K982532 · Cogent · FTL · Jan 20, 1999 · General, Plastic Surgery
Device Facts
Record ID
K982532
Device Name
PARIETEX
Applicant
Cogent
Product Code
FTL · General, Plastic Surgery
Decision Date
Jan 20, 1999
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 878.3300
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Therapeutic, Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K982532 · Jan 20, 1999
PARIETEX
Cogent
Retrospective clinical case series; Medical records/clinical experience data
The submission uses retrospective clinical data from two published studies to demonstrate the clinical tolerance, recurrence rates, and safety profile of the Parietex mesh in hernia repair procedures.
Retrospective study; Hernia repair; Clinical case series; Routine clinical practice
Clinical Evidence
Study Design
Population
Comparator
Key Endpoints
Laparoscopic and open abdominal wall reconstruction using PARIETEX meshes; Retrospective clinical study; Follow-up/Duration: 1993-1997; Study Period: 1993-1997
Pain scores, time to return to normal activity, complication rates, recurrence rates
Experience in 1,200 Hernia Repair; Retrospective clinical case series; Follow-up/Duration: 3 to 36 months; Study Period: November 1993 - September 1997
1,200 consecutive hernia repair patients; Sample Size: 1,200; Number of Sites: 1 (Clinique Jeanne d'Arc, LYON)
Not applicable for this study
Complications, recurrence rate, return to normal activity, surgical cost
Indications for Use
The Parietex® meshes has the same intended use as the predicate devices: - reinforcement of tissue during surgical repair
Device Story
Parietex is a sterile, single-use surgical mesh composed of knitted multifibre polyester (PET). It is used by surgeons in clinical settings (OR) for tissue reinforcement during hernia repair (inguinal/incisional) and prolapse repair (genito-urinary/rectal). The mesh is implanted via open or laparoscopic surgical approaches to provide structural support to weakened or damaged tissue. By reinforcing the abdominal wall or pelvic floor, the device aims to reduce recurrence rates and facilitate patient recovery. The mesh is provided as pre-cut implants or slings.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical evidence includes a retrospective study of 2,700 hernias (2,445 inguinal, 272 incisional) treated via laparoscopic or open approach. Results showed lower pain scores and faster return to activity in the laparoscopic group (p<0.001). Complication rates were ~10% across groups. Chronic pain was rare (0.6-0.8%). A second study of 1,200 consecutive hernia repairs using a total extraperitoneal approach reported no visceral complications, no early recurrence, and no sepsis, with a 0.8% recurrence rate at 3-36 months follow-up.
Technological Characteristics
Material: Knitted multifibre polyester (PET). Form factor: Pre-cut implants or slings. Sterilization: Sterile, single-use. Biocompatibility: Tested per ISO 10993-1 (cytotoxicity, systemic/intracutaneous toxicity, sensitization, mutagenicity, implantation).
Indications for Use
Indicated for the repair of Inguinal and Incisional hernias, genito-urinary and rectal prolapses by promontofixation via open abdominal or laparoscopic approach.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Surgical mesh is a metallic or polymeric screen intended to be implanted to reinforce soft tissue or bone where weakness exists. Examples of surgical mesh are metallic and polymeric mesh for hernia repair, and acetabular and cement restrictor mesh used during orthopedic surgery.
Predicate Devices
Mersilene® (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson)
Ercylene® (Davis & Geck)
Prolene® (Ethicon, J & J)
Surgipro® (U.S.S.C.)
