Search Results

The Medline Latex Foley Catheter is intended to be used as a urological catheter inserted through the urethra for the purpose of draining urine and other fluids from the urinary tract.

The Medline Latex Foley Catheter is a flexible tubular device manufactured from natural high grade latex. It is sterile as packaged and intended for single patient use. The Medline Latex Foley Catheter consists of two types (2-way & 3-way) of devices. These catheters constitute a double or triple lumen drainage tube with two opposing eyelets on the proximal tip. On the other end of the catheter shaft, the urine drains out into an appropriate collection device. The 3-way catheter has an additional set of eyelets for irrigation purposes. A silicon elastomer coating is applied to the catheter through a dipping process. The catheters are supplied in individually packaged, sealed single use poaches.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Medline Latex Foley Catheter. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device already on the market, rather than conducting new performance studies against specific acceptance criteria for the proposed device. Therefore, the information requested below regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies of the proposed device is largely not present in this document.

The document asserts substantial equivalence based on the predicate device's established performance and the identical nature of the materials, manufacturing, and intended use.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the available information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

This document does not define specific acceptance criteria or report performance data for the proposed Medline Latex Foley Catheter. Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device (Foleycath NR Latex Balloon Catheter, K903777).

The "performance" demonstrated is that the proposed device is identical to the predicate in key characteristics, implying it will perform equivalently.

Study Details

Given the nature of a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence, a traditional "study" demonstrating the proposed device's performance against specific acceptance criteria was not conducted or reported here. The "study" is implicitly the comparison to the predicate device.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not applicable / Not provided. No new test set data was generated for the proposed device in this submission. The performance of the predicate device (K903777), referenced for its established performance and function, is not detailed here.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Not applicable / Not provided. No new ground truth for a test set was established for the proposed device in this submission.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable / Not provided. No test set requiring expert adjudication was performed for the proposed device.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• No. This device is a urological catheter, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done

• No. This device is a urological catheter, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• Not applicable / Not provided for the proposed device. The "ground truth" for this submission is the established safety, effectiveness, and performance of the predicate device (K903777) based on its historical marketing approval and adherence to relevant standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable / Not provided. This is a medical device, not a machine learning algorithm.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable / Not provided. This is a medical device, not a machine learning algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device