K971359 · Nebl, Inc. · MNG · Nov 14, 1997 · Gastroenterology, Urology
Device Facts
Record ID
K971359
Device Name
RESTORE (A.K.A. CAPSURE)
Applicant
Nebl, Inc.
Product Code
MNG · Gastroenterology, Urology
Decision Date
Nov 14, 1997
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 876.5160
Device Class
Class 1
Attributes
Therapeutic, Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K971359 · Nov 14, 1997
RESTORE (A.K.A. CAPSURE)
Nebl, Inc.
Published clinical literature on age-specific prevalence of bacteriuria in incontinent females
The sponsor used a literature review of historic clinical data to contextualize the safety profile of the device, specifically comparing the observed bacteriuria rate in the study population against established historic prevalence rates in the general incontinent female population.
Bacteriuria; Literature review; Safety benchmarking; Historic control
Clinical Evidence
Study Design
Population
Comparator
Key Endpoints
Literature review of bacteriuria prevalence; Literature review / Benchmarking
Incontinent females
Historic figures (10-38% prevalence)
Prevalence and incidence of bacteriuria
Indications for Use
The Restore Continence Device is an external continence device designed to effectively occlude the meatus, thereby decreasing or preventing episodes of urinary stress incontinence.
Device Story
Restore (a.k.a. Capsure) is a non-invasive, suction-based female continence device. It consists of a cap positioned over the urinary meatus; air is squeezed out during placement, creating negative pressure upon release to adhere to the anterior vaginal wall. This suction induces coaptation and occlusion of the meatus, increasing urethral resistance to counteract intra-abdominal and intravesical pressure during valsalva maneuvers. If necessary, Aquaphor or equivalent ointment enhances adhesion. The device is worn externally and removed by the patient for micturition. It provides a mechanical barrier to prevent or decrease urinary leakage episodes, improving patient quality of life.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical study of 100 women over 12 weeks. Primary endpoints: Pad Weight Test (PdWt), Provocative Stress Test (PST), Incontinence Episode Per Day (IEPD), and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (I-QOL). Results showed statistically significant improvements (p=.0001) across all metrics: 97% improvement in PdWt, 100% in PST, 91% in IEPD, and 45% in I-QOL. Safety assessment included urine cultures (low incidence of bacteriuria) and irritation questionnaires, showing the device was well-tolerated with minimal adverse events.
Technological Characteristics
Constructed of Applied Silicone LSR 30/40 LT. Suction-based mechanical occlusion principle. Generates approximately 150 cmH2O negative pressure. Form factor is a suction cup for intralabial placement. Biocompatibility tested per long-term implantation guidelines (biocompatibility, toxicity, cytotoxicity, bacteriostasis, skin sensitivity).
Indications for Use
Indicated for management of urinary leakage in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence. Does not correct underlying cause.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A urological clamp for males is a device used to close the urethra of a male to control urinary incontinence or to hold anesthetic or radiography contrast media in the urethra temporarily. It is an external clamp.
Predicate Devices
NEBL CapAid Device
ASI/Uromed Miniguard
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
R"7:331
145
# 510 (k) Summary
# NEBL Restore Female Çontinence Cap
- 1. Name: NEBL.Inc Address: 44 Terrace Drive Worcester, MA 01609 508-466-7639 ♪ Phone : Contact: Jeffrey Dann.M.D. Date prepared: 4/7/97
NOV 1 4 1997
#### 2 -Device Name:
...
::::
Proprietary Name: Restore (a.k.a. Capsure) Common Name: Female Continence Device Incontinence Urethral Occlusion Classification Name : Device Classification Code: 78MNG
## 3 -Predicate Devices: NEBL Capaid Device ASI/Uromed Miniguard
#### 4 . Device Description
The Restore Female Continence device is a simple, non invasive suction cup device which fits over the urinary meatus. Similar to a suction cup, air is squeezed out of the device's cap while it is positioned over the urinary meatus. When the cap is released, the device self-adheres to the anterior vaginal wall over the meatus via self-suction. If inadequate suction occurs, Aquaphor or an equivalent ointment can be applied to the outside rim of the device to enhance adhesion. The suction or negative pressure created by causes coaptation and the device occlusion of the meatus and . therefore, increased urethral resistance. The amount of negative το pressure generated the device 15 optimized by counteract increases in intra-abdominal and intravesical pressure during valsalva thereby decreasing or preventing leakage.
