US Product Portfolio for Orthopedic Biomaterials 2017 - MedFolio

  • ID: 4085812
  • Report
  • Region: United States
  • 502 pages
  • iData Research
1 of 4

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Anika Therapeutics
  • Bioventus
  • DePuy Synthes
  • Ferring Pharmaceuticals
  • Genzyme
  • Integra LifeSciences
  • MORE

General Report Contents

- Market Analyses include: Unit Sales, ASPs, Market Value & Growth Trends

- Market Drivers & Limiters for each chapter segment

- Competitive Analysis for each chapter segment

- Section on recent mergers & acquisitions

Orthopedic biomaterials are associated with high research and development (R&D) costs, which have subsequently led to premium pricing to recoup these initial costs. This is the case for competitors in the cellular allograft, cell therapy and growth factor segments of the U.S. orthopedic biomaterials market. In particular, orthopedic growth factors have had relatively high average selling prices (ASP) since their introduction to the market due to the high costs of recombinant growth factor technologies. The high R&D costs associated with the growth factor segment provide entry barriers against potential competitors. Currently there are only two growth factor BMP-2 products in the United States. Since they’re both used in different indications, there is a lack of direct competition, allowing companies such as Medtronic to charge a premium for the Spine indication and recover the large initial costs associated with R&D. The commoditized nature in some parts of the market, such as the allograft and DBM segments, which is due to the lack of product differentiation, has limited growth. The market is being driven by more competitors venturing outside their traditional space to tap into the high growth segments where they can charge a premium. These segments may include the cell therapy and cellular allograft segments, both of which have relatively high ASP.

Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 4

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Anika Therapeutics
  • Bioventus
  • DePuy Synthes
  • Ferring Pharmaceuticals
  • Genzyme
  • Integra LifeSciences
  • MORE

Competitive Analysis
Market Trends
Market Developments
Procedure Numbers
Markets Included
Key Report Updates
Version History

1. Research Methodology
1.1 Research Scope
1.2 9-Step Methodology
Step 1: Project Initiation & Team Selection
Step 2: Prepare Data Systems And Perform Secondary Research
Step 3: Preparation For Interviews & Questionnaire Design
Step 4: Performing Primary Research
Step 5: Research Analysis: Establishing Baseline Estimates
Step 6: Market Forecast And Analysis
Step 7: Identify Strategic Opportunities
Step 8: Final Review And Market Release
Step 9: Customer Feedback And Market Monitoring

2. Disease Overview
2.1 Basic Anatomy
2.1.1 Osteology And Musculoskeletal System
2.2 Disease Pathology And Disorders
2.2.1 General Diagnostic
2.2.2 Osteoporosis
2.2.3 Osteoarthritis
2.2.4 Indication For Bone Graft Procedure
2.2.5 Indication For Cartilage Repair
2.2.6 Degenerative Disc Disease
2.3 Patient Demographics
2.3.1 General Statistics

3. Product Assessment
3.1 Product Portfolios
3.1.1 Bone Graft Substitutes
3.1.2 Growth Factors
3.1.2.1 Other Products
3.1.3 Cellular Allografts
3.1.4 Cell Therapy
3.1.5 Hyaluronic Acid Viscosupplementation
3.1.6 Cartilage Repair
3.1.7 Spinal Machined Bone Allografts
3.2 Regulatory Issues And Recalls
3.2.1 Bone Graft Substitutes
3.2.2 Growth Factors
3.2.3 Cell Therapy
3.2.4 Hyaluronic Acid Viscosupplementation
3.2.5 Cartilage Repair
3.2.6 Spinal Machined Bone Allografts
3.3 Clinical Trials
3.3.1 Bone Graft Substitutes
3.3.2 Growth Factors
3.3.3 Cellular Allografts
3.3.4 Cell Therapies
3.3.5 Hyaluronic Acid Viscosupplementation
3.3.6 Cartilage Repair
3.3.7 Spinal Machined Bone Allografts

List of Charts

Chart 1 1: Orthopedic Biomaterials Market By Segment, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 1 2: Orthopedic Biomaterials Market Overview, U.S., 2016 & 2023

