Recorded device evidence

Lunoa System (K180608): indications, design and recorded evidence

The acquired K180608 file contains product-specific indications and users, design and operating principle, recorded comparison and differences, performance evidence actually described, clinical evidence or its stated absence 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 0 selected decisions under primary code MYB. 0 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
K180608 ↗ · this pageLunoa System2018-03-07 → 2018-06-0590Traditional
K140190 ↗NIGHT SHIFT2014-01-24 → 2014-05-29125Traditional
K100160 ↗ZZOMA POSITIONAL SLEEPER MODEL 0012010-01-20 → 2010-05-11111Traditional
K040161 ↗SONA PILLOW2004-01-23 → 2004-04-3098Traditional
K023010 ↗SNIFF POSITION PILLOWS/POPITZ PILLOWS2002-09-09 → 2002-10-0122Abbreviated

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

K180608 · PDF page 7 ↗ 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.

Design and operating principle

K180608 · PDF page 4 ↗ Source 3

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

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

K180608 · PDF page 7 ↗ Source 2

Both the subject and predicate devices are intended to keep patients with positional obstructive
     sleep apnea (POSA) from sleeping in the supine position.

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.

Performance evidence actually described

K180608 · PDF page 8 ↗ Source 4

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

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.

Clinical evidence or its stated absence

K180608 · PDF page 9 ↗ Source 5

Eight investigator-initiated clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate the                     safety and
         effectiveness of the Lunoa 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: Preserve whether the summary describes clinical evidence or says none was performed. This recorded case does not determine whether your product needs clinical evidence.

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: {}.

Historical references beside dated FDA recognition metadata

Read each mention in the linked original summary, including statements that testing was not performed. Recognition metadata does not determine your testing needs, chosen edition or transition eligibility.

Reference in this historical summaryDesignation in the acquired FDA exportRecognition / entry dateRecorded transition-expiration dateSources
ISO 10993-1
Biocompatibility testing
ISO 10993-1 Fifth edition 2018-08
Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
2-258 · Partial
01/14/2019
07/01/2029Summary [4] · Metadata [6]
Read scope and recognition limits ↗
ISO 10993-1
Biocompatibility testing
ANSI AAMI ISO 10993-1: 2018
Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
2-258 · Partial
01/14/2019
07/01/2029Summary [4] · Metadata [7]
Read scope and recognition limits ↗
ISO 10993-1
Biocompatibility testing
ISO 10993-1 Sixth edition 2025-11
Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Requirements and general principles for the evaluation of biological safety within a risk management process
2-313 · Partial
05/25/2026
Not recorded in this export rowSummary [4] · Metadata [8]
Read scope and recognition limits ↗

Prepare for your provider: the proposed protocol/report edition, its justification for your device and the complete current FDA recognition sheet. In particular, inspect exclusions for partial recognition. An edition difference does not automatically make the historical evidence unusable.

Identifier-matching method and selection limits

Match explicit ISO/IEC identifiers in selected preserved summary excerpts to the acquired, count-reconciled FDA metadata export. Preserve the historical edition mention, current snapshot designations, entry dates, recognition extent and any recorded transition-expiration date as separate facts. No title-similarity, edition-equivalence, test-mandate or transition-eligibility inference. At most twenty matched occurrences and thirty metadata rows per reference; wide matches are held for separate review.

1 of 1 matched reference occurrences shown.

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) identifierK180608 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Generic device categoryLunoa System [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded applicantNightbalance BV [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
FDA product codeMYB [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Decision date2018-06-05 [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 date2018-03-07 [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. Performance evidence actually described — what differs in our 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.

    Useful evidence: The cited narrative and full tables, underlying protocols/results and a reviewed comparison with the proposed product.

  5. Clinical evidence or its stated absence — what differs in our product?

    Preserve whether the summary describes clinical evidence or says none was performed. This recorded case does not determine whether your product needs clinical evidence.

    Useful evidence: Your proposed claims and supporting evidence, plus a reviewed rationale for clinical-evidence needs.

  6. Which edition and recognition limits would our provider rely on?

    Compare each historical reference below with the dated FDA metadata. Ask the specialist to justify the applicable scope and selected edition, read the complete supplementary sheet for partial-recognition exclusions, and investigate any recorded transition conditions. A difference in editions does not automatically make the earlier study unusable.

    Useful evidence: Proposed protocol/report edition, dated FDA recognition sheet with scope/exclusions, and a documented edition/transition rationale for the actual device.

Work packages and dependencies

What needs to happen first

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[11159] · record 28e0b4ec9aefc348511b6f8d45ce11abfb77a2a48ee97ab751fbba80bde27dcc
  • [9] Complete results array / fda-decision-context:K180608 · record whole dataset partition

FDA 510(k) summary — K180608 ↗

Thu, 02 Aug 2018 14:48:50 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D02 · snapshot 3ec58e2dca71634e74ce4e2e232b4521dd4854e61c192d9be9fb75af96c06aac

  • [2] PDF page 7 · record 8a90ab7c22bc74e6a179cc80aaba785c3f57dc6c55eb14b73e71e4e3c60912b4
  • [3] PDF page 4 · record 82726d1552d0fb7c9d706f6298b6a3a361b0d1793fd17f10c4a79f188ee6c4c7
  • [4] PDF page 8 · record dc7d53def70036734169bd87cab4c93e3423f9a7478f80aabec45cdf7baf5934
  • [5] PDF page 9 · record c2eecca70ed9cbf20ac61c3fa58646ed2beb356090a2344725d23debbbc14425

FDA — recognition metadata exported through the official search form ↗

Version not stated by the source · retrieved 2026-10-07

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D02 · snapshot 94ccf56dc846c7f6d78d6ad77dc6e87d1803ac3612af01d6894949e34c4a78d8

  • [6] CSV row 1151 · record eed6cb5e668a5447c86dfed62245d70e5e3e55d6cf3dcf6796391bc4509e3017
  • [7] CSV row 1152 · record 5837b9393097732ea2b59a36e37775bacda9307c0b8de0914383826ebde98568
  • [8] CSV row 4 · record 45cdd48d4d8693839e334ad8c7f9ef9546486f0676625819718db883dc2f6d46

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

Biocompatibility Testing (ISO 10993 Program)