Cleared Traditional

K925885 - AFP 17 X 4 AUTOMATIC FILM PROCESSOR (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

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

K925885 · Afp Imaging Corp. · Radiology device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Jun 1993
Decision
205d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K925885 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the AFP 17 X 4 AUTOMATIC FILM PROCESSOR. Classified as Processor, Radiographic-film, Automatic (product code IXW), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Afp Imaging Corp. (Elmsford, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on June 9, 1993 after a review of 205 days - an extended review cycle.

This device falls under the Radiology FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 892.1900 - the FDA radiology and imaging software oversight 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 Radiology review framework, consistent with the majority of Class II 510(k) submissions.

View all Afp Imaging Corp. devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K925885 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received November 16, 1992
Decision Date June 09, 1993
Days to Decision 205 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Radiology (RA)
Summary Summary PDF
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
98d slower than avg
Panel avg: 107d · This submission: 205d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code IXW Processor, Radiographic-film, Automatic
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 892.1900
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 Radiology devices follow this clearance model.