US Market Report for Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement 2017 - MedCore

  • ID: 4332924
  • Report
  • Region: United States
  • 537 pages
  • iData Research
1 of 4

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • ACell
  • BioHorizons
  • Dentsply
  • KCI
  • Novus Scientific
  • Stryker
  • MORE
The tendon reinforcement market constitutes a significant portion of the U.S. sports medicine market. Tendons have been traditionally repaired with the surgical use of suture anchoring technology to directly rejoin a torn tendon. One issue with traditional tendon repair is the incidence of re-tearing previously operated injuries. This predominantly occurs following procedures involving the repair of the shoulder’s rotator cuff tendons and the ankle’s Achilles tendon.

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
The soft tissue reinforcement devices used for this indication include allografts (human tissue-derived), xenografts (non-human tissue-derived), and alloplasts (composed of synthetic materials). These grafts are designed to mechanically reinforce and augment the sutured anatomy, and to promote cellular in-growth at the repair site for improved healing over suturing alone. The rate of host cell infiltration varies according to the type of material used; greater infiltration is desirable for long-term durability of the repair. These tendon reinforcement devices can decrease the re-tear rate by as much as 25%. The rotator cuff is a combination of four muscles and their tendons that cover the head of the humerus. These include the supraspinatus, the infraspinatus, the teres minor and subscapularis muscles. These muscles stabilize the ball of the shoulder within the joint and enable the arm to lift and rotate. The shoulder joint allows for a great range of motion, but at the expense of stability, as it is not directly attached to the axial skeleton in the way that the lower limbs are. The Achilles tendon is a combination of three calf muscle tendons that attach to the calcaneus (heel) bone. These include the plantaris, gastrocnemius (calf) and soleus muscles. These muscles enable the extension and rotation of the foot.
READ MORE
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 4

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • ACell
  • BioHorizons
  • Dentsply
  • KCI
  • Novus Scientific
  • Stryker
  • MORE
Executive Summary
U.S. Soft Tissue Reinforcement And Regeneration Market Overview
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
2.2 Disease Treatments And Diagnostics
2.2.1 Breast Cancer
2.2.2 Cardiovascular Tissue Repair
2.2.3 Dental Soft Tissue Disease
2.2.4 Diabetic Foot Ulcer
2.2.5 Dural Tears and Cerebrospinal Fluid Leakage Prevention
2.2.6 Hernia
2.2.7 Peripheral Vasculature Repair
2.2.8 Rotator Cuff and Tendon Tearing
2.2.9 Traumas and Burns
2.2.10 Urinary Incontinence
2.3 Patient Demographics
2.3.1 Breast Cancer Statistics
2.3.2 Cardiovascular Disease Statistics
2.3.3 Diabetic Foot Ulcer Statistics
2.3.4 Hernia Repair Statistics
2.3.5 Periodontitis Statistics
2.3.6 Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD) Statistics
2.3.7 Traumatic and Sport-Related Injuries Statistics
2.3.8 Urinary Incontinence Statistics

