Search Results

The subject device is a tubular device that is inserted through the urethra to pass urine from the bladder.

The Teleflex Rusch®FloCath Quick™ 18 French (Fr.) Coudé Hydrophilic Intermittent Catheter is single use, disposable and sterile. The catheter is made of clear polyvinylchloride (PVC) with vertically cut and softly rounded, polished eyes and has a hydrophilic coating. It is composed of a shaft with a proximal funnel and a tip. The funnel is made of PVC. The shaft size is an 18 French gauge and is identified on the packaging. The funnel is color coded red to facilitate size identification. The catheter is 40 cm in overall length. The FloCath Quick is an integrated package that contains the FloCath catheter with a blue protective catheter sleeve and a packet of sterile 0.9% saline. Before opening, the sterile saline pouch is broken to hydrate the catheter. The protective catheter sleeve allows for touchless insertion. The sleeve can also be pushed back and used as an extension to the catheter. The FloCath Quick packaging has a packaging hole to facilitate opening the catheter. Either the packaging hole or the adhesive patch on the catheter pack can be used to hang up the catheter in an appropriate, convenient location while the catheter is hydrated.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Rusch FloCath Quick 18 Fr. Coudé Hydrophilic Intermittent Catheter), which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria for performance metrics in a clinical context.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of algorithm performance or clinical outcomes are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document, as it primarily details bench testing and a comparison to a predicate device for regulatory clearance.

However, I can extract the relevant bench testing performance data which serves as the "study" for this type of submission and interpret the "pass" results as meeting implicit acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence.

Here's the information that can be extracted, with explanations for what is not applicable:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

For a 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" for bench testing are generally that the device performs comparably to the predicate or meets established standards, and in all reported cases, the device "Passed". Specific numerical acceptance thresholds are not explicitly detailed in this summary for each test, but "Pass" indicates they were met.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size for any of the bench tests conducted.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The testing described is bench testing, not clinical data, so terms like "retrospective or prospective" do not directly apply.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). The "ground truth" concept is usually associated with clinical or image-based studies where expert consensus or diagnostic outcomes are used. This submission focuses on engineering bench tests and material biocompatibility, which do not typically involve experts establishing "ground truth" in this manner. The evaluations are based on compliance with international standards and internal protocols.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). Adjudication methods are relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical endpoints, not for objective bench testing of device performance parameters.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). This device is a urological catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not relevant.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). As stated above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A) in the traditional sense. For the bench tests, the "ground truth" or reference for assessment is established by the specified international and industry standards (e.g., EN 1616:1997, ASTM F623:2013, ISO 10993 series, ISO 11135-1:2014). Passing these standards serves as verification that the device meets defined engineering and safety specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This section is Not Applicable (N/A). As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no training set or ground truth in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device