Marlex® (Bard - Davol)
Visilex® (Bard - Davol)
Atrium® (Atrium)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
# 510(k) Summary
:
### Submitter Information
| Name: | Sofradim Production |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Address: | 116, avenue du formans<br>01600 Trevoux,<br>France |
| Phone number | +33 (0)4 74 08 90 00 |
| Fax number: | +33 (0) 4 74 08 90 02 |
| Establishment Registration: | 9615742 |
| Name of contact person:<br>(US Agent) | James McMahon<br>Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs<br>Covidien<br>15 Crosby drive<br>Bedford, MA 01730 USA<br>Phone: (781) 839 1787 |
| Date prepared: | June 25, 2012 |
| Name of device | |
| Trade or proprietary name: | Parietex |
| Common or usual name: | Surgical Mesh |
| Classification name: | Mesh, Surgical, Polymeric |
| Classification panel: | General and Plastic Surgery (79) |
| Regulation: | 21 CFR 878.3300 |
| Product Code: | FTL |
| Legally marketed devices to<br>which equivalence is claimed | Mersilene®, (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson)<br>Ercylene®, (Davis & Geck)<br>Prolene®, (Ethicon, J & J)<br>Surgipro®, (U.S.S.C.)<br>Marlex®, Visilex@ (Bard - Davol)<br>Atrium®, (Atrium) |
| Reason for 510(k) submission: | To obtain market clearance on the Parietex Surgical Mesh. |
| Device description: | Mesh made of Biocompatible, knitted multifibre polyester<br>(PET). Each mesh is supplied sterile and nonpyrogenic in a<br>single-use package. |
| Intended use of the device: | The Parietex® meshes has the same intended<br>use as the predicate devices:<br>- reinforcement of tissue during surgical repair |
{1}------------------------------------------------
Indications for use:
Parietex™ surgical mesh; slings or pre-cut implants are intended for the repair of Inguinal and Incisional hernias, genito-urinary and rectal prolapses by promontofixation via open abdominal or laparoscopic approach. No applications other than the ones indicated are recommended.
#### Mechanical Properties:
| Comparative Table | | Parietex™ | Mersilene® | Prolene® | Marlex® |
|-------------------|-------|-------------|-------------|-----------------|-----------------|
| | | (Polyester) | (Polyester) | (Polypropylene) | (Polypropylene) |
| Thread | Chain | 68.5 | 115.2 | 57 | 57.2 |
| Resistance (N) | Weft | 55.4 | 15.5 | 74.6 | 55.8 |
| Tear Resistance | Chain | 3.36 | 0.64 | <0.1 | 0.66 |
| (daN) | Weft | 2.78 | 0.68 | 4.41 | 4.03 |
| Breaking | Chain | 39.11 | 20.53 | 59.74 | 43.2 |
| resistance (daN) | Weft | 63.6 | 10.04 | 76.74 | 56.7 |
Source : U. Klinge, J. Conze, B. Klosterhalfen, W. Limberg, B. Obolenski, A.P. Öttinger, V. Schumpelick : "Atteration of abdominal wall mechanics after mesh implantation. Experimental alteration of mests stablifly. Langenbecks - Archiv für Chirurgie, Band 381 Heft 6, 1996
### Performance data:
Biocompatibility Tests Standard biocompatibility testing was performed according to the ISO 10993 - 1 Standards and FDA requirements.
The device passed all of the following biocompatibility tests:
#### - Cytotoxicity
- Systemic toxicity
- Intracutaneous toxicity
- Sensitization
| - Mutagenicity tests: | Ames's test |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
| | Chromosomal aberration |
| | Sister chromatid exchange |
| - Implantation tests: | Short term implantation |
| | Long term implantation |
All tests were performed according to GLP in an American Laboratory.
