US Market Report for Breast Reconstruction 2017 - MedCore

  • ID: 4332929
  • Report
  • Region: United States
  • 530 pages
  • iData Research
1 of 4

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • ACell
  • BioHorizons
  • Dentsply
  • KCI
  • Novus Scientific
  • Stryker
  • MORE
Breast reconstruction following mastectomy for treatment of cancer is becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Breast reconstruction is a plastic surgery procedure in which the shape of the breast is rebuilt. The number of these reconstructive procedures represents less than 30% of plastic surgery breast augmentation procedures. Breast reconstruction is typically performed after mastectomy, although not all mastectomy patients elect to have reconstructive surgery. Elderly patients are not only less likely to opt for breast reconstruction surgery, but are less likely to proceed with a mastectomy following breast cancer diagnosis. The incidence of breast cancer has been increasing in women under the age of 40, and this population is much more likely not only to proceed with mastectomy, but to follow up with a breast reconstruction procedure. Over 130,000 mastectomies were performed in the U.S. in 2016, and of these, over 70% of patients elected for breast reconstruction surgery. This percentage was significantly higher in the U.S. compared with other countries. Therefore, in the United States, the number of breast reconstruction procedures is highly correlated with the number of mastectomies performed. The Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act (WHCRA), established in 1998, ensures full reimbursement for most procedures done on women with breast cancer who elect to have their breasts rebuilt following mastectomy. The procedure is extremely involved and is done in an inpatient setting. Breast reconstructions have started to be conducted immediately after the mastectomy procedure to reduce recovery time.

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