Cleared Traditional

K963779 - RUSCH ENTERAL FEEDING TUBE (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

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

K963779 · Rusch, Inc. · Gastroenterology & Urology device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
May 1997
Decision
245d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K963779 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the RUSCH ENTERAL FEEDING TUBE. Classified as Tube, Feeding (product code FPD), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Rusch, Inc. (Duluth, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on May 23, 1997 after a review of 245 days - an extended review cycle.

This device falls under the Gastroenterology & Urology FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 876.5980 - the FDA gastroenterology and urology 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 Gastroenterology & Urology review framework, consistent with the majority of Class II 510(k) submissions.

View all Rusch, Inc. devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K963779 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received September 20, 1996
Decision Date May 23, 1997
Days to Decision 245 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Gastroenterology & Urology (GU)
Summary Summary PDF
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
115d slower than avg
Panel avg: 130d · This submission: 245d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code FPD Tube, Feeding
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 876.5980
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 Gastroenterology & Urology devices follow this clearance model.