510(k) Requirements for System vs. Replaceable Parts

M

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
I'm a bit confused as to the requirements of submitting a pre-market notification (510k) with respect to the "replaceable" (i.e. individually sold) parts of a medical device system.

Consider the following: A stimulator system (includes a stimulator unit, a charger, and some proprietary replaceable electrodes). The system has been 510(k) cleared.

Questions:
  1. The electrodes need to be replaced regularly, and are hence sold separately. Do these also need a 510(k), even though they've been approved as part of the system? I notice that there is a product code for electrodes (GXY), but these all seem to be for generic electrodes that don't specify being part of a particular system. Does it make a difference that the electrodes are exclusively designed for a particular system?
  2. In some cases users might lose the power-supply adaptor to the charger. Can this be sold separately as a replacement part?

Input/advice/links much appreciated.
MM.
 
M

MIREGMGR

The best way to handle this issue is to discuss it in detail in the 510(k) submission.

If you don't do that, I don't know of any generally applicable guidance.

If you do do that, and then need to change the plan, I don't know if a Special submission might sometimes be needed.

We have a number of 510(k)ed products, and had more prior to the August 14, 2015 guidance, but none of them have replaceable parts.
 
Ronen E

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Moderator
Mark Meer said:
I'm a bit confused as to the requirements of submitting a pre-market notification (510k) with respect to the "replaceable" (i.e. individually sold) parts of a medical device system.

Consider the following: A stimulator system (includes a stimulator unit, a charger, and some proprietary replaceable electrodes). The system has been 510(k) cleared.

Questions:
  1. The electrodes need to be replaced regularly, and are hence sold separately. Do these also need a 510(k), even though they've been approved as part of the system? I notice that there is a product code for electrodes (GXY), but these all seem to be for generic electrodes that don't specify being part of a particular system. Does it make a difference that the electrodes are exclusively designed for a particular system?
  2. In some cases users might lose the power-supply adaptor to the charger. Can this be sold separately as a replacement part?

Input/advice/links much appreciated.
MM.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the electrodes would require a 510(k). Here, it says:

manufacturers of device components are not required to submit a 510(k) unless such components are promoted for sale to an end user as replacement parts.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

The power supply adaptor would not need a 510(k) because it doesn't meet the medical device definition.
 
M

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
My understanding is that the electrodes would require a 510(k).
Click to expand...

Unless the regulations are devoid of reason, I would hope this would not be a hard-and-fast rule.

Basically, because there are 2 very different scenarios:

1. The electrodes are designed exclusively for a particular approved system, and are manufactured by the same company that holds the system 510(k).
- In this case, all safety and efficacy considerations with respect to the electrodes (biocompatibility, reliability, ...) would have been considered as part of the system 510(k). ...so there'd be no conceivable justification for the electrodes to have their own 510(k).

2. The electrodes are designed to be generic replaceable components for a range of compatible devices (that may be sold by different firms).
- In this case, there is no guarantee that the electrodes safety and efficacy was part of the compatible devices' 510(k), and hence it makes sense that the electrodes need their own 510(k) approval.

In the latter scenario a separate 510(k) is reasonable, but in the former case I don't see any reason for an additional 510(k) filing...
 
Ronen E

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Moderator
Mark Meer said:
Unless the regulations are devoid of reason, I would hope this would not be a hard-and-fast rule.

Basically, because there are 2 very different scenarios:

1. The electrodes are designed exclusively for a particular approved system, and are manufactured by the same company that holds the system 510(k).
- In this case, all safety and efficacy considerations with respect to the electrodes (biocompatibility, reliability, ...) would have been considered as part of the system 510(k). ...so there'd be no conceivable justification for the electrodes to have their own 510(k).

2. The electrodes are designed to be generic replaceable components for a range of compatible devices (that may be sold by different firms).
- In this case, there is no guarantee that the electrodes safety and efficacy was part of the compatible devices' 510(k), and hence it makes sense that the electrodes need their own 510(k) approval.

In the latter scenario a separate 510(k) is reasonable, but in the former case I don't see any reason for an additional 510(k) filing...
Click to expand...

2 questions:

1. What prevents those electrodes from being used with other stimulators?

2. Have, in fact, "all safety and efficacy considerations with respect to the electrodes (biocompatibility, reliability, ...) been considered as part of the system 510(k)"? Have all the special controls / guidance specified for the appropriate stand-alone electrodes code (if any, I haven't checked) been satisfied?
 
M

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
Ronen E said:
1. What prevents those electrodes from being used with other stimulators?
Click to expand...

In my view it really doesn't matter due to the stated intended use and labeling. If the replacement electrodes state explicitly "for use only with X system", any use otherwise would be deliberate misuse.

While this can certainly be considered as a design risk-mitigation (such as, for example, a unique/proprietary connection method), the question you're asking is no different then asking "what prevents it from being deliberately misused"?

...and the risk of deliberate misuse is, for the most part, unpreventable.

Ronen E said:
2. Have, in fact, "all safety and efficacy considerations with respect to the electrodes (biocompatibility, reliability, ...) been considered as part of the system 510(k)"? Have all the special controls / guidance specified for the appropriate stand-alone electrodes code (if any, I haven't checked) been satisfied?
Click to expand...

It turns out that no special controls exist (they've been discontinued).

However, regardless, the difference in intended use between the two cases is important. If the electrodes are intended for use exclusively with a particular device, then in-and-of-themselves (i.e. without the device) they serve no medical function, and hence it seems unreasonable to me to require a separate 510(k).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Additional Handset added to System - Additional 510(k) Requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
A Which guidance do you use for guiding the requirements of IFU for 510(k) submission? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 5
M CE Mark and 510(k) -Global registration requirements for every country Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 3
Q Need clarification on requirements.... Class i, gmp & 510(k) exempt Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 12
D Documentation Requirements for Firmware in a 510(k) Submission Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
A FDA 510(k) Payment requirements for a Small Company US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
G 510(k) Pre-market approval Application Requirements - Effectiveness of the product Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
T 510(k) Revision Level History and Submission Requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
A Class II Medical Device 510(k) Purchase - Documentation Transfer Requirements Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
D 510(k) Medical Device Classification and Regulatory Requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
C New 510(k) for non-patient contacting material change US Medical Device Regulations 2
A 510(k) Questions Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 4
A 510(k) and DeNovo on same medical device for different indications? US Medical Device Regulations 5
E Mergers & Acquisitions tips: Is an acquisition likely after 510(k) clearance? Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 5
F Can this device without tolerances be used as a predicate for our 510(k)? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
T FDA level of concern vs IEC 62304 safety classification - 510(k) exempt device Other US Medical Device Regulations 13
F Using non-randomized clinical study for change in existing 510(k) device? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
A A strange question about predicate device selected in 510(k) submission Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 8
B Recent 510(k) Clearances for Devices Imported from China Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
S Traditional or Special 510(k) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 7
S New 510(K) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
marmotte Help with Surgical Class I + 510(k) exemption US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
M ESTAR 510(k) submission question Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
K 510(k) Manufacturer question (private label and manufacture under another persons 510(k)) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
Ed Panek ANNUAL FDA Registration - What 510(k) number to use? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
L How to find a good 510(k) submission training? Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
shimonv Where do you place Human Factors report in a 510(k) application? Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
S FDA 510(K) submission question US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
Watchcat REGULATORY WATCHCAT - The 510(k) Submissions Tracker Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
S Product Code 510(k) exemption US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
V 510 k submission RTA (Acceptance Checklist ) Other US Medical Device Regulations 8
Watchcat 510(k)s and "Innovation"? Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
D Change to labelling - does it require a new 510(k)? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
A How can we change a device trade name in 510(k) summary? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
K PMA vs 510(k) for Mammography Machine US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
S Predicate Material 510(k) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
S Predicate Material 510(k) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 3
J US Device Listing when not the 510(k) owner Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
supadrai Possible to Submit a 510(k) if you have never, do not and cannot produce the device for which you're submitting the application? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
S Special 510(k) for orthopedic implant 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
M Label change - 510(k) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 5
G We want to add Covid-2 /19 to our air filter 510 K Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
A The refund of 510(k) user fee Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
A 510(k) review timeline 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
L Impact on 510(k) to use an additional manufacture US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
T 510(k) submission - Which name should I use in the submission? Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
Watchcat Advantages to pursuing a Special 510(k) instead of a Traditional 510(k) Other US Medical Device Regulations 5
A 510(k) registration and listing US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
Aymaneh Traditional 510(k) Declaration of Conformity Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 3
M Should 510(k) Predicates be Actively Listed Devices? Other US Medical Device Regulations 12

Similar threads

Top Bottom