The up/downside of startups

I have a certain affinity for medical technology startups. They represent the leading edge of thinking in the industry, ignoring the status quo or just pulling the rug out from under it with new applications, new technologies and new thinking. Startups in medical technology are therefore are a window on the future of the market.

Keeping track of these startups, and having started and labored at several, I recognize the duality of their existence.  For every opportunity that comes with being a startup there seems to be an equal (greater?) and opposite challenge to seizing that opportunity. For being able to move swiftly with its ideas, the startup is forced to wait for slow-footed bureaucracies (FDA, reimbursement, distributors and other partners) as it tries to bring its products to the marketplace. The small company, simply by virtue of being small, has little wherewithal to set terms of any kind with those it deals with, and instead must often rely on the terms dictated to it by vendors and clients alike, which increases the cost of doing business through restricted cash flow, increased administrative effort and other burdens.

Startups and small companies can often get stuck in that notorious catch 22 — they need money to create the kind of successes that can often only be achieved once they have secured funding. Only the most ingenious and diligent are able to last longer than what can be supported with 3F funding (i.e., family, friends and fools).

The double-edge swords of startups:

Lack of infrastructure / lack of bureaucracy. Perhaps the single biggest advantage of the small company is its ability to turn on a dime because it does not have layers of decision-making and paperwork in managing its business. A colleague recently related the culture at a very large IT company in which each internal meeting with a particularly finicky executive was accompanied by a "pre-" meeting to prep for it and a "post-" meeting to decipher the exec’s rants and debrief the meeting’s participants. That’s 1-2 hours of lost time.

Clean slate / unproven ideas. The ability to disregard preconceived notions and create "disruptive" technologies is like a vital organ for startups. Their technologies need to be seen as setting new standards, as uniquely capturing patient caseload whose demands have previously been unsatisfied in whole or part. Yet the unproven idea will never ultimately sell until it carries with it high credibility or at least convincing proof-of-concept.

Ivory tower and too many cooks in the kitchen. The startup relies upon the cohesiveness of its ideas, the singularity of its decision-making and its ability to avoid conflicting mandates or conflicting stakeholders. It isn’t constantly hounded by Wall Street’s short term demands for ROI, P/E and other pesky acronyms. The startups can also suffer with ivory-tower syndrome limiting consideration of relevant alternative view points. Many a strong-willed visionary leader, for wont of second opinion, has led his or her company into Chapter 11.

Marching to the beat of a different drummer. Startups are veritable breeding grounds for executives, engineers, scientists and others who refuse to heed the drills and policies of corporate culture. Of course, this is a prerequisite for a company seeking to commercialize a disruptive technology, because corporate culture doesn’t often foster thinking outside the box (said box, labels and packing tape being manufactured on site). Also, of course, the successful technology — and all the staff and management who help bring it to market — has to play by the regulatory, reimbursement, accounting and myriad other market rules that will never be disrupted. Not all who march to the different drummer will ultimately learn to march in step with the market.

Put another way, it would be nice to think that for every disadvantage of being a startup there is a converse advantage, but that would be fantasy (and were that the case, there would be far more startups in business). There is little if any plus side to being short of funds, struggling to get attention, or having to accept whatever terms are given. While the large company (I’ve dealt with a few $5 billion plus in size) can easily elect to defer business until it meets their sometimes irrationally one-sided terms, the small company with shallow pockets and growth-oriented costs has to often take the terms that are thrust upon it, or else.

Day in and day out, at countless bootstrap-financed, growth-squeezed startups and early stage companies, there are many, many low profile battles being fought — on regulatory, cash flow, reimbursement, staffing, public relations and other battlegrounds — the outcomes of which determine which medical ideas become real and which become footnotes in rejection letters, declined reimbursement and other adverse decisions.

Given the potential windfall of startups — live-saving medical technologies, new jobs, tax revenue, etc., etc. — is it not then imperative to create a little affirmative action for them? While we are not typically advocates of regulation, particularly since regulation can go awry, the interests of a free-market economy can be well served by mechanisms like tax credits and accounting rules, to name a couple, that will free up entrepreneurship and grease the wheels of young industry.

