The Orthopedic Surgery Opportunity Index: Capitalizing on Market Gaps

Methodology and Purpose of this Research
102 American Medical Association (AMA) board certified orthopedic surgeons were randomly selected from a list of 16,100 surgeons to participate in a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) featured on the internet. Upon completion of the SAQ, 10 of the participants were selected to participate in a follow-up depth interview conducted via the telephone.

The purpose of the study is to develop an overview of the perceived positioning of featured companies and the considerations associated with determining a company’s position.

The results feature a summary of surgeons’ perceptions regarding the importance of specific features in evaluating manufacturers, as well as the relative performance of featured manufacturers. The analysis includes a multivariate metric to compare the relative positioning of competing manufacturers. Also included is a positioning of competitive manufacturers based on the perceived strength of association with listed qualities.

The results of the data analyses indicate there are a number of leading companies currently servicing orthopedic surgeons, but none emerged as dominant. Each of the leading companies featured in the research is rated highest in one to three areas, but rated lower than competing companies in other critical areas. For instance, Arthrex is outstanding in the perceived quality of their products, but they are not rated as high as Zimmer in customer support, another critical consideration.

The information has applicability to advertising, sales, communications, product launches, forecasting, and strategic planning, as well as other business functions.

Introduction & Report Overview
Abstract
Measurement Objectives
-Sample design and distribution
-Measurement & Data Collection design
-How to read this report
Executive Summary & Key Findings
Detailed Findings

I. Importance of various considerations for ortho surgeons in selecting product preference

a. Important considerations influencing product preferences for orthopedic surgeons
i. Product quality
ii. Pricing
iii. Innovation
iv. Training / Continuing education
v. Sales reps
vi. Surgeon support / Customer service
vii. Clinical data
viii. Business assistance (marketing, advertising)
b. Orthopedic Surgeons ratings of importance considerations 19
(1= No Importance…5= Very Important)
i. Product quality
ii. Pricing
iii. Innovation
iv. Training / Continuing education
v. Sales reps
vi. Surgeon support / Customer service
vii. Clinical data
viii. Business assistance (marketing, advertising)

II. Awareness & Associations of Orthopedic Surgery Product Manufacturers

a. Orthopedic Surgeons Awareness and experience with featured manufacturers
(Unaware)
(Aware but don’t use)
(Currently use)
(Used in the past but discontinued)
i. Arthrex
ii. ArthroCare
iii. Biomet
iv. ConMed / Linvatec
v. DePuy Orthopedics (J&J)
vi. DePuy Mitek (J&J)
vii. Encore
viii. Ethicon
ix. Smith & Nephew Orthopedics
x. Smith & Nephew Endoscopy
xi. Stryker Orthopedic / Howmedica Osteonics
xii. Stryker Biotech
xiii. Zimmer
xiv. Ortho Development
b. Top of mind products for featured manufacturers to orthopedic surgeons
c. For orthopedic surgeons, which manufacturer comes to mind given the following terms
i. Traditional
ii. Professional
iii. Established
iv. Flexible
v. Up and Coming
vi. Declining
vii. Cutting Edge

III. Orthopedic Surgeons Perceptions of Manufacturer Performance

a. Which of these companies is best overall according to orthopedic surgeons
i. Arthrex
ii. ArthroCare
iii. Biomet
iv. ConMed / Linvatec
v. DePuy Orthopedics (J&J)
vi. DePuy Mitek (J&J)
vii. Encore
viii. Ethicon
ix. Smith & Nephew Orthopedics
x. Smith & Nephew Endoscopy
xi. Stryker Orthopedic / Howmedica Osteonics
xii. Stryker Biotech
xiii. Zimmer
xiv. Ortho Development
b. Which of these companies is worst overall according to orthopedic surgeons
i. Arthrex
ii. ArthroCare
iii. Biomet
iv. ConMed / Linvatec
v. DePuy Orthopedics (J&J)
vi. DePuy Mitek (J&J)
vii. Encore
viii. Ethicon
ix. Smith & Nephew Orthopedics
x. Smith & Nephew Endoscopy
xi. Stryker Orthopedic / Howmedica Osteonics
xii. Stryker Biotech
xiii. Zimmer
xiv. Ortho Development
c. Manufacturer performance ratings on the following considerations
i. Product quality
ii. Pricing
iii. Innovation
iv. Training / Continuing education
v. Sales reps
vi. Surgeon support / Customer service
vii. Clinical data
viii. Business assistance (marketing, advertising)
d. Relative positioning ratings standardized by featured considerations
e. Relative positioning ratings standardized by featured manufacturer
f. Derived manufacturer performance ratings by featured considerations