3. Product Assessment
3.1 Product Portfolios
3.1.1 Sports Medicine And Tendon Reinforcement Market
3.2 Regulatory Issues And Recalls
3.2.1 Acelity (KCI, LifeCells, Systagenix)
3.2.1.1 Skin Repair
3.2.2 Astora Women’s Health (AMS)
3.2.2.1 Vaginal Slings
3.2.3 Baxter Healthcare Corp (Synovis Surgical Innovations, Inc.)
3.2.3.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.2.4 C.R. Bard (Davol Inc., subsidiary)
3.2.4.1 Hernia Repair
3.2.4.2 Vaginal Slings
3.2.5 CryoLife, Inc.
3.2.5.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.2.6 Ethicon
3.2.6.1 Hernia Repair
3.2.7 Integra LifeScience
3.2.7.1 Dural Repair
3.2.7.2 Skin Repair
3.2.7.3 Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement
3.2.8 LeMaitre Vascular Inc.
3.2.8.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.2.9 Organogenesis
3.2.9.1 Skin Repair
3.2.10 Other companies
3.2.10.1 Breast Reconstruction
3.2.10.2 Hernia Repair
3.2.10.3 Dural Repair
3.2.10.4 Dental Soft Tissue
3.3 Clinical Trials
3.3.1 Acelity
3.3.1.1 Breast Reconstruction
3.3.1.2 Hernia Repair
3.3.2 Admedus
3.3.2.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.3.3 Astora Women’s Health (AMS)
3.3.3.1 Vaginal Slings
3.3.4 B Braun
3.3.4.1 Hernia Repair
3.3.4.2 Dural Repair
3.3.5 Boston Scientific
3.3.5.1 Vaginal Slings
3.3.6 Cook Medical
3.3.6.1 Hernia Repair
3.3.7 CorMatrix
3.3.7.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.3.8 CR Bard
3.3.8.1 Hernia Repair
3.3.8.2 Vaginal Slings
3.3.9 CryoLife
3.3.9.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.3.10 Ethicon
3.3.10.1 Breast Reconstruction
3.3.10.2 Hernia Repair
3.3.10.3 Vaginal Slings
3.3.11 Geistlich Pharma
3.3.11.1 Dental Soft Tissue
3.3.12 Integra LifeScience
3.3.12.1 Breast Reconstruction
3.3.12.2 Dural Repair
3.3.12.3 Skin Repair
3.3.13 Maquet Cardiovascular
3.3.13.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.3.14 Medtronic
3.3.14.1 Hernia Repair
3.3.15 MiMedx
3.3.15.1 Skin Repair
3.3.16 RTI Surgical
3.3.16.1 Breast Reconstruction
3.3.17 Wright Medical Group (Tornier)
3.3.17.1 Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement
3.3.18 Xeltis
3.3.18.1 Biologic Vascular Patch
3.3.19 Other companies
3.3.19.1 Breast Reconstruction
3.3.19.2 Hernia Repair
3.3.19.3 Dural Repair
3.3.19.4 Vaginal Slings
3.3.19.5 Skin Repair
3.3.19.6 Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement
3.3.19.7 Dental Soft Tissue
3.3.19.8 Biologic Vascular Patch

4. Sports Medicine And Tendon Reinforcement Market
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Market Overview
4.3 Market Analysis And Forecast
4.3.1 Total Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market
4.3.1.1 Allograft Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market
4.3.1.2 Xenograft Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market
4.3.1.3 Alloplast Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Repair Market
4.3.2 Total Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market
4.3.2.1 Allograft Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market
4.3.2.2 Xenograft Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market
4.3.2.3 Alloplast Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market
4.4 Drivers And Limiters
4.4.1 Market Drivers
4.4.2 Market Limiters
4.5 Competitive Market Share Analysis

Abbreviations

Appendix: Company Press Releases

List of Charts

Chart 1 1: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market by Segment, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 1 2: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market Overview, U.S., 2016 & 2023
Chart 4 1: Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market by Segment, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 2: Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market Breakdown, U.S., 2016
Chart 4 3: Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market Breakdown, U.S., 2023
Chart 4 4: Total Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 5: Allograft Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 6: Xenograft Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 7: Alloplast Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Repair Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 8: Total Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 9: Allograft Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 10: Xenograft Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 11: Alloplast Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Chart 4 12: Leading Competitors, Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2016