 

Consolidation, competition on the rise in sealant, glue, anti-adhesion market

The market for surgical closure and securement — sealants, glues, sutures, tapes, and anti-adhesion — has entered a phase in which major driving forces are the introduction of new procedures and techniques by the surgical profession, the development by the medical device industry of new wound closure devices and biomaterials, and the growing willingness of surgical specialists to use these devices in appropriate circumstances.

There is now a continuum between simple closure using sutures and the use of specially designed devices and delivery systems with new bioresorbable securement materials either as supplements to conventional closure methodology or as stand-alone replacements.

Worldwide expenditures on all medical devices is estimated to have surpassed $173 billion in 2006. In the field of tissue repair and surgical securement, the total market reached almost $7 billion, underpinned by product advances reflecting improved understanding of the underlying mechanisms of tissue repair, patient demographic pressures creating an increasing caseload of procedures, and a rapidly expanding number of new products (see below).

Introduction (through early 2007) of New Securement Technologies to the U.S. Market 

Product

Company

Description

Interceed

Johnson & Johnson

Fabric adhesion prevention

Seprafilm

Genzyme

Hyaluronic acid adhesion prevention

Fibrin sealant

Baxter/Haemacure

Fibrin based sealant/hemostats

FocalSeal L

Focal

Protein sealant

FloSeal

Fusion

Polymer sealant

Costasis

Cohesion

Collagen hemostat

Lubricoat

Lifecore, J&J

Hyaluronic acid adhesion prevention

Glushield

Glustitch

Cyanoacrylate glue

CoSeal

Angiotech

Synthetic sealant

VitaGel

Angiotech

Autologous blood sealant

DuraSeal

Confluent Surgical

Dural sealant

BioGlue

CryoLife

Bovine serum albumin-based surgical adhesive

Arista

Medafor

Absorbable hemostat

Indermil

Syneture (US Surgical)

Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive

 Source:  Report #S145, to be updated in Report #S175, "Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-Adhesion, 2009-2013".  December 2008.

The tissue closure and securement market can be regarded as a benchmark indicator for overall expansion of medical device usage. This is because surgical closure and securement products are becoming components of all surgical procedures. These products are used for rapid and efficient closure of surgical wounds, and internal securement of tissues to reduce pain and accelerate rehabilitation. Appropriate use of these products can reduce risk of infection, and can optimize the repair process to enhance the speed and strength of tissue repair, as well as reducing complications such as those resulting from post-surgical adhesions.

Overall industry spending in the health care system has a major impact on this segment. Consolidation in health care purchasing organizations (particularly in the United States) creates a pressure for cost-effectiveness arguments and supporting clinical efficacy data, and may also limit pricing potential, often when the overall cost in a category appears to be growing uncontrollably. The shift to outpatient and community-based treatment sites and practices affects the way that products are designed, marketed and distributed. In the securement segment, hospital administrators are involved in purchasing more routine and generic surgical securement and closure products, with surgeons selecting newer, more advanced technologies. In addition, the case for cost-effectiveness involves professional preferences and adoption of new procedures, as well as the potential to reduce surgical theater time and costs.

Many new surgical procedures have been established over the last 10 years as products and procedures have been modified to accommodate increased patient awareness and to support practitioner-based competencies. These procedures are often linked to new technologies. For example, minimally invasive procedures that were comparatively rare 10 years ago are now routine; more than 70% of gall bladder surgeries are performed laparoscopically and more than 60% of patients with angina pectoris receive image-guided PTCA (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) instead of open heart surgery. These procedures depend on new devices and instruments, including improved means of internal and external closures and securement. In addition, aging of the population adds progressively to the surgical caseload. For example, in the United States, Medicare beneficiaries are forecast to increase from 34 million to 70 million between 2000 and 2030. Products targeted at this primarily elderly population would be expected to reflect this trend by compound annual sales growth of 2%–3%. In other regions of the world, this trend is also seen as a major market growth rate determinant.