5 . Intended Use:
The Restore Continence Device is an external continence device designed to effectively occlude the meatus, thereby decreasing or preventing episodes of urinary stress incontinence.
#### 6. Indications for Use:
The Restore Continence Device is an external female continence device indicated for the management of urinary leakage in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence. Although it can help control urinary incontinence, it will not correct the underlying cause of the condition.
{1}------------------------------------------------
## Substantial Equivalence Comparison 7.
The Restore Continence Device is substantially equivalent to the NEBL CapAld Incontinence Device. Both the Restore and the CapAid Device achieve the intended use (to prevent or decrease episodes of incontinence) by occlusion of the urethra. Both devices are worn externally, adhere to the external genitalia and occlude the meatus. Patients remove both devices to void and reapply after micturition is completed. The Restore device also has technological similarities to the Miniguard Device. Both are placed intralabially and occlude the urethral meatus by creating a seal over the urinary opening.
## Non clinical Tests 8.
:::::
Restore and its constituent materials were tested for biocompatibility, toxicity, and cytotoxicity, bacteriostasis, skin sensitivity and 90-day muscle implantation studies. The testing meet the guidelines and requirements for long-term implantation. The results of these tests demonstrated that the materials and the whole device are blocompatible, nontoxic and well tolerated by cutaneous and subcutaneous tissue. In addition, bacteriostatic testing indicated that the materials do not support growth of common urologic pathogens.
Bench testing of the Restore device constructed of Applied Sillione LSR 30/40 LT creates approximately 150 cmH2O when applied to a siliconized digital pressure gauge. This negative pressure is optimal in counteracting increased intravesical forces during valsalva, thereby preventing leakage due to stress incontinence.
{2}------------------------------------------------
## 9 . Clinical Tests
The Restore device has been extensively tested for its safety and efficacy in decreasing or preventing incontinence episodes in All testing results indicate that the Restore device нощей . provides minimal risk yet provides significant benefit for women in controlling urinary leakage.
# Effectiveness
Clinical testing was completed 100 uomen Iron on Investigational Sites in the U.S. Women used the Restore device during a device usage period of 12 weeks the efficacy g test hypothesis that the Restore Continence Cap will: l)decrease or reduce prevent incontinence episodes impact and 2) the 07 incontinence on quality of life. Objective testing included Pad Weight Test (PdWt) and Provocative Stress Test (PST). Subjective testing included a voiding diary documenting the number O T (IEPD). incontinence episodes day per an incontinente impact questionnaire and a satisfaction survey. Efficacy parameters were statistically analyzed using paired t analysis, repeated-measures analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank testing. Analysis demonstrates statistically significant improvement c in all objective subjective efficacy measures. The Table below details the average measurements before device use (Control) and at the Week 12 Device Utilization Visit.
| Test | Control | Week 12 | %Improvement | P |
|-------|---------|---------|--------------|-------|
| PdWt | 6.67gm | .19gm | 97% | .0001 |
| PST | 2 | 0 | 100% | .0001 |
| IEPD | 3.4 | .3 | 91% | .0001 |
| I-QOL | 62.3 | 90.4 | 45% | .0001 |
Breakdown by Visits demonstrated that the effect was immediate with continued improvement as patients became more proficient with device placement.
{3}------------------------------------------------
The women in the Study vere stratified into categories of mild (0-2gm), moderate (2-8gm) and severe (greater than 8gm) urinary incontinence based on Baseline Powt. Analysis of PdWt results demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in urine loss for each subpopulation of subjects.
The impact of urinary incontinence or quality of life is a measure of the patients perception of the degree to which leakage had a negative effect on various aspects of daily living. A 22 question incontinence impact questionnaire (I-QOL) with a maximum score of llo evaluated subjects before and during device usage. Subjects demonstrated a significant improvement in their quality of life during device use.
