Cruxi
Recorded device evidence
The acquired K223603 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
The 2021–2025 complete-year cohort contains 21 selected decisions under primary code JXG. 21 have valid reported receipt/decision pairs; 0 pairs are missing or invalid.
Calendar elapsed days: lower quartile 90.0, median 114.0, upper quartile 244.0. These are recorded calendar differences, not active FDA review time.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K223603 ↗ · this page | Reflow System Mini and ReFlow Mini Flusher | 2022-12-02 → 2022-12-29 | 27 | Special |
| K261004 ↗ | Codman® Distal Peritoneal Catheter, Barium Open End (82-1682); Codman® HOLTER® Peritoneal Catheter (SALMON Design) (82-1684) | 2026-03-26 → 2026-06-23 | 89 | Traditional |
| K251598 ↗ | Intellidrop | 2025-05-27 → 2025-12-10 | 197 | Traditional |
| K250636 ↗ | Sophy Mini Monopressure Valve (SM1) | 2025-03-03 → 2025-11-28 | 270 | Traditional |
| K252514 ↗ | EVAC-MRI | 2025-08-11 → 2025-11-05 | 86 | 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.
K223603 · PDF page 6 ↗ 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.
K223603 · 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.
K223603 · PDF page 6 ↗ Source 2
The subject device incorporates the same technological characteristics as that of the predicate device
and the design is identical to the currently cleared version.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.
K223603 · PDF page 7 ↗ Source 4
Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.
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.
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: {}.
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 summary | Designation in the acquired FDA export | Recognition / entry date | Recorded transition-expiration date | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISO 7197:2006 Bench Testing | ISO 7197 Third edition 2006-06-01 Neurosurgical Implants - Sterile single-use hydrocephalus shunts and components [Including: Technical Corrigendum 1 (2007)] | 17-12 · Complete 01/30/2014 | Not recorded in this export row | Summary [4] · Metadata [5] 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.
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 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 | K223603 [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Generic device category | Reflow System Mini and ReFlow Mini Flusher [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Recorded applicant | Anuncia Medical, Inc. [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| FDA product code | JXG [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Decision date | 2022-12-29 [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 | Special [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Receipt date | 2022-12-02 [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.
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.
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.
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
Fri, 30 Dec 2022 20:57:32 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07
Source key D02 · snapshot c7c74d6460c8aeb32414619bf61357345d62f0132ce500365eb0d92bc3fff2f1
Version not stated by the source · retrieved 2026-10-07
Source key D02 · snapshot 94ccf56dc846c7f6d78d6ad77dc6e87d1803ac3612af01d6894949e34c4a78d8
Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.