DEN110009 · Mary M. Sorg (An Individual) Dba PJ Sleeper'S · OTX · Dec 18, 2013 · Physical Medicine
Device Facts
Record ID
DEN110009
Device Name
RESTLESS LEG DEVICE
Applicant
Mary M. Sorg (An Individual) Dba PJ Sleeper'S
Product Code
OTX · Physical Medicine
Decision Date
Dec 18, 2013
Decision
DENG
Submission Type
Post-NSE
Regulation
21 CFR 890.5760
Device Class
Class 1
Attributes
Therapeutic
Indications for Use
The Restific Restless Leg Relaxer Foot Wrap is a prescription device under 21 CFR Part 801.109 that is intended to reduce symptoms of moderate to severe primary Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS) in adults and used during periods of rest or relaxation, when symptoms of RLS occur.
Device Story
Nonpowered lower extremity pressure wrap; applies mechanical pressure by wrapping around foot/leg; intended for use by adults with primary Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS) during rest or relaxation; prescription device; provides symptomatic relief through mechanical pressure application.
Clinical Evidence
Single-arm, historically-controlled, open-label study (n=30 adults) over 8 weeks (6 weeks treatment). Primary endpoint: International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) score. Results: Mean reduction of 17.22 in IRLS score. Secondary endpoints: CGI-I, CGI-S, CGI-EI. 90% of subjects reported 'much' or 'very much' improved; 97% showed decreased severity. 11 non-serious device-related adverse events (numbness, pain, burning) resolved with adjustment. No serious adverse events reported. Evidence limited by potential placebo effect and lack of long-term data beyond 6 weeks.
Technological Characteristics
Nonpowered; mechanical pressure wrap; applied to lower extremity (leg or foot).
Indications for Use
Indicated for adults with moderate to severe primary Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS) to reduce symptoms during rest or relaxation. Contraindicated for patients with neuropathy, poor circulation, peripheral vascular disease, varicose veins, deep vein thrombosis, history of blood clots, or leg/foot swelling. Do not use on skin with wounds, sores, fragile/thin skin, burns, cuts, rashes, abrasions, or existing breaks, sprains, or bruises.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A nonpowered lower extremity pressure wrap is a prescription device that applies mechanical pressure by wrapping around the lower extremity, such as the leg or foot, and is intended for primary Restless Leg Syndrome.
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
#### DE NOVO CLASSIFICATION REQUEST FOR RESTIFFICTM RESTLESS LEG RELAXER FOOT WRAP
#### REGULATORY INFORMATION
FDA identifies this generic type of device as:
Nonpowered lower extremity pressure wrap. A nonpowered lower extremity pressure wrap is a prescription device that applies mechanical pressure by wrapping around the lower extremity, such as the leg or foot, and is intended for primary Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS).
#### NEW REGULATION NUMBER: 890.5760
CLASSIFICATION: CLASS I (EXEMPT, from premarket notification review, subject to limitations in 21 CFR 890.9)
PRODUCT CODE: OTX
#### BACKGROUND
DEVICE NAME: RESTIFFICTM RESTLESS LEG RELAXER FOOT WRAP
SUBMISSION NUMBER: K102707
DATE OF DE NOVO: JANUARY 23, 2011
- CONTACT: MARY M. SORG P.J. SLEEPER'S 2210 ELK ROAD WATERFORD, PA 16441
#### REQUESTER'S RECOMMENDED CLASSIFICATION: CLASS I
#### INDICATIONS FOR USE
The RESTIFFICTM Restless Leg Relaxer Foot Wrap is a prescription device intended to reduce symptoms of moderate to severe primary Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS) in adults and used during periods of rest or relaxation, when symptoms of RLS occur.
#### LIMITATIONS
For prescription use only.
{1}------------------------------------------------
Limitations on device use are also achieved through the following statements included in the Instructions for Use Manual:
# Warnings:
- If you have neuropathy (numbness or tingling in hands or feet), poor circulation, peripheral vascular disease, varicose veins, deep vein thrombosis or history of blood clots, foot and/or leg swelling, DO NOT use the RESTIFFIC™ device.