Patient Satisfaction Surveys evaluated specific aspects of Restore's function, comfort and ease of use. Maan Response and Rate of Positive Response analysis demonstrated high scores of ease of placement and removal, convenience and ability to remain in place during activity. Patients were satisfied with overall device performance in restoring continence, improving enjoyment out of life and self confidence. Finally, patients demonstrated a high degree of satisfaction with device comfort.
A six week Post Device Utilization Period assessed subjects degree of urine loss after device discontinuation. . PdWt, PST and IEPD testing demonstrated statistically significant improvement in urine loss during this period compared to the Baseline control. This response, however, deserves further investigation before any long term therapeutic claims can be made.
# 8afety
To provide clinical safety assurance of the Restore Continence objective assessment of Safety included l) urine cultures Cap. 2) irritation questionnaire and 3) periodic physical examinations.
Frequent urine cultures revealed a 1.5% prevalence and 3% incidence of positive urine cultures during device usage. Based on literature review of the age-specific prevalence of bacteriuria in incontinent females. this low prevalence rate is significantly below historic figures of 10-38%.
{4}------------------------------------------------
Satisfaction Survey Question 8 quantitates vaginal irritation. The Mean Response and Rate of Positive Response were relatively high throughout The Study signifying that the Restore device vas well tolerated in the vast majority of patients.
Adverse events on physical examination were few, minimal, self limited and usually related to incorrect device placement. No therapeutic intervention was required in any patients and no complications or sequelae occurred.
Analysis of pacients Withdrawing from The Study demonstrated that the most common reason cited was inability to keep scheduled visits. Only 5% withdrew because of vaginal irritation. Furthermore. Powt and PST demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in urine loss in this subgroup during device use which was equivalent to subjects completing The Study.
## 10. Conclusions
The safety of the Restore device was demonstrated by extensive biocomparibility testing and non clinical and clinical testing. Technological characteristics do not raise new types of safety and effectiveness questions relative to predicate devices. the Clinical Study demonstrated that the Restore device did not effect the incidence or prevalence of significant bacteriuria. The device was well tolerated by the vast majority of patients. The efficacy of the Restore device was demonstrated by both objective and subjective measures. The clinical data showed that statistically significant improvement was obtained by subjects using Restore. In summary, these data provide reasonable assurance that the Restore Female Continence Cap is a safe and effective alternative for Women requiring atress incontinence management and is statistically equivalent to the predicate device.
{5}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/5/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo features a stylized caduceus, a symbol often associated with medicine and healthcare, with a bird-like form. The text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" is arranged in a circular fashion around the caduceus.
Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Document Control Room W-O66-0609 Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
# APR 2 6 2010
Jeffrey A. Dann, M.D. President NEBL, Inc. 44 Terrace Drive Worcester. MA 01609
Re: K971359
Trade/Device Name: RESTORE (a.k.a. Capsure) Regulation Number: 21 CFR §876.5160 Regulation Name: Urological clamp for males Regulatory Class: I Product Code: MNG Dated: August 25, 1997 Received: August 28, 1997
Dear Dr. Dann:
This letter corrects our substantially equivalent letter of the original SE letter November 14, 1997.
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
{6}------------------------------------------------
Page 2 Dr. Jeffery Dann K971359
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations, administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801); medical device reporting (reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820); and if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801), please go to for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's (CDRH's) Office of Compliance. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm for the CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics/Division of Postmarket Surveillance.
You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Resourcesfor You/Industry/default.htm.
Sincerely yours,
Janine M. Morris
lanine M. Morris Division Director (Acting) Division of Reproductive, Abdominal, and Radiological Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{7}------------------------------------------------
| k) Number (if known): | K# 971359 |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
| Device Name: | NEBL, Inc. Restore Device |
| Indications For Use: | |
The Restore Continence Device is an external female continence device indicated for the management of urinary leakage in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence. Although it can help control urinary incontinence, it will not correct the underlying cause of the condition.
(PLEASE DO NOT WATE BELOW THIS LINE . CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)
Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)
Roler R. Ratting
(Division Sign-Off)
Division of Reproductive, Abdominal, ENT
Division of Reproductive, Abdominal, ENT, and Radiological Devices 510(k) Number _ 11759
cription Use
21 CFR 801.109)
ﺎ ﮨﮯ
ાર
Over-The-Counter Use
(Option form In 1-2. ريبر 2-2.
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.