株式会社グローバルインフォメーション
TEL: 044-952-0102
表紙
市場調査レポート

米国のスポーツ医学・腱補強市場の分析

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

発行 iData Research Inc. 商品コード 530123
出版日 ページ情報 英文 537 Pages
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=111.05円で換算しております。

※ Single Userライセンスは、DRM (デジタル著作権管理システム) 付PDFになります。
認証されたPC上のみでの閲覧となっております。

Back to Top
米国のスポーツ医学・腱補強市場の分析 US Market Report for Sports Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement 2017 - MedCore
出版日: 2017年07月01日 ページ情報: 英文 537 Pages
概要

当レポートでは、米国におけるスポーツ医学および腱補強の市場について分析し、軟部組織補強・再生の関連製品市場の全体的な背景事情・構造・動向や、スポーツ医学・腱補強術の市場規模の推移と見通し (過去4年間・今後7年間分)、主な市場促進・抑制要因、近年の企業間競争・市場シェアの推移などについて調査・推計しております。

エグゼクティブ・サマリー

米国の軟部組織補強・再生市場:概要

競争分析

市場の傾向

市場の発展

処置件数

分析対象市場

主要分析の更新状況

過去のバージョン

分析手法

  • 分析範囲
  • IDATAの9段階の分析方法

疾患概要

  • 人体の基本構造
  • 疾患の治療・診断手法
    • 乳がん
    • 心血管組織修復
    • 歯科軟組織疾患
    • 糖尿病性足部潰瘍
    • 硬膜裂傷・脳脊髄液漏出防止
    • ヘルニア
    • 末梢動脈再建
    • 肩回旋筋腱板損傷・二頭腱筋断裂
    • 外傷・火傷
    • 尿失禁
  • 患者人口の統計データ
    • 乳がん
    • 心血管組織修復
    • 糖尿病性足部潰瘍
    • ヘルニア修復
    • 歯周病
    • 末梢動脈疾患 (PVD)
    • 外傷・スポーツ関連損傷
    • 尿失禁

製品の評価

  • 製品ポートフォリオ
    • スポーツ医学・腱補強市場
  • 規制上の問題とリコール
    • Acelity (KCI, LifeCells, Systagenix)
    • Astora Women's Health (AMS)
    • Baxter Healthcare Corp (Synovis Surgical Innovations, Inc.)
    • C.R. Bard (Davol Inc., の子会社)
    • CryoLife, Inc.
    • Ethicon
    • Integra LifeScience
    • LeMaitre Vascular Inc.
    • Organogenesis
    • その他
  • 治験
    • Acelity
    • Admedus
    • Astora Women's Health (AMS)
    • B Braun
    • Boston Scientific
    • Cook Medical
    • CorMatrix
    • CR Bard
    • CryoLife
    • Ethicon
    • Geistlich Pharma
    • Integra LifeScience
    • Maquet Cardiovascular
    • Medtronic
    • MiMedx
    • RTI Surgical
    • Wright Medical Group (Tornier)
    • Xeltis
    • その他

スポーツ医学・腱補強市場

  • イントロダクション
  • 市場概要
  • 市場の分析と予測
    • 肩回旋筋腱板補強市場全体
      • 同種移植片市場
      • 異種移植片市場
      • 合成移植片市場
    • アキレス腱補強市場全体
      • 同種移植片市場
      • 異種移植片市場
      • 合成移植片市場
  • 市場促進・抑制要因
    • 市場促進要因
    • 市場抑制要因
  • 企業別市場シェアの分析

略語一覧

付録:企業からのプレスリリース

図表一覧

目次
Product Code: iDATA_USSTR17_MC_SMTR

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF CHARTS

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

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

  • 1.1. RESEARCH SCOPE
  • 1.2. IDATA'S 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

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

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

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
Back to Top