Cleared Traditional

K913957 - DANTEC COUNTERPOINT MK2(TM) (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

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

K913957 · Dantec Medical, Inc. · Neurology device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Jan 1992
Decision
148d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K913957 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the DANTEC COUNTERPOINT MK2(TM). Classified as Stimulator, Auditory, Evoked Response (product code GWJ), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Dantec Medical, Inc. (Washington, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on January 30, 1992 after a review of 148 days - within the typical 510(k) review window.

This device falls under the Neurology FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 882.1900 - the FDA neurology 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: Standard predicate-based submission. Standard predicate reliance. This clearance follows a standard predicate-based equivalence path within the Neurology review framework, consistent with the majority of Class II 510(k) submissions.

View all Dantec Medical, Inc. devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K913957 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received September 04, 1991
Decision Date January 30, 1992
Days to Decision 148 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Neurology (NE)
Summary Summary PDF
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
At panel average
Panel avg: 148d · This submission: 148d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code GWJ Stimulator, Auditory, Evoked Response
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 882.1900
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 Neurology devices follow this clearance model.