List of Figures

Figure 1 1: Orthopedic Biomaterials Market Share Ranking By Segment, U.S., 2016 (1 Of 2)
Figure 1 2: Orthopedic Biomaterials Market Share Ranking By Segment, U.S., 2016 (2 Of 2)
Figure 1 3: Companies Researched In This Report, U.S., 2016
Figure 1 4: Factors Impacting The Orthopedic Biomaterials Market By Segment, U.S. (1 Of 2)
Figure 1 5: Factors Impacting The Orthopedic Biomaterials Market By Segment, U.S. (2 Of 2)
Figure 1 6: Recent Events In The Orthopedic Biomaterials Market, U.S., 2013 - 2016
Figure 1 7: Orthopedic Biomaterials Markets Covered, U.S., 2016 (1 Of 2)
Figure 1 8: Orthopedic Biomaterials Markets Covered, U.S., 2016 (2 Of 2)
Figure 1 9: Orthopedic Biomaterials Markets Covered, U.S., 2016(1 Of 3)
Figure 3 1: Bone Graft Substitutes Products By Company (1 Of 3)
Figure 3 2: Bone Graft Substitutes Products By Company (2 Of 3)
Figure 3 3: Bone Graft Substitutes Products By Company (3 Of 3)
Figure 3 4: Growth Factors Products By Company
Figure 3 5: Estimates Of Funding For Stem Cell Research
Figure 3 6: Cellular Allograft Products By Company
Figure 3 7: Cell Therapy Products By Company
Figure 3 8: Hyaluronic Acid Viscosupplementationby Products By Company
Figure 3 9: Cartilage Repair Products By Company
Figure 3 10: Spinal Machined Bone Allograft Products By Company
Figure 3 11: Class 2 Device Recall Endobon Xenograft Granules
Figure 3 12: Class 2 Device Recall Accell Evo3C Demineralized Bone Matrix Putty
Figure 3 13: Class 2 Device Recall Allofuse Dbm Putty 5Cc
Figure 3 14: Class 2 Device Recall Microfuse Bone Void Filler
Figure 3 15: Class 2 Device Recall Grafton
Figure 3 16: Class 2 Device Recall Optimum Expanse
Figure 3 17: Class 2 Device Recall Integra Mozaik
Figure 3 18: Class 2 Device Recall Infuse(R) Bone Graft
Figure 3 19: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Biotech
Figure 3 20: Class 2 Device Recall Oncontrol
Figure 3 21: Class 2 Device Recall Graft Delivery System
Figure 3 22: Class 3 Device Recall Euflexxa (1 Sodium Hyaluronate)
Figure 3 23: Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew
Figure 3 24: Class 2 Device Recall Surgical Saw Blade Procedure Pack
Figure 3 25: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Radius Spinal System
Figure 3 26: An Acdf Multi-Center Study Using Vivigen Cellular Bone Matrix
Figure 3 27: Cerament Treatment Of Fracture Defects (Certify)
Figure 3 28: Synthetic Bone Graft Substitute Vs. Autologous Spongiosa In Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Figure 3 29: Assessment Of Nanoss Bioactive 3D In The Posterolateral Spine
Figure 3 30: Attrax® Putty Vs. Autograft In Xlif®
Figure 3 31: Evaluation Of Fusion Rate Using K2M Vesuvius® Demineralized Fibers With K2M Everest® Spinal System
Figure 3 32: Clinical Evaluation Of Genex® Ds In Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion
Figure 3 33: Efficacy And Safety Of Surgifill™ On Spinal Fusion
Figure 3 34: Evaluation Of Dtrax Graft In Patients With Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
Figure 3 35: Comparison Of Nanoss Bioactive With Autograft And Bone Marrow Aspirate To Autograft In The Posterolateral Spine
Figure 3 36: Evaluation Of Fusion Rate Of Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion (Acdf) Using Cervios Chronos™ And Bonion™
Figure 3 37: A Study Of Infuse Bone Graft (Bmp-2) In The Treatment Of Tibial Pseudarthrosis In Neurofibromatosis Type 1
Figure 3 38: A Prospective Study Of Instrumented, Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions (Plf) With Osteoamp®
Figure 3 39: The Clinical Effect Of I-Factor® Versus Allograft In Non-Instrumented Posterolateral Spondylodesis Operation
Figure 3 40: Clinical Study Of Infuse® Bone Graft Compared To Autogenous Bone Graft For Vertical Ridge Augmentation
Figure 3 41: Rct Of Attrax® Putty Vs. Autograft In Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion (Axa)
Figure 3 42: Clinical Study Of Injectable Ceramics Bone Graft Substitute Containing Rhbmp-2
Figure 3 43: Prospective Study Of Safety And Efficacy Of Inqu® Bone Graft Extender In Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery (Intebody)
Figure 3 44: Long-Term Safety And Effectiveness Of Augment® Bone Graft Compared To Autologous Bone Graft
Figure 3 45: Rhbmp-2 Vs Autologous Bone Grafting For The Treatment Of Non-Union Of The Docking Site In Tibial Bone Transport
Figure 3 46: Evaluation Of Radiculitis Following Use Of Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 For Interbody Arthrodesis In Spinal Surgery
Figure 3 47: Transplantation Of Autologous Bone Marrow Or Leukapheresis-Derived Stem Cells For Treatment Of Spinal Cord Injury
Figure 3 48: Safety And Efficacy Of Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells In Chronic Spinal Cord Injury
Figure 3 49: Rhbmp-2 In Cervical Arthrodesis