List of Figures

Figure 1 1: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market Share Ranking by Segment, U.S., 2016 (1 of 2)
Figure 1 2: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration 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 Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market by Segment, U.S. (1 of 2)
Figure 1 5: Factors Impacting the Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market by Segment, U.S. (2 of 2)
Figure 1 6: Recent Events in the Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market, U.S., 2015 - 2017
Figure 1 7: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Procedures Covered, U.S., 2016
Figure 1 8: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Markets Covered, U.S., 2016
Figure 1 9: Key Report Updates
Figure 1 10: Version History
Figure 3 1: Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market Products by Company (1 of 3)
Figure 3 2: Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market Products by Company (2 of 3)
Figure 3 3: Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market Products by Company (3 of 3)
Figure 3 4: Class 2 Device Recall CelluTome, KCI Inc.
Figure 3 5: Class 2 Device Recall: MiniArc Pro Single incision Sling System, Astora
Figure 3 6: Class 2 Device Recall: AdVance"Male Sling System, American Medical Systems, Inc.
Figure 3 7: Class 2 Device Recall: AMS Monarc Subfascial Hammock with Tensioning Suture, American Medical Systems, Inc.
Figure 3 8: Class 2 Device Recall: AMS 800 Urinary Control System, American Medical Systems, Inc.
Figure 3 9: Class 2 Device Recall Synovis VASCUGUARD Peripheral Vascular Patch
Figure 3 10: Class 1 Device Recall VASCUGUARD Pheripheral Vascular Patch
Figure 3 11: Class 2 Device Recall Vascu Guard Peripheral Vascular Patch
Figure 3 12: Class 2 Device Recall Bard PerFix Light Plug
Figure 3 13: Class 2 Device Recall Composix LP with Echo
Figure 3 14: Class 2 Device Recall Bard Ventralight ST Mesh
Figure 3 15: MAUDE Adverse Event Reports: C.R. BARD, Inc.
Figure 3 16: Class 2 Device Recall CryoPatch SG
Figure 3 17: Class 2 Device Recall Surgical mesh, PhysioMesh
Figure 3 18: Class 2 Class 2 Device Recall Ethicon Inc.
Figure 3 19: Class 2 Device Recall DuraGen XS Dural Regeneration Matrix
Figure 3 20: Class 2 Device Recall DuraGen Dural Regeneration Matrix
Figure 3 21: Class 2 Device Recall Integra Meshed Dermal Regeneration Template
Figure 3 22: Class 2 Device Recall Integra, Flowable Wound Matrix
Figure 3 23: Class 2 Device Recall Integra
Figure 3 24: Class 1 Device Recall LeMaitre Albograft, LeMaitre Vascular Inc.
Figure 3 25: Class 2 Device Recall Organogenesis Apligraf
Figure 3 26: Class 2 Device Recall Organogenesis Apligraf
Figure 3 27: Class 2 Device Recall Artoura Breast Tissue Expander
Figure 3 28: Class 2 Device Recall Tissue expander Mentor, Mentor Texas, LP
Figure 3 29: Class 2 Device Recall CQUR Mesh, Atrium Medical Corporation
Figure 3 30: Class 2 Device Recall DuraGuard Dural Repair Patch, Synovis (Baxter)
Figure 3 31: Class 2 Device Recall RENOVIX Guided Healing Collagen Membrane
Figure 3 32: Class 2 Device Recall CollaGuide Collagen Dental Membrane
Figure 3 33: Impact of ADM in Reduction of Surgical Complexity of Breast Reconstructions With Implants (Nava) (Strattice)
Figure 3 34: Compare Outcomes Between Two Acellular Dermal Matrices (Alloderm RTU medium, LifeCell vs. Cortiva Allograft Dermis, RTI Surgical®, Inc.)
Figure 3 35: Comparison of FlexHD (Ethicon) and Alloderm (Acelity)Outcomes in Breast Reconstructive Surgery
Figure 3 36: Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS)
Figure 3 37: Breast Reconstruction Outcomes With and Without StratticE (BROWSE), UK
Figure 3 38: Breast Reconstruction With Acellular Dermal Matrix in the Setting of Breast Cancer Treatment (Strattice)
Figure 3 39: SurgiMend® vs. Strattice™ in Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction- A Prospective Randomized Trial
Figure 3 40: Acellular Dermal Matrix in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial Comparing SurgiMend PRS and AlloDerm RTU
Figure 3 41: A Comparison of Dermal Autograft to AlloDerm in Breast Reconstruction
Figure 3 42: Protexa® (AFS Medical) Versus TiLoopBra® (PFM) in Immediate Breast Reconstruction- A Pilot Study
