Cleared Traditional

CAVITRON/KELMAN PHACO-EMULSIFIER ASPIRA (K832074) - FDA 510(k) Clearance

Class II Ophthalmic device cleared through predicate-based substantial equivalence - typically does not require clinical trials.

K832074 · CooperVision, Inc. · Ophthalmic device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Aug 1983
Decision
34d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K832074 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the CAVITRON/KELMAN PHACO-EMULSIFIER ASPIRA. Classified as Instrument, Vitreous Aspiration And Cutting, Battery-powered (product code HKP), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by CooperVision, Inc. (Southampton, GB). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on August 1, 1983 after a review of 34 days - a notably fast clearance cycle.

This device falls under the Ophthalmic FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 886.4150 - the FDA ophthalmic device framework. The Traditional 510(k) pathway establishes clearance through substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, without requiring clinical trial data.

Device pattern: Fast-track predicate clearance. Standard predicate reliance. The short review cycle indicates strong predicate alignment - the FDA found sufficient equivalence without extended technical review.

View all CooperVision, Inc. devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K832074 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received June 28, 1983
Decision Date August 01, 1983
Days to Decision 34 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Ophthalmic (OP)
Summary -
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
76d faster than avg
Panel avg: 110d · This submission: 34d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code HKP Instrument, Vitreous Aspiration And Cutting, Battery-powered
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 886.4150
What this classification means

Class II devices require demonstration of substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This pathway does not require clinical trials - it relies on engineering equivalence and performance data. Most Ophthalmic devices follow this clearance model.