Clinical Caseload

The market potential for surgical securement products is driven by a combination of new technologies coming to market and expanding caseload for which these technologies are applicable. The potential for these products continues to grow as surgical practices improve and the benefits of new products address the requirement for fast and effective closure.

 Source:  Report #S145, to be updated in Report #S175, "Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-Adhesion, 2009-2013".  December 2008.

 

We forecast that approximately 70 million procedures worldwide might benefit from products in this category and, due to demographic trends and evolving surgical capabilities, this number is forecast to increase at an annualized rate of 3%–5% (see chart, “Potential Procedure Volume for Surgical Sealants, Glues and Wound Closure”).

Of the 70 million surgical and procedure-based wounds created each year in surgeries worldwide, 23 million are created during surgical procedures in the United States. Although it is possible that healing all these wounds could be improved through use of adjunctive products for surgical closure and securement, use of the most advanced of these products has been limited to a fraction of these procedures. For example, there are approximately 3 million procedures worldwide that receive sealant products, generating $1 billion in sales. We forecast much greater usage of sealants once clinical efficacy is proven in a broad range of procedures and as new sealant products are launched. In addition to improvements in adjunctive treatment of bleeding, new procedure-enabling devices for soft tissue repair and securement have been introduced. These products have expanded the total market for securement and closure of soft tissues with bioresorbable materials.

This field is expanding rapidly as new devices allow the surgeon to perform closure more quickly and with improved outcomes for patients. A significant premium is possible when new products and devices enable complex securement procedures to be performed under minimally invasive protocols with significant time savings in the operating room. New technologies and new biomaterials allow improved tissue repair, and it is possible to revalue segments of this market based on significant improvements in clinical practice. We expect this market segment to triple in value over the next decade.

Driven by procedure volumes, the total market potential for currently available products is in excess of $3 billion for hemostats and sealants, and over $1 billion for skin wound closure using high-strength glues. The introduction of a high-strength, nontoxic elastic glue would revolutionize the market further and lead to even higher sales potential. 

In the field of postoperative adhesion control, newly developed products improve on early prototypes and have substantial clinical efficacy data to allow for a significant premium cost. Over $500 million in revenues were generated in 2006 in this market segment, and we expect that this market will grow to over $1 billion within the next five years.

Market Consolidation, Competition on the Rise

A number of market leaders have consolidated their positions within the surgical closure and securement markets through successful internal development programs and through technology partnerships with innovative vendors of next-generation technologies. For example, U.S. Surgical (a Tyco company) and Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson) are major suppliers of cyanoacrylate products in the United States; with dominant sales resources to sell these products, these companies lead the market, even though they face competition from the Canadian company Glustitch, the U.K.-based MedLogic and others. Synovis (formally Biovascular Inc.) has targeted cardiovascular and other procedures, and has a range of closure products; it has recently partnered with GEM to develop and exploit GEM’s internal high-strength glue product (Glubran) in the United States.

Companies in the sealant market are highly competitive, and acquisitions and mergers have also played a significant role in shaping both this market and the individual companies with their products and underlying strategic focus. For example, Baxter launched fibrin sealant technology (acquired when it bought Immuno) in the United States. In addition, its purchase of Immuno in 1998 forced Baxter to relinquish a monopoly position by forming a partnership with Haemacure, thus allowing it to market fibrin products in the United States. Baxter has also acquired rights to Fusion Inc. technology, giving Baxter a portfolio of sealant products. Separately, CryoLife has demonstrated the potential to compete within the rapidly evolving sealants market in the United States by developing superior products.


MedMarket Diligence is completing the 2008 report, publishing December 2008, "Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-adhesion, 2009-2013."  See Report #S175.

 

Top New Medical Technologies and/or Platforms

While this is separately a White Paper that I wrote and periodically re-write to reflect new stuff being developed (or progressing in that development), it is worthwhile to occasionally revisit the list of technologies that have real promise, especially if that promise is getting closer to reality, or only if the demand is simply getting greater.

  • Ablation and other high energy technologies.  What used to be handled by scalpel when my father did general surgery, is now increasingly being accomplished using energy-driven modalities that provide other tissue effects that a sharp metal blade alone could never do.  These technologies are therefore growing in both the penetration of traditional surgical procedures and the expansion to clinical applications.
     
  • Nanotech and microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).  It is actually a gross oversimplification to use a word like "nanotech" and imply that you are talking about one type of technology.  The only thing common to nanotech is size; every manner of material, construction, function and clinical benefit is part of this area.  The pace of development is striking.
     
  • Drug-device hybrids.  Just a few of the applications of combining drugs and devices in a single device include localized drug-delivery that avoids toxic, systemic dosages and vastly improved biocompatibility of existing devices. These two options alone represent multiple enormous markets.  Now, naked metal (or other) implants seem almost barbaric.
     
  • Bioresorbable materials.   Polymer and other materials technologies are enabling the development of implants and other devices that conveniently go away when they are no longer needed.  Already a significant market force in areas like bone growth in orthopedics, bioresorbable stents and other implants are proving their worth in cardiology and urology. 
     
  • Atherosclerotic plaque-reversing drugs.  When Pfizer divested itself of Esperion Therapeutics, it did not bode the end of this striking new drug approach to atherosclerosis, it simply illustrated the persistent challenge of drug development.  Here, it should be kept in mind that, the bigger the potential payout, based on huge clinical need (e.g., drug solution to the device intensive treatment of coronary artery disease), the more likely it is only a matter of time before the product reaches the market.  The jury is out on the "when" part, not the "if".
     
  • Rational therapeutics.  This is the holy grail thinking behind the development of many, many biotech products.  If one can develop a cure — a direct resolution of the underlying biological defect or deficiency in disease — and not just the symptoms, then one has changed the market in paradigm ways.  The hurdle and the payoffs are huge.
     
  • Tissue engineering technologies.  We have begun to be able to develop tissue engineered organs of increasing complexity — skin, bladders and rudimentary pancreases — and the benefits of these are huge.
     
  • RFID.  There is little, really, that is sophisticated about radiofrequency identification devices,  but their rapid integration into medical technologies of a wide range (tagging surgical instruments so they don’t get left behind, implants that enable external identification or even status, other types) will extend the utility and value of medical devices.
     
  • Noninvasive glucose monitoring.  Optimizing care for diabetes means, at a minimum, very frequent (5-10) checks per day of blood glucose.  This many finger pricks per year by the total number of diabetics globally (a rapidly growing number at that) who clearly would benefit from noninvasive monitoring reveals the value of this opportunity.  Capturing that opportunity means the combined success of both technology and cost.
     
  • Infection control.  This area is a top area, not for the sigificant technologies that have been developed, but the enormous demand for them.  Between rapidly emerging problems like methicillin-resistant staph aureus (MRSA), the resurgence of tuberculosis, the enormous costs of nosocomial infections and other infection-related challenges, infection control is an enormous, global opportunity.
     
  • Spine surgery.   The nature of the human spine, constructed of bone that needs to be both flexible and strong, demands device-intensive solutions.  The growing patient population of active, older adults is ratcheting the pressure on technologies to be less invasive, provide greater range of motion, last longer, cost less — all of which drives innovation in spine surgical technologies.
     
  • Obesity treatment technologies.  Technology solutions to the increasingly prevalant problem of obesity are imperfect, but still are frequently better solutions for the obese than an alternative that may ultimately also encompass heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other problems.  Diverse drug and device alternatives have been developed and the trend in obesity incidence will simply drive their continued development. 

Other forces are at work driving the above technologieis including, of course, cost containment, the integration of information technologies in both medical product and development process and the globalized economy.


The above topics are covered in various MedMarket Diligence reports.  See our list of titles.

Companies active in surgical glues, sealants, wound closure and anti-adhesion

The companies involved in the marketing and development of surgical sealants, glues, and other wound closure and anti-adhesion products are a robust group.  The number of competitors and the breadth and depth of their offerings are testimony to the size of the active market as well as its considerable potential.  Below is the list of companies preliminarily profiled in the pending, December 2008, report #S175, "Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-adhesion, 2009-2013."  The report is described here.
 
SECTION 4:    COMPANY PROFILES
 
4.1      3DM, Inc. (3D-Matrix, Ltd.)
4.2      Abbott Vascular
4.3      AccessClosure, Inc.
4.4      Adhezion Biomedical, LLC 
4.5      Advanced Medical Solutions 
4.6      Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
4.7      Anika Therapeutics, Inc.
4.8      ARC Pharmaceuticals Inc.
4.9      Arch Therapeutics (formerly Clear Nano Solutions)
4.10    ArthroCare Corporation
4.11    B. Braun Melsungen AG
4.12    Bard Medical Division, CR Bard
4.13    Baxter International Inc.
4.14    Bayer Schering Pharma
4.15    BD (Becton Dickinson and Company)
4.16    Biiosyntech Inc.
4.17    Biocoral Inc
4.18    Biogentis, Inc.
4.19    BIOSTER a.s.
4.20    Cardiovascular Sciences, Inc.
4.21    Cardiva Medical, Inc.
4.22    Ceremed, Inc.
4.23    Chemence Ltd.
4.24    Cohera Medical, Inc.
4.25    Collagen Matrix, Inc.
4.26    Covidien
4.27    CryoLife, Inc.
4.28    CSIRO PhotoMedical Technologies
4.29    CSL Behring
4.30    CSMG, Inc.
4.31    CuraMedical BV
4.32    DePuy, Inc.
4.33    Entegrion
4.34    Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson
4.35    FibroGen, Inc.
4.36    Fidia Advanced Biopolymers SpA
4.37    Flamel Technologies SA
4.38    Focal, Inc.
4.39    Forticell Bioscience
4.40    FzioMed, Inc.
4.41    GEM s.r.l.
4.42    Genzyme Biosurgery
4.43    GluStitch, Inc.
4.44    Haemacure Corporation
4.45    Harvest Technologies Corporation
4.46    HemCon, Inc.
4.47    Hemostasis LLC
4.48    Henkel Loctite Corp.
4.49    HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc.
4.50    Innovasa Corporation
4.51    Integra Lifesciences Corporation
4.52    Interpore Cross International
4.53    Isto Technologies, Inc.
4.54    I-Therapeutix, Inc.
4.55    Kaketsuken (Chemo-Sero-Therapeutic Research Institute)
4.56    Kensey Nash Corporation
4.57    Kimberly-Clark Health Care
4.58    King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
4.59    LifeBond, Ltd.
4.60    Lifecore Biomedical Inc.
4.61    Marine Polymer Technologies
4.62    Medafor, Inc.
4.63    MedTrade Products
4.64    Meyer-Haake GmbH Medical Innovations
4.65    Morris Innovative
4.66    Neose Technologies
4.67    Nycomed Pharma AS
4.68    Omrix Biopharmaceuticals Inc.
4.69    Organogenesis, Inc.
4.70    Pharming Group NV
4.71    Plasma Technologies, Inc.
4.72    PlasmaSeal LLC
4.73    Pluromed, Inc.
4.74    Polyganics, BV
4.75    ProFibrix BV
4.76    Protein Polymer Technologies, Inc.
4.77    Radi Medical Systems AB
4.78    Scion Cardio-Vascular, Inc.
4.79    Sea Run Holdings
4.80    Smith & Nephew Plc 
4.81    Sutura Inc.
4.82    Synovis Life Technologies, Inc.
4.83    Teleflex Medical
4.84    ThermoGenesis Corp.
4.85    Therus Corporation
4.86    Thrombotargets Corp.
4.87    Tissuemed Ltd.
4.88    TraumaCure, Inc.
4.89    TyRx Pharma, Inc. 
4.90    Vascular Solutions, Inc. 
4.91    Vectura Group plc 
4.92    Vivostat A/S
4.93    Z-Medica Corp.
 
See Report #S175 for more detail.

 

Ablation and Other Medtech Developments: How to Do Things Differently, Sometimes Better

 [Insight:  One of the more fascinating aspects of medical technology development is the penchant in the industry for finding different ways to accomplish traditional tasks in medical and surgical care.  While certainly some technologies can be oversold for their putative clinical benefits — driving up healthcare costs and giving the industry a bad rap — some medtech advances indeed provide clinically better outcomes that few can legitimately argue, IMHO, as not being cost effective.  These include major technology paradigm shifts like laparoscopic surgery.  Another area that has shown a progressive set of changes to medical and, especially, surgical care, has been ablation technologies, the use of energy-based and other technologies to accomplish the dissection of tissue, the destruction of cancerous and other lesions and other functional alternation of tissue (e.g., in arrhythmia ablation) that was in most cases previously accomplished by, for the most part, a scalpel only (OK, a little simplified, but you get the idea).  These ablation technologies now represent a pretty strong market or collection of market segments that are changing the way surgeons manipulate tissue.  Below are some highlights of how the market breaks down by different modality.  We also present some of the recent M&A activity in this industry.  For additional details on ablation technologies, see the tag or category of  "ablation" (or any of the separate modalities) in this blog. – Patrick Driscoll, Founder, MedMarket Diligence]


The worldwide high energy therapies market represents a $25 billion opportunity in 2008. The category consists of therapeutic devices and equipment that deliver the controlled application of one or more modalities of energy to tissue. 

Global Ablation and Other Energy-Based Therapies 
Market Share and Compound Annual Growth Rate by Modality

 

Energy Modality
% Total Market
CAGR
2003-2013
Electrical
42%
12%
Radiation
24%
7%
Light
10%
11%
RadioFrequency
 9%
18%
Ultrasonic
 7.5%
16%
Cryogenic
 5%
18%
Thermal
 1.25%
18%
Microwave
 0.75%
22%
Hydromechanical
 0.5%
12%
 Total
100%
11%

Source:  MedMarket Diligence report #A125, "Worldwide Ablation Technologies 

The field of energy-based companies is well populated, partly because there are several different categories of energy application in clincial medicine, and because companies tend to be focused on single or tightly-focused energy applications. Thus there are companies specialising in cryoablation, thermal ablation, electrosurgery, brachytherapy and so on. Many companies have entered this field offering a new technology in one particular form of energy application.

A growing tendency in recent years has been the acquisition by larger, multifunctional medical device companies of smaller and often newer energy-based companies, as a means of adding a new technology to their portfolio. The past five years have seen many mergers and acquisitions of this kind involving energy-based companies. Exhibit 4-1 shows some examples of M&A activity from the past three years. 

M&A Activity Among Energy-based Companies
 
Acquirer
Target
Year
Technology
Cytyc
Proxima Therapeutics
2005
Radiation Therapy
Angiodynamics
RITA
2007
RFA
Hologic
Cytyc
2007
Endometrial ablation
St Jude
EP Medical Systems
2008
Cardiac electrophysiology
Boston Scientific
Guidant
2006
Pacemakers, defibrillators, etc
Olympus
Gyrus
2007
Radiofrequency
HealthTronics
Advanced Medical
Partners
2008
Cryotherapy
American Medical Systems
Laserscope
2006
Laser therapy
Galil Medical
Oncura
2006
Cryoablation
Guidant
AFx
2004
Microwave
Warburg Pincus
Bausch & Lomb
2007
Excimer laser
Valleylab (Covidien)
Vivant
2005
Microwave
Olympus
Celon
2004
Radiofrequency thermotherapy
TheraGenics
Galt Medical
2006
 
Gyrus
ACMI
2005
Thermal therapy
Guidant
AFx
2004
Microwave
Boston Scientific
Cryocor
2008
Cryoablation
HealthTronics
Endocare
2008 (pending)
Cryoablation

Source:  MedMarket Diligence report #A125, "Worldwide Ablation Technologies 

Surgical sealants, glues, wound closure, anti-adhesion, worldwide

[Publisher’s note:  The report #S175 described below is the most recent in a highly regarding industry series tracking this huge med/surg market, with its implication for devices, biologics, biomaterials and other products across a wide range of clinical application sectors. The report is pending publication in early December 2008.]


Report #S175, entitled, "Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-Adhesion Markets, 2009-2013," (see link) details the complete range of sealants & glues technologies used in traumatic, surgical and other wound closure, from tapes, sutures and staples to hemostats, fibrin sealants/glues and medical adhesives. The report details current clinical and technology developments in this huge and rapidly growing worldwide market, with data on products in development and on the market; market size and forecast; competitor market shares; competitor profiles; and market opportunity.

The report is a market and technology assessment and forecast of products in wound closure. The report details the current and emerging products, technologies and markets involved in wound closure and sealing using sutures and staples, tapes, hemostats, fibrin and sealant products and medical adhesives. The report provides a worldwide current and annual forecast to 2013 of the markets for these technologies, with particular emphasis on the market impact of new technologies through the coming decade.

The report provides specific forecasts and shares of the worldwide market by segment for the U.S., Europe (United Kingdom, German, France, Italy, BeNeLux), Latin America, Japan and Rest of World. The report provides background data on the surgical, disease and traumatic wound patient populations targeted by current technologies and those under development, and the current clinical practices in the management of these patients, including the dynamics among the various clinical specialties or subspecialties vying for patient population and facilitating or limiting the growth of technologies. The report establishes the current worldwide market size for major technology segments as a baseline for and projecting growth in the market over a ten-year forecast. The report also assesses and projects the composition of the market as technologies gain or lose relative market performance over this period.

The report offers key benefits: 

  • Worldwide scope enables comprehensive opportunity assessment
  • Geographic segmentation, based on ground-level analysis, reveals local potential
  • Detailed company profiles provide real awareness of competitive landscape
  • Forecasts to 2013 reveal insights of relative future market impact
  • Competitor market shares by segment give hard, actionable data

  The report is available for purchase on an advance discount at link.

Tissue ablation: microwave, thermal, hydro and cryo on the rise

Ablation Worldwide Market, 2007 to 2017Technologies for ablation and other energy-based treatments in medical/surgical markets are currently dominated by electrosurgical-type therapies, but a growing array of other modalities are creating new applications or penetrating existing ones.  These modalities include hydromechanical, microwave, thermal, cryotherapy, ultrasound, radiofrequency (RF), light, radiation (radiosurgery, radiotherapy) and electrical.

At right is shown the forecast, by modality type, of ablation and other energy-based therapies through 2017. The most significant growth is expected to come from microwave, thermal, hydromechanical and cryotherapy, each of which will demonstrate compound growth rates in excess of 15% annually.


Excerpt from report #A125, “Ablation Technologies Worldwide Market,” (published September 2008).  See link.  Report #A125, “Ablation Technologies Worldwide”, may be purchased online.

 

 

India’s Growth Market in Ablation Technology

The medical markets inthe Asia/Pacific region show enormous variations in size, due to differences in healthcare expenditure as well as the obvious differing population sizes. Although China and India have vastly greater populations than other countries in the region, it is the Japanese ablation market that takes the largest share of the global market, with an estimated 6.2%. This country’s medical market has been showing a modest (3%) annual growth after a period of stagnation.  However, in terms of absolute growth rate for sals of ablation technology products, India is the leader, edging out even China.

 

Source:  MedMarket Diligence Report #A125, "Ablation Technologies Worldwide Market, 2008-2017: Products, Technologies, Markets, Companies and Opportunities."  Published September 2008.

 


This MedMarket Diligence report #A125, "Ablation Technologies Worldwide Market," is described in detail here. The report may be purchased for immediate download here.

 

Analysis pending on sealants, glues, wound closure, anti-adhesion

Below is a a report to be published (December 2008) from MedMarket Diligence on the worldwide surgical sealants, glues, wound closure and anti-adhesion market.  The report is described at this link.

Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-Adhesion Markets, 2009-2013

· 225 pages · 60 Exhibits · 79 Company Profiles · Report #S175 · Publishing December 2008

This report details the complete range of sealants & glues technologies used in traumatic, surgical and other wound closure, from tapes, sutures and staples to hemostats, fibrin sealants/glues and medical adhesives. The report details current clinical and technology developments in this huge and rapidly growing worldwide market, with data on products in development and on the market; market size and forecast; competitor market shares; competitor profiles; and market opportunity.

This report is a market and technology assessment and forecast of products in wound closure. The report details the current and emerging products, technologies and markets involved in wound closure and sealing using sutures and staples, tapes, hemostats, fibrin and sealant products and medical adhesives. The report provides a worldwide current and annual forecast to 2013 of the markets for these technologies, with particular emphasis on the market impact of new technologies through the coming decade. The report provides specific forecasts and shares of the worldwide market by segment for the U.S., Europe (United Kingdom, German, France, Italy, BeNeLux), Latin America, Japan and Rest of World.

The report provides background data on the surgical, disease and traumatic wound patient populations targeted by current technologies and those under development, and the current clinical practices in the management of these patients, including the dynamics among the various clinical specialties or subspecialties vying for patient population and facilitating or limiting the growth of technologies.

The report establishes the current worldwide market size for major technology segments as a baseline for and projecting growth in the market over a ten-year forecast. The report also assesses and projects the composition of the market as technologies gain or lose relative market performance over this period.

 

(For more information, see link or contact Patrick Driscoll, patrick at mediligence dot com, or tel: 949-859-3401.)

Wound management: established and emerging products, technologies and markets worldwide

Below is a report from MedMarket Diligence on the worldwide wound management market.  The report is described in detail here.

Worldwide Wound Management, 2007-2016: Established and Emerging Products, Technologies and Markets in the U.S., Europe, Japan and Rest of World 

· 256 pages · 64 Exhibits · 69 Company Profiles · Report #S245 · Published Nov. 2007

This report details the complete range of products and technologies used in wound management and wound care, from dressings, bandages, hydrogels, tissue engineered products, physical treatments and others. The report details current clinical and technology developments in this huge worldwide market with high growth sectors, with data on products in development and on the market; market size and forecast; competitor market shares; competitor profiles; and market opportunity.

This report details the current and projected market for wound management products, including dressings, closure devices, debridement, pharmacological products, tissue engineered products and others. Particular emphasis is placed on advanced and leading edge developments (i.e., those approaching wound management from novel perspective) such as growth factors, stem cells, gene therapy and other approaches, while baseline data (current and forecast market size and current competitor market shares) is provided for established segments — multiple dressings types (film, foam, alginate, antibacterial, non-adherent), hydrogels, hydrocolloids, pharmaceuticals, and physical treatments. The report details the clinical and technology developments underlying the huge and evolving worldwide wound care market, with data on products in development and on the market; market size and forecast; competitor market shares; competitor profiles; and market opportunity. Separate size, growth and competitor data are presented for the U.S., leading western European countries, Japan and the Rest of World category. The report profiles leading and emerging companies, with profiles providing detailed profile information on major competitors, brief profiles of companies with less sizeable current or potential positions in the market, and additional profiles of companies with novel or advanced wound care research activities in the market.

The report establishes the current worldwide market size for major technology segments as a baseline for and projecting growth in the market over a ten-year forecast and assesses and projects the composition of the market as technologies gain or lose relative market performance over this period.

(For more information, see link or contact Patrick Driscoll, patrick at mediligence dot com, or tel: 949-859-3401.)