510(k) · Cleared
Recalled · Class II · 2012Conmed Stealth Non-Stick Accessory Electrode, Model 138XXX
Data to Oct 25, 2026 (FDA decisions) Oct 12, 2026 (recalls) Sep 30, 2026 (MAUDE) refreshed weekly
Conmedcorp · GEI Electrosurgical, Cutting & Coagulation & Accessories
Cleared on Jun 15, 1999 after a 14-day review. FDA’s file for it is a 510(k) statement, which names no predicate. 1 later device descends from it. It has been recalled 14 times.
- Decided
- Jun 15, 1999
- Review
- 14 days
- Class
- Class II
- Product code
- GEI
- Recalls
- 14
- Predicates
- 0
1 later device descends from it, 1 citing it directly.
- This deviceK991855 Conmed Stealth Non-Stick Accessory Electrode, Model 138XXXConmedcorp · 1999
- Descendant · cites it directly · 0 of its ownK081559 GenesisMedisiss · 2008
Most influential descendants
Showing 1 of 1 · See all- K081559GenesisMedisiss · 2008 · cites it directly0descendants
View FIG. 1 as a table
Line of descent and top descendants
| Generation | Number | Device | Applicant | Decided | Recalls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (this device) | K991855 | Conmed Stealth Non-Stick Accessory Electrode, Model 138XXX | Conmedcorp | 1999 | — |
| +1 | K081559 | Genesis | Medisiss | 2008 | — |
Descendants by year cleared
| Year cleared | Devices | With a Class I recall |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 1 | 0 |
Sources: FDA 510(k) database (decision fields), the FDA 510(k) statement (indications), FDA recall and enforcement reports, and MAUDE; processed by 510(k) Report. Verify on FDA.gov · Methodology and accuracy.
Planning a device in GEI? A 510(k) Report weighs predicate choices, recall history and review times for a new device like this one.
Top candidate predicates for a new GEI device
- #1 K231790 The InMode System with the Morpheus8 Applicatorsscore 32.7 · 21 generations · no Class I recall
- #2 Held for the reportin the report
- #3 Held for the reportin the report
What was it cleared against?
FDA’s file for it is a 510(k) statement, which names no predicate.
What descends from it? (1)
1 later device cites it directly; ranked here by how many devices descend from each in turn.
| Number | Device | Decided | Descendants |
|---|---|---|---|
| K081559 | Genesis | 2008 | 0 |
Has anything in its family been recalled? (0 Class I)
Recalls of this device
| Date | Class | Recall | Root cause | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0720-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0722-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0733-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0734-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0721-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0723-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0729-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0730-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0731-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0736-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0737-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0735-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Dec 27, 2012 | Class II | Z-0732-2013 | Equipment maintenance | ConMed received complaints of some devices which had broken through the seal of the sterile pouch. ConMed confirmed instances where the pouch seal was compromised on the affected products. In no instance has it been reported to ConMed… |
| Nov 2, 2007 | Not classified | Z-0452-2008 | Process design | Sterility (package integrity) Compromised: packages of the electrosurgical blades and needles have an inadequate packaging seal |
The 5 latest of 14 recalls; the web page lists all.
No ancestor or descendant has a Class I recall.
What does this lineage say?
- Of its descendants, K081559 (Medisiss, 2008) has gone furthest, with 0 descendants of its own.
How does its category compare?
All GEI devicesGEI Electrosurgical, Cutting & Coagulation & Accessories: FDA decisions, review times, recalls and adverse event reports over 20 years.
FDA decisions per year · GEI
52in 2025
2026 to Oct 25, outlined.
Median 510(k) review, days · GEI
113in 2025
Receipt to decision; years with fewer than 3 clearances left blank.
Recalls per year · GEI
4in 2025
Class I (14 since 2007) Class II/III not classified
Adverse event reports per year · GEI
7,592in 2025
MAUDE reports naming product code GEI, not matched to any one device; reports are not rates.
View these four charts as a table
| Year | Decisions | Median 510(k) review, days | Recalls (Class I) | MAUDE reports |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 50 | 51 | 21 | 2,795 |
| 2008 | 61 | 71 | 19 | 2,556 |
| 2009 | 42 | 130 | 27 | 3,591 |
| 2010 | 46 | 109 | 51 | 3,377 |
| 2011 | 35 | 135 | 32 | 4,463 |
| 2012 | 39 | 133 | 30 | 5,216 |
| 2013 | 48 | 136 | 13 | 4,897 |
| 2014 | 49 | 103 | 3 | 4,908 |
| 2015 | 47 | 123 | 4 | 4,936 |
| 2016 | 64 | 108 | 3 | 5,616 |
| 2017 | 52 | 72 | 2 | 6,073 |
| 2018 | 47 | 93 | 6 | 6,545 |
| 2019 | 48 | 93 | 5 | 7,067 |
| 2020 | 59 | 105 | 1 | 6,490 |
| 2021 | 46 | 146 | 6 | 6,354 |
| 2022 | 55 | 150 | 49 | 6,103 |
| 2023 | 65 | 104 | 27 (4) | 7,176 |
| 2024 | 59 | 125 | 22 (10) | 7,897 |
| 2025 | 52 | 113 | 4 | 7,592 |
| 2026 | 43 | 183 | 8 | — |
What is it indicated for?
CoNMED Stealth® Non-Stick Accessory Electrode is designed to fit all CoNMeD and most other electrosurgical pencils and chuck handles and intended for use in monopolar electrosurgical procedures for the dissection and coagulation of tissue. The electrode blade is to be a direct alternative to other electrode blades in distribution and will be made available in a variety of tip configurations for differing circumstances encountered during surgical procedures.
Indications for use read by OCR from a scanned FDA 510(k) statement, so letters may be misread. Check the PDF before quoting it.
https://510kreport.com/device/K991855 · printed Nov 6, 2026
Cite this page
510(k) Report. “K991855: Conmed Stealth Non-Stick Accessory Electrode, Model 138XXX.” Lineage record from FDA 510(k) data and the FDA summary. Updated Nov 3, 2026. Accessed Nov 6, 2026. https://510kreport.com/device/K991855
Report an extraction error
Are you the manufacturer?
Record history
- FDA decision record loaded May 2, 2026
- Summary read Oct 13, 2026 (extraction version 9eaa42aa01ed)
- Lineage and recalls computed Nov 3, 2026
- Page last updated Nov 3, 2026