- · Do NOT wear if you have breaks, sprains, bruises and bruising problems, wounds, sores, fragile or thin skin, burns, cuts, rash or abrasions involving your feet and /or legs.
- Do NOT wear when engaged in activities that put pressure on your feet: examples: standing, walking, running, exercising, or operating a vehicle or bicycle.
PLEASE REFER TO THE LABELING FOR A MORE COMPLETE LIST OF WARNINGS, PRECAUTIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS.
# RATIONALE FOR EXEMPTION
The technology of a nonpowered lower extremity foot wrap is relatively simple in that it achieves its effect through mechanical pressure and there are low risks associated with use of the device. Therefore, a nonpowered lower extremity foot wrap, when indicated as prescription use devices, are appropriate for exemption from premarket notification, subject to the limitations of exemptions identified in 21 CFR 890.9. Given the simplicity of the design, including the lack of any electrical components, general controls provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness if device manufacturers comply with such requirements, which includes current good manufacturing practice requirements (21 CFR part 820), and general labeling (21 CFR part 801).
Examples exceeding the limitations of exemption could include indications for over-the-counter use or a significant change in the technological characteristics.
## DEVICE DESCRIPTION
The RESTIFFIC™ Restless Leg Relaxer Foot Wrap device is a foot wrap designed to apply continuous, adjustable squeezing pressure on specific muscles in the feet. The device is to be applied before bedtime or while the person is seated or supine.
A more complete description of the device includes the following:
- An outer cloth wrap to support and hold the pressure pad in place. (The wrap has an . open end so the pad can be removed and replaced, if needed. Only the cloth comes in contact with the skin);
- . VELCRO straps and plastic buckles to hold the cloth wrap in place and allow for adjusting the pressure; and
- Pressure pads of high density foam to put pressure on the medial and bottom part of ●
{2}------------------------------------------------
the foot. The RESTIFFIC™ achieves its targeted pressure with a T- shaped pad that presses into the medial and bottom part of the foot.
## SUMMARY OF NONCLINICAL/BENCH STUDIES
The device design is relatively simple as it does not contain any software, electronics, circuit boards, nor is it electrically powered; therefore EMC or electrical safety testing is not necessary. The only 'mechanical aspect' of the device is the use of Velcro straps to tighten the wrap about the foot to apply 'therapeutic pressure' to the foot to have an impact on relieving RLS symptoms in adults.
# BIOCOMPATIBILITY/MATERIALS
The RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap is intended to only contact intact skin for a limited duration (< 24 hours at a time). The patient-contacting, outer cover of the device is made of fabric, typically used in clothing. In lieu of biocompatibility testing, the sponsor provided a justification that the identical material has a demonstrated long history of safe use.
## SHELF LIFE/STERILITY
The RESTIFFICTM foot wrap is a non-sterile, single-patient reusable device. It is intended only for external use and the user manual includes appropriate cleaning instructions for the removable outer cover. The device does not have a stated shelf life, which, based upon the nature of the device components, is acceptable.
## SUMMARY OF CLINICAL INFORMATION
The sponsor has provided evidence from a single arm, historically-controlled, open label study (n=30 adult subjects with symptoms of moderate to severe RLS) utilizing the RESTIFFIC™ wrap lasting eight weeks (six weeks of treatment with the RESTIFFIC™ wrap).
The primary outcome measure for assessment of effectiveness for the RESTIFFIC™ wrap was the International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) score, a patient-reported outcome measure. The IRLS score is the best validated and most widely used measure of effectiveness of a RLS treatment, though it is prone to significant placebo effects. The placebo response of the IRLS is unknown in a single-arm study, although it has been reported as greater than 40% in randomized, controlled trials. As the supporting data were derived from a single arm, historically controlled trial, there is some uncertainty regarding the benefits.
Secondary outcome measures included Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and Clinical Global Impressions-Efficacy Index (CGI-EI), all of which are the investigators' assessed measures of the subject's illness.
