Cleared Traditional

K892057 - OHMEDA TEC 5 CONTINUOUS FLOW VAPORIZER (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

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

K892057 · Ohmeda Medical · Anesthesiology device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Apr 1989
Decision
28d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K892057 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the OHMEDA TEC 5 CONTINUOUS FLOW VAPORIZER. Classified as Vaporizer, Anesthesia, Non-heated (product code CAD), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Ohmeda Medical (Madison, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on April 26, 1989 after a review of 28 days - a notably fast clearance cycle.

This device falls under the Anesthesiology FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 868.5880 - the FDA anesthesiology and respiratory 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 Ohmeda Medical devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K892057 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received March 29, 1989
Decision Date April 26, 1989
Days to Decision 28 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Anesthesiology (AN)
Summary -
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
111d faster than avg
Panel avg: 139d · This submission: 28d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code CAD Vaporizer, Anesthesia, Non-heated
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 868.5880
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 Anesthesiology devices follow this clearance model.