iotaSOFT® Insertion System (K252339): indications, design and recorded evidence
The acquired K252339 file contains product-specific indications and users, 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 2026-10-06. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Source limits that change the comparison
The original table identifies subject and predicate columns
The original comparison table labels its left device column as the subject K252339 and the next device column as predicate DEN190055. Keep those headings when reading the age cells on the following PDF page; do not reverse their assignments to make the record appear consistent. [3]
Prepare or ask: Read PDF pages 6 and 7 together and retain the actual device identifiers, column headings and age statements for source reconciliation.
Dated manufacturer-submitted summary; current buyer applicability remains unresolved. PDF page 6 ↗
The age table conflicts with the standalone expansion narrative
The original table continuation places age 12-and-older and age 4-and-older in columns whose device assignments conflict with the preceding headings and standalone indication. The narrative describes a 12-to-4 expansion. This source inconsistency remains unresolved; Cruxi has not reversed columns or established a definitive current patient indication. [4]
Prepare or ask: Ask the provider to reconcile the original table, standalone indication and authoritative current device labeling before using the reference age scope. Preserve the discrepancy in the comparison record.
Dated manufacturer-submitted summary; current buyer applicability remains unresolved. PDF page 7 ↗
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 QQH. 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.
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; 1 parent records excluded; units record counts; calendar elapsed days.
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.
The iotaSOFT® Insertion System is intended to aid the surgeon in placement of
cochlear implant electrode arrays into a radiographically normal cochlea by controlling
the speed of implant insertion.
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.
There are no changes to the technological characteristics of the iotaSOFT Insertion System
compared to the predicate device. The technological characteristics, e.g., features, parameter
settings etc. are the same as the predicate and thus substantially equivalent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Conditional: Indication, design and evidence-gap comparison — Compare the named summary and underlying official records with the proposed product; document the differences, applicable route questions and evidence gaps before agreeing submission or testing deliverables.
Questions for providers
Which specific differences from the cited indication, design and operating principle change our proposed evidence work?
What source limitations or missing protocols/results must be resolved before treating this recorded evidence as comparable?
Which additional records and current guidance support the proposed route, and how will the comparison avoid assuming predicate suitability?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