Figure 3 43: Regenerative Tissue Matrix for Breast Reconstruction (AlloDerm)
Figure 3 44: Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Using Biologic or Synthetic Mesh (CVHR)
Figure 3 45: A Comparison of Fortiva and Strattice Tissue Matrices in Complex, Ventral Hernia Repair
Figure 3 46: Biologic Mesh Versus Synthetic Mesh in Repair of Ventral Hernias (ventral hernia)
Figure 3 47: Multi-Center Study To Examine The Use Of Flex HD® (Ethicon) And Strattice (Acelity) In The Repair Of Large Abdominal Wall Hernias
Figure 3 48: Use of Strattice Mesh in Paraesophageal Hernia Surgery (Strattice)
Figure 3 49: Vascular Post Market Review
Figure 3 50: Urinary Incontinence Sling: Collection of Long Term Patient Outcomes Following Implantation of AMS Surgical Devices
Figure 3 51: Collection of Long Term Patient Outcomes Data Following Implantation of AMS Surgical Devices (CAPTURE)
Figure 3 52: Trial Comparing Mini-Arc Precise Pro and the Trans Vaginal Obturator Tape for Stress Urinary Incontinence
Figure 3 53: Prophylactic Mesh Implantation After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair
Figure 3 54: Assessment of the Performance of LYoplant® ONlay for Duraplasty (LYON)
Figure 3 55: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair: Multi-center Study of Uphold LITE Versus Native Tissue
Figure 3 56: Mid-Urethral Sling Tensioning Trial (MUST)
Figure 3 57: Urinary Incontinence Sling: Post Market Study Of Single Incision Sling Versus Transobturator Sling
Figure 3 58: Observational Study to Evaluate Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair Using a Biologic Mesh (Cook Biodesign)
Figure 3 59: Biologic Versus Synthetic Mesh for Treatment of Paraesophageal Hernia, Biodesign™ Surgisis® Graft and Parietex™ Composite Hiatal Mesh,
Figure 3 60: Antimicrobial Hernia Repair Device Clinical Study (AMEX)
Figure 3 61: CorMatrix ECM Tricuspid Valve Replacement
Figure 3 62: A Post Market Study on the Use of Cormatrix® Cangaroo ECM® (Extracellular Matrix) Envelope (SECURE)
Figure 3 63: A Study on the Use of CorMatrix ®ECM® for Femoral Arterial Reconstruction (PERFORM)
Figure 3 64: Epicardial Infarct Repair Using CorMatrix®-ECM: Clinical Feasibility Study (EIR)
Figure 3 65: A Study to Obtain Additional Information on the Use of CorMatrix® CanGaroo ECM® Envelope (JUMP)
Figure 3 66: Restore Myocardial Function With CorMatrix® ECM® Particulate (P-ECM)
Figure 3 67: XenMatrix™ AB Surgical Graft in Ventral or Incisional Midline Hernias
Figure 3 68: Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Using Biologic or Synthetic Mesh (CVHR)
Figure 3 69: A Prospective Trial of a Bio-absorbable Mesh in Challenging Laparoscopic Ventral or Incisional Hernia Repair (ATLAS)
Figure 3 70: A Prospective, Multi-Center Study of Phasix™ Mesh for Ventral or Incisional Hernia Repair.
Figure 3 71: Biologic Mesh Versus Synthetic Mesh in Repair of Ventral Hernias (ventral hernia)
Figure 3 72: Prospective Trial Comparing Two Different Polypropylene Meshes for Inguinal Hernias
Figure 3 73: Comparison of Two Mesh/Fixation Concepts for Laparoscopic Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair (Bard Davol Inc, Ventralight and Ethicon, Physiomesh®)
Figure 3 74: A Retrospective Study With Prospective Follow-Up of Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Utilizing the AlloMax Surgical Graft (AlloMax)
Figure 3 75: Multicentric Comparative Randomized Study of the Single-incision Sling Ajust® Versus Suburethral Transobturator Slings.
Figure 3 76: Data Collection Registry of the HeRO Graft for End Stage Renal Disease Patients Receiving Hemodialysis
Figure 3 77: Post Market Surveillance Study Evaluating BioFoam Surgical Matrix in Cardiovascular Surgery
Figure 3 78: Saphenous Vein Allografts for Coronary Bypass
Figure 3 79: Comparison of FlexHD (Ethicon) and Alloderm (Acelity)Outcomes in Breast Reconstructive Surgery
Figure 3 80: International Hernia Mesh Registry (IHMR)
Figure 3 81: Prospective Trial Comparing Two Different Polypropylene Meshes for Inguinal Hernias
Figure 3 82: Multi-Center Study To Examine The Use Of Flex HD® (Ethicon) And Strattice (Acelity) In The Repair Of Large Abdominal Wall Hernias
Figure 3 83: Evaluation of HQ® Matrix Soft Tissue Mesh for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia
Figure 3 84: Study on Ultrapro vs Polypropylene: Early Results From a Multicentric Experience in Surgery for Hernia (SUPERMESH)
Figure 3 85: Comparison of Two Mesh/Fixation Concepts for Laparoscopic Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair (Bard Davol Inc, Ventralight and Ethicon, Physiomesh®)
Figure 3 86: The Paediatric EVICEL® Neuro Study
Figure 3 87: The EVICEL® Neurosurgery Phase III Study
Figure 3 88: Urinary Incontinence Sling: TVT-ABBREVO Versus SERASIS for the Treatment of Female Urinary Stress Incontinence
Figure 3 89: A Biotype Enhancing Strategy For The Patient Undergoing Accelerated Orthodontics
Figure 3 90: Effect of Mucograft® Seal on Post-extraction Ridge Preservation Using Bone Allograft (Mucograft)
Figure 3 91: The Use of Mucograft® to Treat Gingival Recession
Figure 3 92: Xenogenous Collagen Matrix Graft With or Without Enamel Matrix Proteins Derivative for Root Coverage
Figure 3 93: Extraction Socket Management Using Connective Tissue Graft Versus Mucograft®
Figure 3 94: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate Safety and Effectiveness of CAF + Mucograft® Compared to CAF Alone in Patients With Gingival Recessions (MCT-Recession)
Figure 3 95: SurgiMend® vs. Strattice™ in Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction- A Prospective Randomized Trial
Figure 3 96: Evaluating Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction (POBRAD-M) (POBRAD-M) (SurgiMend)
Figure 3 97: Acellular Dermal Matrix in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial Comparing SurgiMend PRS and AlloDerm RTU
Figure 3 98: DuraSeal Exact Spine Sealant System Post-Approval Study (DuraSeal PAS)
Figure 3 99: Duragen® Secure Post Marketing Clinical Follow-up (PMCF)
Figure 3 100: DuraSeal Sealant Post Market Study
Figure 3 101: PriMatrix for the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 102: Prospective, Comparitive, Randomized Study of Allograft Versus Skin Substitute in Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 103: Safety Study to Examine the Systemic Exposure of Granexin® Gel After Topical Application to Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 104: A Comparison of OASIS Wound Matrix With Approved Dressings for Skin Graft Donor Sites (OASIS)
Figure 3 105: Clinical Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of ALLO-ASC-DFU in Paitents With Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 106: Phase IV Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of AMNIOEXCEL in Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 107: Study of ReCell® Treating for Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 108: A Safety and Efficacy Study of INTEGRA® Dermal Regeneration Template for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 109: Evaluation of FUSION™ Vascular Graft for Above Knee Targets (PERFECTION) - NOT approved for the US
Figure 3 110: Bilateral Laparoscopic Repair of Groin Hernias With One Large Self-fixating Mesh (ProGripTM) (BigWig)
Figure 3 111: Comparison of Self-Fixating vs Non-Fixating Hernia Mesh
Figure 3 112: The SymCHro - Observational Registry Study for Symbotex™ Composite Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair (SymCHro)
Figure 3 113: ENHANCE: A Prospective EvaluatioN of Permacol™ in tHe Repair of Complex AbdomiNal Wall CasEs (ENHANCE)
Figure 3 114: A Longitudinal Prospective Outcomes Study of Laparoscopic Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair Using Symbotex™ Composite Mesh
Figure 3 115: A Prospective Study in Patients Undergoing Primary Ventral Hernia Repair Using Parietex™ Composite Ventral Patch (Panacea)
Figure 3 116: Advanced Wound Dressing: dHACM In the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 117: Compare Outcomes Between Two Acellular Dermal Matrices (Alloderm RTU medium, LifeCell vs. Cortiva Allograft Dermis, RTI Surgical®, Inc.)
Figure 3 118: BioFiber Scaffold Post-Market Observational Study
Figure 3 119: GraftJacket Versus Tendon Interposition for Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis
Figure 3 120: Outcomes in Rotator Cuff Repair Using Graft Reinforcement
Figure 3 121: Safety and Performance of a Vascular Patch in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Bidirectional Cava-pulmonary Anastomosis
