Cruxi
Recorded device evidence
The acquired K142818 file contains product-specific indications and users, design and operating principle, recorded comparison and differences, performance 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
The 2021–2025 complete-year cohort contains 2 selected decisions under primary code OOD. 2 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 record | Recorded device | Receipt → decision | Calendar elapsed days | Recorded submission type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K142818 ↗ · this page | Phasix Mesh | 2014-09-29 → 2015-03-31 | 183 | Traditional |
| K233999 ↗ | GalaFLEX LITE Scaffold | 2023-12-18 → 2024-04-09 | 113 | Traditional |
| K202425 ↗ | SurgiLattice scaffold | 2020-08-25 → 2021-08-19 | 359 | Traditional |
| K162922 ↗ | GalaFORM 3D | 2016-10-18 → 2017-02-23 | 128 | Traditional |
| K161424 ↗ | Phasix Mesh | 2016-05-23 → 2016-09-29 | 129 | Traditional |
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.
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
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.
K142818 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 2
Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.
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.
K142818 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 2
The proposed Phasix™ Mesh utilizes a fully resorbable poly-4-h ydrox ybut yrate (P4HB) polymer material.
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.
K142818 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 2
The proposed Phasix ™ Mesh has the same materials and design as the predicate TephaF LEX® Mesh.
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.
K142818 · PDF page 6 ↗ Source 3
The proposed Phasix™ Mesh uses the same P4HB monofilament as the predicate TephaF LEX® Mesh.
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 source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.
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: {'uncertain_pdf_page': 1}.
Known context: US. Confirm the organisation’s role, relevant activities and markets against the cited criteria.
| Source fact | Recorded value | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| 510(k) identifier | K142818 [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Generic device category | Phasix Mesh [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Recorded applicant | C. R. Bard [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| FDA product code | OOD [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Decision date | 2015-03-31 [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Recorded decision code | SESE [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Submission type | Traditional [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Receipt date | 2014-09-29 [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
The source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.
Useful evidence: The cited narrative and full tables, underlying protocols/results and a reviewed comparison with the proposed product.
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002
Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:02:50 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07
Source key D02 · snapshot f0854150c73a80c968cd91e81a7d8d871107eb95f6fc02ea958c427642a9b6b4
Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.
Compare FDA 510(k) Submission Services
Biocompatibility Testing (ISO 10993 Program) · Sterilization + Microbiology Validation