Figure 3 50: Interbody Spacers With Map3® Cellular Allogeneic Bone Graft In Anterior Or Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Figure 3 51: Bmac & Allograft Vs Bmp-2
Figure 3 52: Human Autograft Mesenchymal Stem Cell Mediated Stabilization Of The Degenerative Lumbar Spine
Figure 3 53: Regenerative Medicine Of Articular Cartilage: Characterization And Comparison Of Chondrogenic Potential And Immunomodulatory Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cells (Arthrostem)
Figure 3 54: Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells Transplantation For Spinal Cord Injury- A Phase I Clinical Study
Figure 3 55: Mesenchymal Stem Cells In Knee Cartilage Injuries
Figure 3 56: A Clinical Study Of Outcomes In Foot And Ankle Bone Grafting Using Map3® Cellular Allogeneic Bone Graft
Figure 3 57: Treatment Of Knee Osteoarthritis With Allogenic Mesenchymal Stem Cells (Msv_Allo)
Figure 3 58: Autologous Bone Marrow Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Transplantation (Bm-Msc) For Kienbock's Disease
Figure 3 59: The Effect Of Platelet Rich Plasma (Prp) On Post Operative Pain In Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Figure 3 60: Comparative Assessment Of Intra-Articular Knee Injections Of Platelet-Rich Plasma (Prp) And Hyaluronic Acid
Figure 3 61: Evaluation Of Safety And Exploratory Efficacy Of Cartistem®, A Cell Therapy Product For Articular Cartilage Defects
Figure 3 62: Trial Comparing Botulin Toxin Versus Hyaluronic Acid By Intra-Articular Injection (Gotox)
Figure 3 63: Trial To Assess The Structural Effect And Long-Term Symptomatic Relief Of Intra-Articular Injections Of Ha (Viscoa)
Figure 3 64: Platelet-Rich Plasma Vs. Hyaluronic Acid For Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis
Figure 3 65: Comparative Assessment Of Viscosupplementation With Polynucleotides And Hyaluronic Acid (Pnha1401)
Figure 3 66: To Look At The Characteristics Of Synovial Fluid And Cartilage Matrix In Osteoarthritic Knee After Hyaluronic Acid Injection
Figure 3 67: Platelet-Rich Plasma Vs Viscosupplementation In The Treatment Of Knee Articular Degenerative Pathology (Prp)
Figure 3 68: Platelet-Rich Plasma Intra-Articular Injection In Treating Hemophilic Arthropathy
Figure 3 69: Effectiveness Of Two Hyaluronic Acids In Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
Figure 3 70: Denovo Nt Longitudinal Data Collection (Ldc) Knee Study
Figure 3 71: Novocart®3D For Treatment Of Articular Cartilage Of The Knee (N3D)
Figure 3 72: Porous Tissue Regenerative Silk Scaffold For Human Meniscal Cartilage Repair (Rekreate)
Figure 3 73: Confirmatory Study Of Neocart In Knee Cartilage Repair
Figure 3 74: The Efficacy And Safety Of A Modified Microfracture Using Collagen Compared To Those Of A Simple Microfracture In Ankle
Figure 3 75: Efficacy Of Bst-Cargel In Treating Chondral Lesions Of The Hip
Figure 3 76: Biphasic Cartilage Repair Implant (Bicri) Ide Clinical Trial - Taiwan
Figure 3 77: A Study To Compare Two Techniques For Articular Cartilage Repair:Acic Vs. Mcic
Figure 3 78: Second Line Treatment Of Knee Osteochondral Lesion With Treated Osteochondral Graft (Odphoenix2)
Figure 3 79: Neocartilage Implant To Treat Cartilage Lesions Of The Knee
Figure 3 80: Study Of Nucel For One And Two Level Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Figure 3 81: An Acdf Multi-Center Study Using Vivigen Cellular Bone Matrix
Figure 3 82: An Assessment Of P-15 Bone Putty In Anterior Cervical Fusion With Instrumentation
Figure 3 83: Interbody Spacers With Map3® Cellular Allogeneic Bone Graft In Anterior Or Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Figure 3 84: Efficacy Study Of Nucel® In Patients Undergoing Fusion Of The Lumbar Spine
Figure 3 85: Prospective Study Of Thoracolumbar Spinal Fusion Graft (Bmac)
Figure 3 86: Cellentra Viable Cell Bone Matrix (Vcbm) Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion Outcomes Study (Vcbm/Maxan) (Vcbm/Acdf)
Figure 3 87: Prospective Study Of Thoracolumbar Spinal Fusion Graft (Bmac)
Figure 3 88: Peek And Allograft Spacers Evaluation In Spinal Fusion Surgeries (Peek)
Figure 3 89: Restore Clinical Trial
Figure 3 90: A Prospective Study Of Nucel® In Cervical Spine Fusion
Figure 3 91: Safety And Preliminary Efficacy Study Of Neofuse In Subjects Undergoing Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy
Figure 5 1: Press Release Summary

Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 4

Loading
LOADING...

4 of 4
  • Medtronic
  • Genzyme
  • DePuy Synthes
  • Anika Therapeutics
  • Ferring Pharmaceuticals
  • Stryker
  • NuVasive
  • Bioventus
  • Zimmer Biomet
  • Integra LifeSciences
  • RTI Surg
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
5 of 4
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll