Recorded device evidence

COLLASYN PLUG FOR THE LACRIMAL EFFICIENCY TEST (K140026): indications, design and recorded evidence

The acquired K140026 file contains product-specific indications and users, design and operating principle, recorded comparison and differences, non-clinical evidence actually described sections. Compare these dated manufacturer statements with your own indication and design before commissioning evidence work. They describe this submission; they do not prescribe your testing, validate performance independently or establish a suitable predicate.

Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.

Computed exact-code research

This decision beside its recorded product-code cohort

The 2021–2025 complete-year cohort contains 3 selected decisions under primary code LZU. 3 have valid reported receipt/decision pairs; 0 pairs are missing or invalid.

No quartiles are displayed: this complete-year cohort has fewer than 20 valid pairs.

The table shows the named decision and up to four latest exact-code research records through 2026-09-27. It can include partial-year records outside the complete-year cohort. The quartiles above use the full stated cohort, not this displayed selection.

Research recordRecorded deviceReceipt → decisionCalendar elapsed daysRecorded submission type
K140026 ↗ · this pageCOLLASYN PLUG FOR THE LACRIMAL EFFICIENCY TEST2014-01-06 → 2014-06-03148Traditional
K241229 ↗Hello,eyes® BIO Plug2024-05-02 → 2024-06-2857Traditional
K222164 ↗Visant Medical Canalicular Plug2022-07-21 → 2022-12-23155Traditional
K213988 ↗SOFT PLUG Extended Duration 180 Tapered Canalicular Plug2021-12-20 → 2022-06-03165Traditional
K190210 ↗Tear Pool Dissolvable Punctum Plugs2019-02-04 → 2019-10-24262Traditional

Use this comparison: select a record to investigate, read its actual indications and design, and document differences. A shared code or elapsed period cannot establish its relevance to your device.

Calendar elapsed days are not active FDA review time, a promised schedule or a success probability. The selection includes only the stated recorded decisions, not all applications. Latest records can postdate the named historical decision and are contextual research, not its predicates. Shared codes, summaries and observed records do not prove equivalence, current market availability, buyer applicability or predicate suitability.

Calculation, selection and source versions

Reuse the complete-endpoint exact-primary-code, documented SE-decision cohort and its stated cutoff/window. Retain its type-7 quartiles only when at least 20 valid date pairs are present. Independently subtract the named official record’s receipt date from its decision date; missing or negative pairs remain unknown. Show up to four latest exact-code research records, excluding the named ID. Parent analysis hash, source snapshots and calculation versions are retained.

Calculation: fda-named-decision-cohort-context-1; cutoff 2026-09-27; 0 parent records excluded; units record counts; calendar elapsed days.

Source snapshots: 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002.

Read beyond the decision row

Recorded evidence and differences to investigate

The summary is manufacturer-submitted context hosted by FDA. Negative/no-study statements are preserved. Evidence themes are not binding legal requirements.

Short opening excerpts identify the source sections. Read the linked original for the full study context, negative statements, tables and limitations. Public quotations are limited to 120 words per acquired summary; the internal evidence packet retains exact section ranges for review.

Indications and users

K140026 · PDF page 2 ↗ Source 2

VisiPlug'ST                  provide         temporary              occlusion     of       the
                                                                                                           tear       drainage         system.

The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.

Compare with your product: Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.

Design and operating principle

K140026 · PDF page 1 ↗ Source 3

The          proposed            device        is         an              ophthalmic         device
                                                                                                                                                                     commonly             referred            to        as            a punctumn           plug.

The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.

Compare with your product: Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.

Recorded comparison and differences

K140026 · PDF page 2 ↗ Source 2

The            proposed        device             has         the         same        design         as          the
                                                                                                           Primary            Predicate            Device.

The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.

Compare with your product: The summary’s comparison is a manufacturer statement about that submission. Investigate the actual design differences and cited records before considering any comparator or predicate.

Non-clinical evidence actually described

K140026 · PDF page 2 ↗ Source 2

Performance            Data             testing         was          conducted           to
                                                                                                           compare       the           strength         and            mass           loss          degradation
                                                                                                           rates       of       Glycoprene®       MG23             to         that         of       gut     suture
                                                                                                           (material               used           for      the          Primary             Predicate            Device).

The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.

Compare with your product: Treat these as documented evidence themes in this case, including any limitations or negative statements. Ask which protocols, design inputs and acceptance rationale would be justified for your product; these excerpts are not a mandatory test panel.

Extraction selection and limits

Select observed whole-line section headings or explicit colon-delimited inline labels on readable PDF pages, including the explicitly documented heading-spacing variants in this parser version. Preserve the original heading, character ranges and layout; do not repair excerpt text. Exclude letter boilerplate and uncertain pages. Stop at observed table headings; do not infer table columns or scalar results from layout text. Multi-column or suspicious split-numeric excerpts are excluded until reviewed alternate extraction is available. Original layout records remain retained; any alternate text has its own extractor-version locator and requires original-page review. For each dimension, prefer usable versioned alternate text where available, selecting its longest usable excerpt; otherwise select the longest usable original-layout excerpt. Ties preserve source order. Bounded to 64 PDF pages and 3,500 characters per section. This is a selection, not a complete dossier analysis.

Excluded extraction items: {}.

Known facts and deciding inputs

Known context: US. Confirm the organisation’s role, relevant activities and markets against the cited criteria.

Source factRecorded valueWhat to check
510(k) identifierK140026 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Generic device categoryCOLLASYN PLUG FOR THE LACRIMAL EFFICIENCY TEST [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded applicantLacrimedics, Inc. [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
FDA product codeLZU [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Decision date2014-06-03 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded decision codeSESE [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Submission typeTraditional [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Receipt date2014-01-06 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.

Prepare a differences and evidence worksheet

Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.

  1. Indications and users — what differs in our product?

    Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.

    Useful evidence: Our proposed indication, user/population and use environment beside this exact recorded indication.

  2. Design and operating principle — what differs in our product?

    Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.

    Useful evidence: Design description, materials/components, accessory list and a differences matrix.

  3. Recorded comparison and differences — what differs in our product?

    The summary’s comparison is a manufacturer statement about that submission. Investigate the actual design differences and cited records before considering any comparator or predicate.

    Useful evidence: Feature-by-feature differences and the underlying cited documents; no automated predicate selection.

  4. Non-clinical evidence actually described — what differs in our product?

    Treat these as documented evidence themes in this case, including any limitations or negative statements. Ask which protocols, design inputs and acceptance rationale would be justified for your product; these excerpts are not a mandatory test panel.

    Useful evidence: Existing protocols/results and design-specific evidence gaps, with standard editions and scope reviewed separately.

Work packages and dependencies

Questions for providers

Sources and data dates

Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.

FDA openFDA — 510(k) decision records ↗

2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002

  • [1] device-510k-0001-of-0001.json:results[685] · record 8ec21891d9feece16419f5d1c84f43b6e599f3baf9082f669ae117f4fd5eea96
  • [4] Complete results array / fda-decision-context:K140026 · record whole dataset partition

FDA 510(k) summary — K140026 ↗

Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:17:12 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D02 · snapshot 6c788020aef30eed3de3ae6cd963ff48ecbede8eb096b69f7cb87667721eb041

  • [2] PDF page 2 · record bf348fddbee64f52313325fcef10b5c2563732119c53ad80c710d3e36ab74ef4
  • [3] PDF page 1 · record 90d9c12d20df70e1fb4d10a3dc5623ac2317167f1cecb8512befd14fe584ae4e

Prepare an editable project brief

Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.

Choose work packages to discuss

Compare FDA 510(k) Submission Services