Figure 3 122: Autologous Fat Grafting of the Breast in Women With Post Lumpectomy Contour Defects
Figure 3 123: Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction PART 1 (PreBRec) and PART 2 (PreBRec)
Figure 3 124: National, Multicenter PMS Study "Patient Reported Outcome" in Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy With TiLOOP Bra (PRO-BRA), PFM Medical
Figure 3 125: A Comparison Between Biological (Veritas®) vs Non Biological Mesh (TIGR®) in Immediate Breast Reconstruction
Figure 3 126: Feasibility Study of Meso BioMatrix Device for Breast Reconstruction, Kensey Nash Corp.
Figure 3 127: Acellular Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstruction (Adermbrerec)
Figure 3 128: The SeriScaffold® Use in Reconstruction Post Market Study for Tissue Support and Repair in Breast Reconstruction Surgery in Europe
Figure 3 129: The SERI® Surgical Scaffold Use in Reconstruction Post Market Study for Tissue Support and Repair in Breast Reconstruction Surgery
Figure 3 130: Use of Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstruction, MTF, DermaMatrix
Figure 3 131: Trial of Routine Abdominal Wall Closure Versus Reinforcement With TIGR Matrix Onlay (PrevMesh), Novus Scientific
Figure 3 132: Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Repair by a 3D ENDOLAP (DynaMesh / FEG Textiltechnik) Visible Mesh With or Without LiquiBand Fix 8 Mesh Fixation
Figure 3 133: Gentrix™ Versus Biological or Prosthetic Mesh, Acell, Inc.
Figure 3 134: Miromatrix Biological Mesh for Hiatal Hernia Repair (MIROMESH PM-2), Miromatrix Medical Inc.
Figure 3 135: Miromatrix Biological Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair (MIROMESH PM-1)
Figure 3 136: Trial Concerning the Frequency of Parastomal Hernia With or Without a Mesh (STOMAMESH)
Figure 3 137: Polypropylene Mesh Versus Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Mesh in Inguinal Hernia Repair
Figure 3 138: Safety Study of MotifMESH (cPTFE) in Abdominal Surgery
Figure 3 139: Comparative Study of Safety and Efficacy of Heavyweight and Partially Absorbable Mesh in Inguinal Hernia Repair
Figure 3 140: Efficacy and Safety of FS VH S/D 500 S-apr as an Adjunct to Sutured Dural Repair in Cranial Surgery
Figure 3 141: Amniotic Membrane in Decompressive Craniectomy to Reduce Scarring, MiMedx
Figure 3 142: Study of SyntheCelTM Dura Replacement to Other Dura Replacements
Figure 3 143: Altis® 522 Trial - Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence, Coloplast A/S
Figure 3 144: Safety and Efficacy of PVDF (DynaMesh®-SIS Soft) Retropubic Midurethral Slings in Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women
Figure 3 145: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of ECLIPSE PRP™ Wound Biomatrix in Non-Healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 146: A Feasibility Study of the ReGenerCell™ Autologous Cell Harvesting Device for Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 147: Dehydrated Human Umbilical Cord Allograft in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 148: Effect of Fresh Amniotic Membrane in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 149: Efficacy and Safety of Artacent™ for Treatment Resistant Lower Extremity Venous and Diabetic Ulcers (TMArtacent)
Figure 3 150: Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU) Treated With SoC With or Without NEOX®CORD 1K
Figure 3 151: The Sorbact® Antimicrobial Dressing in the Holistic Wound Management Of Diabetic Foot ulCers (Phase III Study) (ADHOC)
Figure 3 152: A Comparative Efficacy Study of DermaPure™ to Treat Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 153: TruSkin®: Study for the Treatment of Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 154: NEOX® CORD 1K vs Standard of Care in Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers (CONDUCT I)
Figure 3 155: DermACELL in Subjects With Chronic Wounds of the Lower Extremities
Figure 3 156: A Comparative Efficacy Study: Treatment for Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Figure 3 157: A Longitudinal Study to Evaluate an Extracellular Matrix (MatriStem®) for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers (M-S-DFU-RCT)
