The modified Boston Advance® Cleaner is indicated for use to clean fluoro silicone and silicone acrylate rigid gas permeable contact lenses after each removal and before conditioning (wetting, soaking, and disinfecting).
Device Story
Boston Advance® Cleaner is a sterile, homogeneous surfactant solution used for cleaning rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses. It contains alkyl ether sulfate, ether sulfate, ethoxylated alkyl phenol, triquaternary cocoa-based phospholipid, silica gel, and titanium dioxide. The device is intended for patient self-use at home. The user applies the solution to the lens after removal to clean the surface before proceeding to conditioning steps (wetting, soaking, and disinfecting). The cleaning action is achieved through surfactant-based removal of deposits. The device benefits the patient by maintaining lens hygiene and clarity, ensuring safe and effective daily wear of RGP lenses.
Clinical Evidence
Prospective 3-month clinical study, 170 patients (340 eyes), 12 sites. 114 patients used modified Boston Advance® Cleaner, 54 used control. Subjects aged 18-60 (mean 37.5). Primary endpoints: safety and efficacy compared to predicate. Results showed no safety or efficacy-related discontinuations. Conclusion: modified device is substantially equivalent in safety and efficacy to the predicate.
Indicated for cleaning fluoro silicone acrylate and silicone acrylate rigid gas permeable contact lenses for patients requiring lens care after removal and prior to conditioning.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A rigid gas permeable contact lens care product is a device intended for use in the cleaning, conditioning, rinsing, lubricating/rewetting, or storing of a rigid gas permeable contact lens. This includes all solutions and tablets used together with rigid gas permeable contact lenses.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (Special Controls) Guidance Document: “Guidance for Industry Premarket Notification (510(k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products.”
{0}
K974466
FEB 19 1998
# 510(K) SUMMARY
1. SUBMITTER:
Company Name: Polymer Technology, a division of Wilmington Partners, L.P.
Address: 1400 North Goodman Street Rochester, NY 14692
2. CONTACT PERSON:
Douglas J. Fortunato
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Address: 1400 North Goodman Street Rochester, NY 14692
Telephone No.: (716) 338-5477
Fax No.: (716) 338-0702
E-mail Address: dfortunato@bausch.com
3. DEVICE IDENTIFICATION:
Trade Name: Boston Advance® Cleaner
Common Name: contact lens cleaner
Classification Name: Rigid Gas Permeable contact lens care product
4. CLASSIFICATION NAME AND REFERENCE:
Class II Ophthalmic Device
21 CFR 886.5925 5918
5. PREMARKET NOTIFICATION NUMBER:
6. INDICATION FOR USE:
The modified Boston Advance® Cleaner is indicated for use to clean fluoro silicone and silicone acrylate rigid gas permeable contact lenses after each removal and before conditioning (wetting, soaking, and disinfecting).
7. DEVICE DESCRIPTION:
Boston Advance® Cleaner is a sterile, concentrated, homogeneous surfactant solution containing alkyl ether sulfate, ether sulfate, ethoxylated alkyl phenol, triquaternary cocoa-based phospholipid, silica gel as cleaning agents; with titanium dioxide.
{1}
8. STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENCE:
Boston Advance® Cleaner is substantially equivalent to the currently marketed Boston Advance® Cleaner, approved on May 3, 1990 under PMA, and Boston® Cleaner. The device has the same basic technological characteristics as the predicate devices relative to design, packaging and composition.
9. DESCRIPTION OF SAFETY AND SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE:
A series of in-vitro and in-vivo preclinical chemical, toxicological, and microbiological studies were performed to assess the safety and effectiveness of Boston Advance® Cleaner. Testing was carried out in accordance with Premarket Notification (510 (k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, May 1, 1997, and the Draft Premarket Notification (510(k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, April 1, 1996. A description of those tests can be found below.
Toxicology:
In vitro biological reactivity (Agar Diffusion, USP 23, 1995, Chapter 87, 1698) tests were conducted using Boston IV (silicone acrylate) and Boston ES (fluoro silicone acrylate) Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lenses treated with a lens care regimen employing BOSTON ADVANCE Comfort Formula Conditioning Solution in conjunction with Boston Advance® Cleaner.
The results of these tests demonstrate that the product is not toxic.
Microbiology:
Sterility:
Studies carried out in accordance with USP 23, 1995, Chapter 95, 1689, were performed to demonstrate the sterility of Boston Advance® Cleaner.
The antimicrobial activity of Boston Advance® Cleaner was determined using a combination of two test methods. The Bacteriostasis Test Method and the Preservative Efficacy Test Method for Multi-Dose Preserved Contact Lens Care Products. Both methods are described in the Premarket Notification (510(k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, May 1 1997.
Biostatic Efficacy:
At the zero time point, separate samples of three lots of Boston® Liquid Enzyme Cleaner were each inoculated with one of the five USP-designated microorganisms to a final concentration of approximately 1x10⁶ cfu/ml. Test samples were assayed at 7 and 14 days after inoculation to determine the concentrations of surviving microorganisms. Test samples were continually assayed every 7 days through 42 days after initial challenge, and were assayed every 2-3 weeks thereafter, up to at least 98 days.
