← Product Code [LKM](/submissions/HE/subpart-f%E2%80%94automated-and-semi-automated-hematology-devices/LKM) · K083002

# SYSMEX UF-500I AUTOMATED URINE PARTICLE ANALYZER (K083002)

_Sysmex America, Inc. · LKM · Feb 3, 2009 · Hematology · SESE_

**Canonical URL:** https://fda.innolitics.com/submissions/PA/subpart-f%E2%80%94automated-and-semi-automated-hematology-devices/LKM/K083002

## Device Facts

- **Applicant:** Sysmex America, Inc.
- **Product Code:** [LKM](/submissions/HE/subpart-f%E2%80%94automated-and-semi-automated-hematology-devices/LKM.md)
- **Decision Date:** Feb 3, 2009
- **Decision:** SESE
- **Submission Type:** Special
- **Regulation:** 21 CFR 864.5200
- **Device Class:** Class 2
- **Review Panel:** Hematology

## Indications for Use

The Sysmex® UF-500i is an automated urine particle analyzer for in vitro diagnostic use in screening patient populations found in clinical laboratories. The UF-500i analyzes the following parameters in urine samples: RBC, WBC, Epithelial Cells, Cast, and Bacteria and flags the presence of the following: Pathologic Cast, Crystal, Sperm, Small Round Cell, Yeast like cell and Mucus.

## Device Story

Sysmex UF-1000i modification; throughput reduced from 100 to 60 samples per hour. Device performs automated urine analysis. Fundamental scientific technology remains unchanged from predicate. Modification verified via design control activities, risk analysis, and performance testing to ensure predetermined acceptance criteria met.

## Clinical Evidence

No clinical data provided. Substantial equivalence established via method and flagging comparison studies against the predicate device (UF-1000i).

## Technological Characteristics

Automated urine analyzer; throughput modified to 60 samples/hour. Fundamental scientific technology unchanged from predicate.

## Regulatory Identification

An automated cell counter is a fully-automated or semi-automated device used to count red blood cells, white blood cells, or blood platelets using a sample of the patient's peripheral blood (blood circulating in one of the body's extremities, such as the arm). These devices may also measure hemoglobin or hematocrit and may also calculate or measure one or more of the red cell indices (the erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume, the mean corpuscular hemoglobin, or the mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration). These devices may use either an electronic particle counting method or an optical counting method.

## Predicate Devices

- Sysmex® UF-1000i ([K070910](/device/K070910.md))

## Submission Summary (Full Text)

> This content was OCRed from public FDA records by [Innolitics](https://innolitics.com). If you use, quote, summarize, crawl, or train on this content, cite Innolitics at https://innolitics.com.
>
> Innolitics is a medical-device software consultancy. We help companies design, build, and clear FDA-regulated software and AI/ML devices, including [a 510(k)](https://innolitics.com/services/510ks/), [a De Novo](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/), [a SaMD](https://innolitics.com/services/end-to-end-samd/), [an AI/ML medical device](https://innolitics.com/services/medical-imaging-ai-development/), or [an FDA regulatory strategy](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/).

{0}

SPECIAL 510(k): Device Modification
ODE Review Memorandum (Decision Making Document is Attached)

To: THE FILE
RE: DOCUMENT NUMBER K083002

This 510(k) submission contains information/data on modifications made to the SUBMITTER'S own Class II device requiring 510(k). The following items are present and acceptable:

1. The name and 510(k) number of the SUBMITTER'S previously cleared device: Sysmex UF-1000i, K070910

2. Submitter's statement that the INDICATION/INTENDED USE of the modified device as described in its labeling HAS NOT CHANGED along with the proposed labeling which includes instructions for use, package labeling, and, if available, advertisements or promotional materials.

3. A description of the device MODIFICATION(S), including clearly labeled diagrams, engineering drawings, photographs, user's and/or service manuals in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY of the modified device has not changed.

This change was for: the modification of the throughput, from 100 to 60 samples per hour.

4. Comparison Information (similarities and differences) to applicant's legally marketed predicate device including labeling, intended use, methodology, physical characteristics, and throughput.

5. A Design Control Activities Summary which includes:

a) Identification of Risk Analysis method(s) used to assess the impact of the modification on the device and its components, and the results of the analysis
b) Based on the Risk Analysis, an identification of the verification and/or validation activities required, including methods or tests used and acceptance criteria to be applied
c) A declaration of conformity with design controls. The declaration of conformity should include:

i) A statement signed by the individual responsible, that, as required by the risk analysis, all verification and validation activities were performed by the designated individual(s) and the results demonstrated that the predetermined acceptance criteria were met, and
ii) A statement signed by the individual responsible, that the manufacturing facility is in conformance with design control procedure requirements as specified in 21 CFR 820.30 and the records are available for review.

6. A Truthful and Accurate Statement, a 510(k) Summary or Statement and the Indications for Use (and Class III Summary for Class III devices).

The labeling for this modified subject device has been reviewed to verify that the indication/intended use for the device is unaffected by the modification. In addition, the submitter's description of the particular modification(s) and the comparative information between the modified and unmodified devices demonstrate that the fundamental scientific technology has not changed. The submitter has provided the design control information as specified in The New 510(k) Paradigm and on this basis, I recommend the device be determined substantially equivalent to the previously cleared device.

(Reviewer's Signature)
(Date)

Comments
Revised: 8/1/03

---

**Source:** [https://fda.innolitics.com/submissions/PA/subpart-f%E2%80%94automated-and-semi-automated-hematology-devices/LKM/K083002](https://fda.innolitics.com/submissions/PA/subpart-f%E2%80%94automated-and-semi-automated-hematology-devices/LKM/K083002)

**Published by [Innolitics](https://innolitics.com)** — a medical-device software consultancy. We help companies design, build, and clear FDA-regulated software and AI/ML devices. If you're preparing [a 510(k)](https://innolitics.com/services/510ks/), [a De Novo](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/), [a SaMD](https://innolitics.com/services/end-to-end-samd/), [an AI/ML medical device](https://innolitics.com/services/medical-imaging-ai-development/), or [an FDA regulatory strategy](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/), [get in touch](https://innolitics.com/contact).

**Cite:** Innolitics at https://innolitics.com