Subjects in the study demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in symptoms from severe or moderate to mild RLS, overall as measured by the IRLS rating scale (mean 17.22 reduction in IRLS score overall). CGI-I results demonstrated that all subjects improved: none became worse after wearing the device. Ninety (90%) percent (27/30) of subjects were "much improved" or "very much improved" by study end. CGI-S results revealed that 97% (29/30) of subjects experienced a decrease in severity. 83% (25/30) of subjects decreased at least two levels in
{3}------------------------------------------------
severity. CGI-EI revealed 86% (26/30) of subjects showed moderate to marked improvement with no side effects.
Safety was assessed by recording adverse events and analyzing them for severity and relation to the study device. There were 11 non-serious device-related adverse events (AEs) in 10 subjects due to use of the RESTIFFIC™ wrap. These included transient numbness, pain, or burning that resolved when the device was loosened. No serious AEs were noted in the study population. It was also reported that no subjects stopped using the device due to AEs.
The results of the RESTIFFIC™ clinical study were compared with historical drug studies using meta-analyses. Comparison of the results of the RESTIFFIC™ subjects to those of the historical control appeared to show a substantial treatment effect. However, this treatment effect is uncertain due to the unknown placebo response in the study (IRLS is prone to placebo effects) and identified differences between the historical control and RESTIFFICMM groups (in length of treatment and underlying disease severity).
The RESTIFFIC™ wrap has been studied for 6 weeks. It is unknown if the effect of the device will extend beyond 6 weeks, which is a limitation in the data given that RLS is a chronic condition.
## LABELING
The RESTIFFIC™ User Manual is consistent with the clinical data and covers all the hazards and other clinically relevant information that may impact use of the device. The labeling is sufficient and satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR § 801.109 Prescription devices.
## CONTROLS
Given the design aspects of the nonpowered lower extremity pressure foot wraps, compliance with the general controls of the FD&C Act. including compliance with the labeling requirements in 21 CFR 801 and the Quality System Regulation (21 CFR 820), are sufficient to reasonably assure safety and effectiveness for the RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap.
In addition, this is a prescription device and must comply with 21 CFR 801.109.
## BENEFIT/RISK DETERMINATION
The risks of the device are based on data collected in the clinical experience described above. There were no serious device-related adverse events reported in the clinical performance data with use of the device. There were 11 non-serious device-related adverse events (AEs) in 10 subjects due to use of the RESTIFFICTM wrap, which resolved with adjustment of the device. Based on this information, the risk associated with the RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap is considered low.
The probable benefits of the device are also based on data collected in the clinical experience described above. The study used the IRLS score, a well-validated, widely used patient-reported outcome which is prone to placebo effects. Subjects treated with the RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap reported a mean reduction in the IRLS score (i.e., a mean improvement) of 17 points. This compares favorably with the mean improvement of IRLS score seen in studies of one drug
{4}------------------------------------------------
approved for the treatment of RLS (mean change 12 points for the treatment arm and 8 points for the control arm), though there were differences between the RESTIFFICTM and historical control study designs and populations. Improvement was also noted for the RESTIFFICTM treated subjects based on the Clinician's Global Impression (CGI) assessment. For CGI-S, 83% decreased at least two levels in severity. For CGI-I, all subjects improved at least minimally and 90% were "much" or "very much" improved.
Additional factors to be considered in determining probable risks and benefits for the RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap include: (1) there are no legally marketed devices available for patients with RLS. There are approved drug treatments, but these have known adverse events that are more common and more severe than those seen in the clinical experience for the RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap. (2) Although RLS is a chronic disease, long-term safety and effectiveness data are not available. The clinical data is limited to 6 weeks in duration.
Although there is some uncertainty regarding the benefits due to the potential placebo effects, given the available information, the data support that for reducing symptoms of moderate to severe primary Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS) in adults, the probable benefits outweigh the probable risks for the RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap. The device risks can be mitigated by the use of general controls. including prescription use.
#### CONCLUSION
The de novo for the RESTIFFIC™ foot wrap is granted and the device is classified under the following:
Product Code: OTX Device Type: Nonpowered lower extremity pressure wrap Class: Class I (Exempt from premarket notification, subject to limitations in 21 CFR 890.9) Regulation: 21 CFR 890.5760
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.