{2}
## Preservative Efficacy:
After six months of storage at defined temperatures and humidity conditions samples from three lots were tested using the Preservative Efficacy of Multi-Dose Preserved Contact Lens Care Products method. Results demonstrate that the modified Boston Advance® Cleaner meets the requirements for multi-dose preserved contact lens care products.
The results from these tests support that the product has acceptable antimicrobial activity.
## Shelf Life:
Expiration dating was established based on the Shelf-life Protocol testing in accord with the Premarket Notification (510 (k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, May 1, 1997, and the Draft Premarket Notification (510(k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, April 1, 1996.
## Lens/Solution Compatibility:
The compatibility of Boston Advance® Cleaner with silicone acrylate and fluoro silicone acrylate rigid gas permeable contact lenses was determined using a test procedure that is based on the Solution Compatibility Test Protocol found in the Premarket Notification (510 (k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, May 1, 1997, and the Draft Premarket Notification (510(k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, April 1, 1996.
The results of these tests demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed regimens with silicone acrylate and fluoro silicone acrylate rigid gas permeable contact lenses.
## In-Vitro Cleaning:
The critical micelle concentrations (CMC) of the three surfactants used in the formulation were evaluated. This test is described in Premarket Notification (510 (k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, May 1, 1997. The critical micelle concentrations were calculated using the data collected. The concentration of each of the surfactants was found to be above the critical micelle concentration for each of the surfactants.
The results of these tests demonstrate that the cleaning efficacy of the product is equivalent to the predicate device.
## 10. CLINICAL:
### Purpose
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that the investigational daily cleaner, the modified Boston Advance® Cleaner (test), is substantially equivalent in safety and efficacy when compared to the currently marketed Boston Advance® Cleaner (control), which was approved in May 3, 1990 under PMA P890054, when used with currently marketed rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lens materials on a daily wear basis. These lens materials include silicone acrylate and fluoro-silicone acrylate materials. The study started in April 1997,
{3}
concluded in November 1997, and was carried out in accordance with the Premarket Notification (510(k)) Guidance Document for Contact Lens Care Products, May 1, 1997.
The study involved 12 investigational sites and 170 patients (340 eyes) for a period of three months. 114 patients (228 eyes) used modified Boston Advance® Cleaner, and 54 patients (108 eyes) used marketed Boston Advance® Cleaner.
Of the 168 subjects entered into the study, 151 completed the study. Seventeen subjects were discontinued from the study. None of the 17 discontinued patients, Test or Control, were discontinued for safety of efficacy reasons. Subjects recruited into the study ranged in age from 18 - 60 years of age with a mean age of 37.5. There were 132 females and 38 males.
**Conclusion**
Based on these data, it is concluded that the modified Boston Advance® Cleaner (Test), is substantially equivalent in safety and efficacy to the currently marketed Boston Advance® Cleaner (Control).
11. **CONCLUSION:**
The results from all non-clinical and clinical studies demonstrate that the Boston Advance® Cleaner is safe, effective, and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
{4}
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
9200 Corporate Boulevard
Rockville MD 20850
FEB 19 1998
Mr. Douglas J. Fortunato
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Polymer Technology Corporation
1400 N. Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14692
Re: K974466
Trade Name: Boston Advance ® Cleaner (new visibility tinted formula)
Regulatory Class: II
Product Code: 86 LPN
Dated: November 25, 1997
Received: November 26, 1997
Dear Mr. Fortunato:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device referenced above and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to 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). 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 (Premarket Approval), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 895. A substantially equivalent determination assumes compliance with the current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements, as set forth in the Quality System Regulation (QS) for Medical Devices: General regulation (21 CFR Part 820) and that, through periodic (QS) inspections, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will verify such assumptions. Failure to comply with the GMP regulation may result in regulatory action. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register. Please note: this response to your premarket notification submission does not affect any obligation you might have under sections 531 through 542 of the Act for devices under the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions, or other Federal laws or regulations.
{5}
Page 2 - Mr. Douglas J. Fortunato
This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial equivalence of your device to a legally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801 and additionally 809.10 for *in vitro* diagnostic devices), please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4613. Additionally, for questions on the promotion and advertising of your device, please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4639. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR 807.97). Other general information on your responsibilities under the Act may be obtained from the Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or at (301) 443-6597.
Sincerely yours,

A. Ralph Rosenthal, M.D.
Director
Division of Ophthalmic Devices
Office of Device Evaluation
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{6}
Polymer Technology,
a division of Wilmington Partners, L.P.
1400 North Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14692-0450
# Indications for Use Statement
510(k) Number (if known): K974466
Device Name: Boston Advance® Cleaner
Indications for Use:
Boston Advance® Cleaner is indicated for use to clean fluoro silicone acrylate and silicone acrylate rigid gas permeable contact lenses after each removal and before conditioning (wetting, soaking, disinfecting).
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)
Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)
Prescription Use ☐ OR Over-The-Counter-Use ☑
(Division Sign-Off)
Division of Ophthalmic Devices
510(k) Number K974466
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.