Conclusions
Recommendations
Suggested Analysis
About the Author


Table of Figures

Figure A-1 Geographical Spread of Respondents
Table 1-1 Considerations Influencing Product Preferences
Table 1-2 Categories of Considerations Influencing Product Preferences
Figure 1-1 Top 3 Important Considerations (categorized)
Table 1-3 Importance of Considerations
Figure 1-2 90% Confidence Intervals Importance Means
Table 2-1 Company Product Experience
Table 2-2 Arthrex – Top of Mind Product
Table 2-3 ArthroCare Top of Mind Product
Table 2-4 Biomet Top of Mind Product
Table 2-5 ConMed / Linvatec Top of Mind Product
Table 2-6 DePuy Orthopedics (J&J) Top of Mind Product
Table 2-7 DePuy Mitek (J&J) Top of Mind Product
Table 2-8 Encore Top of Mind Product
Table 2-9 Ethicon Top of Mind Product
Table 2-10 Smith and Nephew Orthopedics Top of Mind Product
Table 2-11 Smith and Nephew Endoscopy Top of Mind Product
Table 2-12 Stryker Orthopedic / Howmedica Osteonics Top of Mind Product
Table 2-13 Stryker Biotech Top of Mind Product
Table 2-14 Zimmer Top of Mind Product
Table 2-15 Ortho Development Top of Mind Product
Figure 2-1 Summary of Manufacturer and Product Associations
Table 2-16 Top of Mind Company
Table 2-17 Top of Mind Company continued
Figure 2-2 Relative Positioning of Various Companies
Table 3-1 Best Companies Overall
Table 3-2 Worst Companies Overall
Figure 3-1 90% Confidence Interval Overall Opinion Mean Ratings
Figure 3-2 90% Confidence Interval Quality Mean Rating
Figure 3-3 90% Confidence Interval Pricing Mean Ratings
Figure 3-4 90% Confidence Interval Innovation Mean Ratings
Figure 3-5 90% Confidence Interval Training/Education Means Ratings
Figure 3-6 90% Confidence Interval Sales Rep Mean Ratings
Figure 3-7 90% Confidence Interval Support Mean Ratings
Figure 3-8 90% Confidence Interval Clinical Data Mean Ratings
Figure 3-9 90% Confidence Interval Business Assistance Mean Ratings
Figure 3-10 90% Overall Value Mean Ratings
Figure 3-11 Arthrex Derived Performance
Figure 3-12 ArthroCare Derived Performance
Figure 3-13 Biomet Derived Performance
Figure 3-14 ConMed / Linvatec Derived Performance
Figure 3-15 DePuy Orthopedics Derived Performance
Figure 3-16 DePuy Mitek Derived Performance
Figure 3-17 Encore Derived Performance
Figure 3-18 Ethicon Derived Performance
Figure 3-19 Smith and Nephew Orthopedics Derived Performance
Figure 3-20 Smith and Nephew Endoscopic Derived Performance
Figure 3-21 Stryker Orthopedics Derived Performance
Figure 3-22 Stryker Biotech Derived Performance
Figure 3-23 Zimmer Derived Performance
Figure 3-24 Ortho Development Derived Performance

The purpose of this research module is to understand the general perceptions orthopedic surgeons have of manufacturers, as well as the perceived performance of products relating to specific considerations.

There are a number of well regarded companies currently serving orthopedic surgeons, but it is difficult to identify a single leader. The diversity of ratings indicates two existing conditions:orthopedic surgeons use multiple brands and recognize the value of competing companies, and orthopedic surgeons are not consistent in their ratings regarding the specific value of individual companies. While Biomet and Zimmer are named as the best overall by a significant number of surgeons, they are also identified as the worst overall company by a nearly equal number.

“The Zimmer reps are knowledgeable. The education meetings and cadaver workshops are good-- other companies don't do as much as Zimmer.”

“The main reason I like them is because of the representatives. I see them a great deal and they are always willing to help. I can always contact them when I need them. They've been very helpful.” (Biomet)

“Zimmer used to be a premier company in the field of orthopedics and was bought out by Bristol Myers and then their reps became few and far between and their products became second rate, and then their advertising and reps became 2nd rate too. Bristol has gotten rid of them and they are coming back some, but I see no push on total joint products from them.”

“They have no presence in our area. The reps are not around. They make no effort to see what's going on in our market.” (Biomet)

The featured companies vary in the strength of association they have with specific products. Some companies, such as Ethicon, are strongly associated with a single product (sutures). Other companies, such as Stryker and Arthrex, are not strongly associated with any single product.

Surgeons effectively discriminate between some companies based on their association with various descriptive terms, while other companies are grouped together. DePuy is considered “Professional”, while Stryker and Biomet are considered “Flexible”. Zimmer, Synthes and J&J share the quality of being considered “Traditional”. Companies considered “Up & Coming” include Arthrex and Biomet. Smith & Nephew and Arthrex are considered to be “Cutting Edge”.

-Arthrex
-ArthroCare
-Biomet
-ConMed / Linvatec
-DePuy Orthopedics (J&J)
-DePuy Mitek (J&J)
-Encore
-Ethicon
-Smith & Nephew Orthopedics
-Smith & Nephew Endoscopy
-Stryker Orthopedic / Howmedica Osteonics
-Stryker Biotech
-Zimmer
-Ortho Development

Order Online - visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1582661

Order by Fax - using the order form below

Order By Post - print the order form below and send to

Research and Markets,
Guinness Centre,
Taylors Lane,
Dublin 8,
Ireland.