#### Clinical Tests:
"Iaparoscopic and open abdominal wall reconstruction using PARIETEX® meshes" · Clinical results on 2.700 hernias. (Paper accepted by "HERNIA" 1998)
#### Summary:
The authors report a series of 2.445 inguinal hernias and 272 incisional hernias treated between 1993 and 1997 by the insertion of a Parietex® mesh via either a laparoscopic (1,595 procedures) or an open approach (578 procedures). Pain scores and time to return to normal activity were lower in the laparoscopic group
{2}------------------------------------------------
than in the open surgery group (p<0.001). In all of the groups, the average incidence of the total reported events (complications) was around 10 % with no statistical difference. This ratio seemed to compare favorably too previously published reports. Considering inguinal hernias in particular, chronic pains was extremely rare (0.6 % in the laparoscopic group and 0.8 % in the open surgery group). Whatever the approach was, sepsis was also very rare (1/1526 laparoscopic procedures, 2/380 open operations). These finding& illustrate the local tolerance of the mesh. Recurrence rates were below 1: % with no statistical difference between groups. This retrospective study demonstrates the clinically apparent local tolerance of this type of mesh. Prospective and long term clinical results will be necessary to demonstrate that the optimized short term tolerance of
### "Laparoscopic Hernia Repair. Total Extra-Peritoneal Approach • Experience in 1,200 Hernia Repair". Complete Literature Review. S. Benchetrit, M.D. - Clinique Jeanne d'Arc, LYON (FRANCE). (Paper accepted by "Surgical Endoscopy" 1998)
Parietex® mesh will influence the long term functional results.
#### Summary:
We report our experience with 1 .200 consecutive hernia repair by total extraperitoneal approach. Between November 1993 and the end of September 1997, 1,200 hernias have been repaired using the extra-peritoneal approach with a balloon trocar in our center. A balloon dissector was used to dissect the extra-peritoneal space in all patients. A 15 x 10 cm mesh was used. There were no visceral complication, no early recurrence and no sepsis. The follow up was from 3 to 36 months in 90 % of the patients with a low recurrence rate (0.8 %). One patient needed to be reoperated for chronic pain. Return to normal activity was 1-3 days. Surgical cost was compensated by social cost savings due to a shorter hospital stay and a quicker return to normal activity compared to open hernia repair. The early results of this technique experienced during this short study have been encouraging.
#### Conclusions drawn from the preclinical and clinical testing
The Parietex® meshes are substantially equivalent to the predicate devices because they have the same intended use, very similar indications, principles of operation, and technological characteristics, and any difference in the Parietex® mesh technological characteristics do not raise any new questions of safety or effectiveness.
{3}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/3/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo features a stylized caduceus, which is a symbol often associated with medicine and healthcare. The caduceus is depicted in blue and consists of a staff with two snakes coiled around it, topped with wings. The text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" is arranged around the caduceus in a circular fashion.
Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Document Control Room -WO66-G609 Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
AUG 2 0 2012
Sofradim Productions % Mr. Howard M. Holstein Hogan & Hartson 555 Thirteenth Street, Northwest Washington, District of Columbia 20004
Re: K982532
Trade/Device Name: Parietex® Surgical Mesh Regulation Number: 21 CFR 878.3300 Regulation Name: Surgical mesh Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: FTL Dated: December 4, 1998 Received: December 4, 1998
Dear Mr. Holstein:
This letter corrects our substantially equivalent letter of January 20, 1999.
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 application (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. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
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.
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
{4}------------------------------------------------
Page 2 - Mr. Howard M. Holstein
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 http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDRH/CDRHOffices/ucm115809.htm 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,
Mark A. Millman
Mark N. Melkerson Director Division of Surgical, Orthopedic and Restorative Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{5}------------------------------------------------
## Indication for Use Statement
510(k) Number (if known): K982532
Parietex™ ProSup mesh Device Name:
Indications for Use: PARIETEX™M ProSup™ mesh; slings or pre-cut implants are intended for the repair of Inguinal and Incisional hernias, genito-urinary and rectal prolapses by promontofixation via open abdominal or laparoscopic approach. No applications other than the ones indicated are recommended.
Prescription Use X (21 CFR 801 Subpart D) AND/OR
Over-the -Counter Use (21 CFR 807 Subpart C)
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)
Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)
Daniel Knaebel MM
(Division Sign-Off) Division of Surgical, Orthopedic, and Restorative Devices
510(k) Number Ka962532
Confidential
.
. . .
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.