Figure 3 158: Grafix® DFU: Open-Label Extension Option to Evaluate Safety & Efficacy of Grafix® for Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU)
Figure 3 159: Mesenchymal Stem Cell Augmentation in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Figure 3 160: COMPREHENSIVE® REVERSE SHOULDER Mini BasePlate
Figure 3 161: Suture Anchor Comparison in Rotator Cuff Repairs
Figure 3 162: Allograft Reconstruction of Massive Rotator Cuff Tears vs Partial Repair Alone
Figure 3 163: Evaluation of the Healicoil Suture Anchor for Rotator Cuff Repair
Figure 3 164: Rotator Cuff Reconstruction With Xenologous Dermis-patch Augmentation and ACP® - Injection
Figure 3 165: Musculotendinous Tissue Repair Unit and Reinforcement (MTURR)
Figure 3 166: Pilot Study to Evaluate the Restore Orthobiologic Implant in Rotator Cuff Tear Repair
Figure 3 167: Prospective Study on Artelon® Tissue Reinforcement in Repair of Chronic Ruptures and Re-ruptures of the Achilles Tendon
Figure 3 168: Esthetic Outcomes Following Immediate Implant Combine With Soft Tissue Augmentation
Figure 3 169: Implant-Abutment Interface Design on Bone and Soft Tissue Levels Around Implants Placed Using Different Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation
Figure 3 170: Evaluation of Zimmer Puros® Allograft vs. Creos™ Allograft for Alveolar Ridge Preservation, Zimmer Biomet
Figure 3 171: A Volumetric Analysis of Soft and Hard Tissue Healing for Ridge Preservation and Socket Seal After Tooth Extraction
Figure 3 172: Ridge Preservation Following Tooth Extraction Using Two Mineralized Cancellous Bone Allografts, Zimmer Biomet
Figure 3 173: Evaluation of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Versus Acellular Dermal Matrix With Tunnel Technique in Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions
Figure 3 174: The Clinical Effect of Implant Placement With a Simultaneous Soft Tissue Allograft
Figure 3 175: Collagen Matrix With Tunnel Technique Compared to CTG for the Treatment of Periodontal Recessions
Figure 3 176: Comparison of the Human Acellular Vessel (HAV) With ePTFE Grafts as Conduits for Hemodialysis
Figure 3 177: Feasibility Study of the TGI Adipose-derived Stromal Cell (ASC)-Coated ePTFE Vascular Graft (TGI-PVG-IDE)
Figure 3 178: Clinical Study of POSS-PCU Vascular Grafts for Vascular Access
Figure 3 179: Safety and Efficacy Study of Amniotic Membrane Patch to Treat Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation
Figure 3 180: Trial Comparison of Accuseal and Bovine Pericardial Patch During Endarterectomy
Figure 4 1: Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market by Segment, U.S., 2013 - 2023 (US$M)
Figure 4 2: Total Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 3: Allograft Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 4: Xenograft Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 5: Alloplast Rotator Cuff Reinforcement Repair Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 6: Total Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 7: Allograft Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 8: Xenograft Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 9: Alloplast Achilles Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
Figure 4 10: Drivers and Limiters, Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2016
Figure 4 11: Leading Competitors, Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement Market, U.S., 2016
Figure 6 1: Press Release Summary
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 4

Loading
LOADING...

4 of 4
  • ACell
  • ASTORA
  • Aesculap/B. Braun
  • Ariste Medical
  • Arthrex
  • Atrium Medical
  • BioHorizons
  • Boston Scientific
  • C.R. Bard
  • Coloplast
  • Cook Medical
  • Covidien
  • Dentsply
  • Ethicon
  • Geistlich
  • Gore Medical
  • Integra LifeSciences
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • KCI
  • LifeCell
  • MTF
  • Medline
  • Medtronic
  • MiMedx
  • Novus Scientific
  • Organogenesis
  • Osiris
  • RTI Biologics
  • Smith & Nephew
  • Soluble Systems
  • Stryker
  • Synovis/Baxter
  • Systagenix
  • TEI
  • Tutogen
  • WL Gore
  • Wright Medical
  • Zimmer Biomet
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
5 of 4
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll