Applicant
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
Product Code
QNI · Orthopedic
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2026
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 888.3044
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Therapeutic, Pediatric
Indications for Use
The BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant is a bovine extracellular matrix collagen-based implant for treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The BEAR® Implant is indicated for adults, adolescents and children with a complete or partial rupture of the ACL, as confirmed by MRI. Patients must have an ACL stump attached to the tibia to construct the repair. Children with open physes must have sufficient bone in the femoral and tibial epiphyses on either side of the intended tunnel locations to avoid disruption of the growth plates.
Device Story
BEAR® Implant is a bovine-derived collagen/extracellular matrix scaffold used in ACL repair surgery. Device is cylindrical (22mm x 44mm) and implanted by a surgeon during an open or arthroscopic procedure. During implantation, the device is saturated with up to 10ml of the patient's autologous blood. The implant acts as a bridge, stabilizing the blood clot between torn ligament ends to facilitate natural healing. The scaffold is resorbed by the body within 8 weeks and replaced by fibrovascular repair tissue. By restoring the native ligament structure, the device aims to reduce the risk of post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to traditional ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring autografts. The device is intended for use in clinical settings by orthopedic surgeons.
Clinical Evidence
Evidence includes long-term follow-up (6 years) from two clinical studies: BEAR I (non-randomized, n=20) and BEAR II (randomized, n=113). Primary endpoints for the original De Novo (DEN200035) included IKDC scores and KT-1000 laxity. The current submission focuses on OA outcomes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2). Pooled analysis (n=67 with 6-year data) showed a statistically significant reduction in OA rate of -27.7% (95% CI: -46.9%, -10.1%; p=0.002) in the BEAR arm compared to the ACLR control arm. No statistically significant differences in adverse events were observed between arms at 6 years.
Technological Characteristics
Cylindrical scaffold (22mm x 44mm) composed of bovine-derived Type 1 collagen and extracellular matrix. Terminally sterilized via electron-beam irradiation. Resorbable; resorbs within 8 weeks. Used with autologous blood. No electronic components, software, or connectivity.
Indications for Use
Indicated for adults, adolescents, and children with complete or partial ACL rupture confirmed by MRI. Requires tibial ACL stump for repair. Pediatric patients with open physes must have sufficient bone in femoral and tibial epiphyses to avoid growth plate disruption.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A resorbable implant for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair is a degradable material that allows for healing of a torn ACL that is biomechanically stabilized by traditional suturing procedures. The device is intended to protect the biological healing process from the surrounding intraarticular environment and not intended to replace biomechanical fixation via suturing. This classification includes devices that bridge or surround the torn ends of a ruptured ACL.
Special Controls
In combination with the general controls of the FD&C Act, the resorbable implant for ACL repair is subject to the following special controls:
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Post-operative evaluation of knee pain and function; and
(ii) Durability as assessed by re-tear or re-operation rate.
(2) Animal performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Device performance characteristics, including resorption and ligament healing at repair site; and
(ii) Adverse effects as assessed by gross necropsy and histopathology.
(3) Non-clinical testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Characterization of materials, including chemical composition, resorption profile, and mechanical properties; and
(ii) Simulated use testing, including device preparation, device handling, compatibility with other ACL repair instrumentation, and user interface.
(4) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(5) Performance data must demonstrate the device to be sterile and non-pyrogenic.
(6) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
(7) Labeling must include the following:
(i) Identification of device materials and specifications;
(ii) A summary of the clinical performance testing conducted with the device;
(iii) Instructions for use, including compatibility with other ACL repair instrumentation or devices;
(iv) Warnings regarding post-operative rehabilitation requirements; and
(v) A shelf life.
{0}
FDA U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
January 13, 2026
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
% Julie Broderick
Regulatory Consultant
Broderick Regulatory Consulting, LLC
7 Kendall Street
Winchester, Massachusetts 01890
Re: K251214
Trade/Device Name: BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant
Regulation Number: 21 CFR 888.3044
Regulation Name: Resorbable Implant For Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Repair
Regulatory Class: Class II
Product Code: QNI
Dated: December 10, 2025
Received: December 10, 2025
Dear Julie Broderick:
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 (the 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 available 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.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
www.fda.gov
{1}
K251214 - Julie Broderick
Page 2
Additional information about changes that may require a new premarket notification are provided in the FDA guidance documents entitled "Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device" (https://www.fda.gov/media/99812/download) and "Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Software Change to an Existing Device" (https://www.fda.gov/media/99785/download).
Your device is also subject to, among other requirements, the Quality System (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820), which includes, but is not limited to, 21 CFR 820.30, Design controls; 21 CFR 820.90, Nonconforming product; and 21 CFR 820.100, Corrective and preventive action. Please note that regardless of whether a change requires premarket review, the QS regulation requires device manufacturers to review and approve changes to device design and production (21 CFR 820.30 and 21 CFR 820.70) and document changes and approvals in the device master record (21 CFR 820.181).
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 801); medical device reporting (reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR Part 803) for devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR Part 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/guidance-regulatory-information/postmarketing-safety-reporting-combination-products); 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 Part 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR Parts 1000-1050.
All medical devices, including Class I and unclassified devices and combination product device constituent parts are required to be in compliance with the final Unique Device Identification System rule ("UDI Rule"). The UDI Rule requires, among other things, that a device bear a unique device identifier (UDI) on its label and package (21 CFR 801.20(a)) unless an exception or alternative applies (21 CFR 801.20(b)) and that the dates on the device label be formatted in accordance with 21 CFR 801.18. The UDI Rule (21 CFR 830.300(a) and 830.320(b)) also requires that certain information be submitted to the Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID) (21 CFR Part 830 Subpart E). For additional information on these requirements, please see the UDI System webpage at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/unique-device-identification-system-udi-system.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reporting-mdr-how-report-medical-device-problems.
For comprehensive regulatory information about medical devices and radiation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance) and CDRH Learn (https://www.fda.gov/training-and-continuing-education/cdrh-learn). 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 (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-
{2}
K251214 - Julie Broderick
Page 3
assistance/contact-us-division-industry-and-consumer-education-dice) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely,
CHRISTOPHER FERREIRA -S
Christopher Ferreira, M.S.
Assistant Director
DHT6C: Division of Restorative,
Repair, and Trauma Devices
OHT6: Office of Orthopedic Devices
Office of Product Evaluation and Quality
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{3}
FORM FDA 3881 (8/23)
Page 1 of 1
PSC Publishing Services (301) 443-6740
EF
| DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Indications for Use | Form Approved: OMB No. 0910-0120 Expiration Date: 07/31/2026 See PRA Statement below. |
| --- | --- |
| 510(k) Number (if known) K251214 | |
| Device Name BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant | |
| Indications for Use (Describe) The BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant is a bovine extracellular matrix collagen-based implant for treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The BEAR® Implant is indicated for adults, adolescents and children with a complete or partial rupture of the ACL, as confirmed by MRI. Patients must have an ACL stump attached to the tibia to construct the repair. Children with open physes must have sufficient bone in the femoral and tibial epiphyses on either side of the intended tunnel locations to avoid disruption of the growth plates. | |
| 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." | |
{4}
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
510(k) Summary (Revised 8 Jan 2026)
K251214: BEAR® Implant
# 510(k) SUMMARY
This summary of 510(k) safety and effectiveness information is submitted in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR §807.92.
## I. Submitter Information
**Company:** Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
69 Milk Street, Suite 100
Westborough, MA 01581 USA
Phone No.: 800-590-6995
Fax No.: 508-986-9625
**Contact:** Rita Paparazzo
Chief Science and Regulatory Officer
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
Phone No.: 800-590-6995
Email: rpaparazzo@miachortho.com
**Date Prepared:** 8 January 2026
## II. Name of Device
**Device Trade Name:** BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant
**Classification Name:** Resorbable implant for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair
**Product Code:** QNI
**Regulation Number:** 21 CFR 888.3044
**Device Class:** II
**Panel Identification:** Orthopedics
## III. Predicate Device
**Predicate Manufacturer:** Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
**Predicate Trade Name:** BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant
**Predicate 510(k) No.:** K243578
## IV. Device Description
The BEAR® Implant (nominal 22 mm in diameter and 44 mm in length) is cylindrical in shape and comprised of collagen and extracellular matrix derived from bovine connective tissue, which has been cleaned, disinfected and processed by a proprietary manufacturing method. The implant has been terminally sterilized by electron-beam irradiation and is intended to be used with up to 10 ml of autologous blood drawn during the surgical implantation procedure. The BEAR® Implant stabilizes the blood in the gap between the tom ligament ends. The BEAR® Implant is resorbed within 8 weeks and replaced with a fibrovascular repair tissue.
## V. Indications for Use
The BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant is a bovine extracellular matrix collagen-based implant for treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The BEAR® Implant is indicated for adults,
CONFIDENTIAL
{5}
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
510(k) Summary (Revised 8 Jan 2026)
K251214: BEAR® Implant
adolescents and children with a complete or partial rupture of the ACL, as confirmed by MRI. Patients must have an ACL stump attached to the tibia to construct the repair. Children with open physes must have sufficient bone in the femoral and tibial epiphyses on either side of the intended tunnel locations to avoid disruption of the growth plates.
VI. Comparison of Technological Characteristics
| Characteristic | New Device
BEAR Implant | Predicate Device*
BEAR Implant
K243578 | Comparison |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Manufacturer | Miach Orthopaedics, Inc. | Miach Orthopaedics, Inc. | Same |
| Regulation No. | 21 CFR 888.3044 | 21 CFR 888.3044 | Same |
| Regulation Name | Resorbable implant for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair | Resorbable implant for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair | Same |
| Regulatory Class | Class II | Class II | Same |
| Product Classification Code | QNI | QNI | Same |
| Intended Use / Indications for Use | The BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant is a bovine extracellular matrix collagen-based implant for treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The BEAR® Implant is indicated for adults, adolescents and children with a complete or partial rupture of the ACL, as confirmed by MRI. Patients must have an ACL stump attached to the tibia to construct the repair. Children with open physes must have sufficient bone in the femoral and tibial epiphyses on either side of the intended tunnel locations to avoid disruption of the growth plates. | The BEAR® (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration) Implant is a bovine extracellular matrix collagen-based implant for treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The BEAR® Implant is indicated for adults, adolescents and children with a complete or partial rupture of the ACL, as confirmed by MRI. Patients must have an ACL stump attached to the tibia to construct the repair. Children with open physes must have sufficient bone in the femoral and tibial epiphyses on either side of the intended tunnel locations to avoid disruption of the growth plates. | Same |
| Device Description | The BEAR Implant (22 mm in diameter and 44mm in length) is cylindrical in shape and comprised of collagen and extracellular matrix derived from bovine connective tissue, which has been cleaned, disinfected and processed by a proprietary manufacturing method. The implant is intended to be used with up to 10 ml of autologous blood drawn during the surgical implantation procedure. | The BEAR Implant (22 mm in diameter and 44mm in length) is cylindrical in shape and comprised of collagen and extracellular matrix derived from bovine connective tissue, which has been cleaned, disinfected and processed by a proprietary manufacturing method. The implant is intended to be used with up to 10 ml of autologous blood drawn during the surgical implantation procedure. | Same |
CONFIDENTIAL
{6}
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
510(k) Summary (Revised 8 Jan 2026)
K251214: BEAR® Implant
| Characteristic | New Device
BEAR Implant | Predicate Device*
BEAR Implant
K243578 | Comparison |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | the surgical implantation procedure. | |
| Operating Principle | The BEAR Implant stabilizes the blood in the gap between the torn ligament ends, facilitating restoration of the ACL. The BEAR Implant is resorbed within 8 weeks and replaced with a fibrovascular repair tissue. | The BEAR Implant stabilizes the blood in the gap between the torn ligament ends, facilitating restoration of the ACL. The BEAR Implant is resorbed within 8 weeks and replaced with a fibrovascular repair tissue. | Same |
| Materials | Bovine-derived Type 1 collagen and extracellular matrix | Bovine-derived Type 1 collagen and extracellular matrix | Same – no changes |
| Biocompatibility | No new testing required | Testing completed per ISO 10993-1 and FDA guidance | Same – no changes |
| Technical Specifications | No new testing required | As approved in DEN200035 and referred to in K243578 | Same – no changes |
| In Vivo Animal Testing | No new animal testing required; existing published animal data support the reduced OA claim. | Completed as described in DEN200035 and referred to in K243578 | Addition of claim to labeling did not require new animal testing to validate. Existing published animal data support the reduced OA claim. |
| Human Clinical Testing | Supporting clinical data presented in 510(k) | BEAR II Study (see DEN200035); referred to in K243578 | De Novo approval based on BEAR II (G150268) and BEAR I (G140151) study data; this 510(k) includes supporting clinical data from long-term follow-up of the same studies concerning the lower rate of post-traumatic radiographic (KL grade ≥2) osteoarthritis of the knee at Year 6 in BEAR subjects compared to ACLR control subject. |
# VII. Performance or Clinical Testing
No non-clinical or animal performance testing was required to support this 510(k), as the change was limited to the addition of an OA¹ claim to the labeling and there were no changes to the design or specifications of the BEAR Implant. Published animal data established the potential for the BEAR Implant to reduce post-traumatic knee OA following ACL transection in a porcine model:
¹ In this 510(k) the acronym “OA” refers to post-traumatic radiographic osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2) of the knee.
CONFIDENTIAL
{7}
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
510(k) Summary (Revised 8 Jan 2026)
K251214: BEAR® Implant
- Murray MM, Fleming BC. Use of a bioactive scaffold to stimulate anterior cruciate ligament healing also minimizes posttraumatic osteoarthritis after surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(8):1762-1770.
- Kiapour AM, Fleming BC, Murray MM. Structural and anatomic restoration of the anterior cruciate ligament Is associated with less cartilage damage 1 year after surgery: healing ligament properties affect cartilage damage. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(8): 2325967117723886.
Clinical testing demonstrated a reduced rate of OA at 6-years post-surgery, as compared to the ACLR control group, which received primarily hamstring tendon autograft, supporting the additional claim of reduced risk of post-traumatic knee OA following the BEAR procedure as compared to ACLR. OA data were collected in two clinical studies, as follows:
| | BEAR I Feasibility Study | BEAR II Pivotal Study |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Level of Evidence | Non-randomized study with concurrent (“active”) control | Randomized, multi-arm, “blinded” study with concurrent (“active”) control |
| Location of Study | United States only | United States only |
| IDE No. | G140151 | G150268 |
| Primary Safety Endpoint | Multiple safety endpoints, including rates of: • Deep joint infection/incision and drainage of deep surgical site infection • Graft rejection/removal • Graft/repair failure, as defined in protocol • Any additional adverse events including (but not limited to) deep venous thrombosis, loss of function, need for prolonged parenteral pain medication, development of neurologic symptoms or additional trauma • Any additional surgical procedures that the patient requires on the operative knee, as well as any surgical procedures required on the contralateral knee • Presence of bovine type I gelatin IgE antibodies | |
| Primary Effectiveness Endpoint | • Co-primary effectiveness endpoints • International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) [Subjective] score at 24 months post-surgery; and • Instrumented [KT-1000] AP laxity of the knee at 24 months post-surgery | |
| Osteoarthritis Endpoints | • Primary: Kellgren Lawrence grade ≥ 2 at 6 years post-surgery • Secondary: Overall KL grade (mean and proportion of subjects), MOAKS and joint space width (JSW), all at 6 years post-surgery | |
CONFIDENTIAL
{8}
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
510(k) Summary (Revised 8 Jan 2026)
K251214: BEAR® Implant
- Patient Accountability:
| Stage | Investigational Device (BEAR Implant) Arm Total | Control (ACLR) Arm Total | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| BEAR I | | | |
| Enrollment | 10 | 10 | 20 |
| Treatment (Surgery) | 10 | 10 | 20 |
| Primary Safety Endpoint Analysis | 9 | 7 | 16 |
| Primary Effectiveness Endpoint Analysis | 9 | 7 | 16 |
| OA Analysis at 6-Years Post-Surgery | 7 | 6 | 13 |
| BEAR II | | | |
| Enrollment | 73 | 36 | 113 |
| Treatment (Surgery) | 65 | 35 | 100 |
| Primary Safety Endpoint Analysis | 65 | 35 | 100 |
| Primary Effectiveness Endpoint Analysis | 65 | 35 | 100 |
| OA Analysis at 6-Years Post-Surgery | 46 | 21 | 67 |
- The BEAR II Study met its primary endpoints. Refer to the Decision Summary for DEN200035 for details of the safety and effectiveness endpoints.
- Results of OA analyses demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (-27.7% [95% CI: -46.9%, -10.1%], p=0.002, one-sided alpha = 0.025) in the rate of OA at 6-years post-surgery in the pooled (BEAR I + BEAR II) BEAR arm compared to the pooled ACLR control arm.
- The primary and secondary outcomes of the BEAR II study were similar for subjects with 6-year OA data when compared to the overall BEAR II analysis upon which DEN200035 was based.
- There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events between treatment arms at Year 6 post-index procedure.
- As established in DEN200035 and K243578, the BEAR Implant is as safe and as effective as ACLR, and the BEAR Implant subject of this 510(k) is identical to and therefore as safe and as effective as the BEAR Implant cleared in K243578. This 510(k) supports the claim of reduced OA at 6-years in patients treated with the BEAR Implant compared to those treated with ACLR.
## VIII. Special Controls
The BEAR Implant subject of this 510(k) meets the Special Controls established for “Resorbable implant for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair”, product classification code QNI, classification regulation 21 CFR 888.3044.
## IX. Conclusions
Miach Orthopaedics concludes that the BEAR Implant is substantially equivalent to its predicate, the BEAR Implant cleared in K243578 and does not raise any new issues or concerns of safety or effectiveness. The
CONFIDENTIAL
{9}
Miach Orthopaedics, Inc.
510(k) Summary (Revised 8 Jan 2026)
K251214: BEAR® Implant
BEAR Implant demonstrates reduced OA at 6-years compared to ACLR using hamstring tendon autograft as described in the text added to the Clinical Summary section of the Instructions for Use:
In patients 14 years and older who have an ACL injury with concomitant knee injuries, ACL restoration with the BEAR Implant reduces the risk of developing post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or higher), at 6-years post-surgery, compared to ACL reconstruction (ACLR) surgery using hamstring tendon autograft.
CONFIDENTIAL
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.