The “average” wound market does not exist. A remarkable variety of factors influence differences between markets globally.
We compare the distributions of different wound product sales in different countries, resulting from greater or lesser demand drivers within each. For example, you can see the general, common distribution of products sold in Japan or in the Rest of EU segment (e.g., dominance by traditional wound products) and you may see common themes in trending (e.g. decline of traditional products).
The markets for wound products will undergo mixed changes through 2026, but sales generally will continue a low-tech to high tech shift. Traditional products like plain gauzes and dressings, even non-adherent ones, offer low cost and ease of use, but that’s about it. New technologies target the specific deficiencies of plain dressings — infection, moisture control, etc. — and are pulling sales away from them.
Growth of some products in some markets — like negative pressure wound therapy in Germany — show outlier growth rates due to local market dynamics.
Improvements in technology are expected to drive greater acceptance and use of bioengineered skin, as well as growth factors. Bioactive dressing revenues will be driven by several factors, including clinical proof of efficacy, physicians’ growing comfort with appropriate use of these products, cost-effectiveness, increased availability and patient satisfaction with the results—as well as the aging populations and increase in type 2 diabetes. But ALL of these influencers of wound demand are affected by local market forces and practices.
To the person with a chronic wound, the condition represents pain, social and psychological debilitation and usually a financial load. To society, wound care—and especially the treatment of difficult-to-heal wounds—may represent great human suffering, social discomfort, days lost from work, mental health problems, recurrent infections and great economic burden and the human burden of wound care. Having a chronic wound not only necessitates physical care of the wound, including cleaning, disinfecting, irrigating, and changing dressings; it also impacts the emotional and psychological health of the patient. Depression can set in due to a lower quality of life and dependence on others for care of the wound, as well as for overall assistance, both physical and financial. Wounds may cause odors or may have visible drainage, staining clothing and triggering feelings of embarrassment and shame. These in turn may lead to isolation due to decreased mobility and the fear of being a burden on family and friends. To make things worse, increased stress can slow the progress of wound healing.
In caring for a chronic wound, the dressing costs are only part of the picture; the less visible costs include such items as nursing care, medications for pain and infections, and hospitalization. Hospitalization is a leading cost driver for wound care, accounting for at least 50% of the global economic burden. Nursing time to properly care for the patient with a chronic wound can be lengthy, and this is time that could be spent with other patients. In a new report published in the December 2017 online version of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research’s (ISPOR) Value in Health journal (An Economic Evaluation of the Impact, Cost, and Medicare Policy Implications of Chronic Nonhealing Wounds. Nussbaum, Samuel R. et al. Value in Health, Volume 21 , Issue 1 , 27 – 32) (see the study), the researchers found that the costs related to wound care in the Medicare population (USA) were much higher than originally estimated, and that care took place primarily in outpatient settings. For the calendar year 2014, there is considerable variation in the estimates originating from different sources:
“Total Medicare spending estimates for all wound types ranged from $28.1 to $96.8 billion. Including infection costs, the most expensive estimates were for surgical wounds ($11.7, $13.1, and $38.3 billion), followed by diabetic foot ulcers ($6.2, $6.9, and $18.7 billion,). The highest cost estimates in regard to site of service were for hospital outpatients ($9.9–$35.8 billion), followed by hospital inpatients ($5.0–$24.3 billion).”
The development of advanced wound care dressings, devices and biologics is helping to change this situation. Although these advanced products may seem (or may be) expensive, they end up saving money for health care systems by healing wounds more rapidly.
The wound care industry remains quite fragmented, with about eight companies holding leading market shares, but with possibly thousands of small cap companies around the world that are also manufacturing and marketing various wound care products. The Traditional Wound Care space remains attractive, in part since gauze dressings are relatively easy to manufacture and are also still the most commonly-used wound dressing. Even a small company can invent a novel twist to a dressing and experience a rise in profits and inroads into the market.
Low to medium industry concentration. As the traditional and advanced market shares diagrams below demonstrate, there are five to eight major players in Traditional and Advanced Wound Care Markets.
While these firms account for about 79% and 73% of the total markets, respectively, a significant portion of these markets are covered by hundreds or thousands of Other companies. This low to medium level of concentration means that smaller companies, or large companies looking to break into Wound Care, are able to do so more easily than if, say, three companies controlled 95% of the market.
Johnson & Johnson is estimated to be the Traditional Wound Care market leader with about 26% share, followed by Smith & Nephew, 3M Health Care and Hartmann. Medline Industries is estimated to account for about 8%, while Others account for about 21% of this market.
Breaking into the Advanced Wound Care markets presents a somewhat greater challenge. Here, the leading companies have invested heavily in R&D to gain strategic competitive advantage, as well as to create improved products for patients. Smith & Nephew is holds an estimated 21% of this market, followed by Acelity and Johnson & Johnson with 11% each, and Mölnlycke, 3M Health Care, Hartmann, Cardinal Health and ConvaTec accounting for smaller shares. Here again, Others accounts for at least 27% of this market.
Opportunities exist in both Traditional and Advanced Wound Care, especially if a company is in the position of acquiring part or all of an existing wound care company, and if the company can then invest in the development of its new products. If points of distribution overlap, then so much the better.
Relatively low barriers to entry. Good news for companies wishing to break into wound care: barriers to entry into the traditional wound dressing segments (Adherents, Gauze and Non-Adherent Dressings) are relatively low, while demand remains strong. Typically, once a company is established in a traditional segment, it may either plow revenues into research and development, or it may acquire companies to more easily break into new product segments and markets. Many companies in wound care have followed just this path to gain market share and make an impact in the industry.
Medtech fundings for May 2017 came in at a total $579 million, led by the $76.5 million raised by Outset Medical, the $57.7 million funding by CVRx, the $49 million raised by Intrinsic Therapeutics, the $46 million by Magenta Therapeutics and the $45 million by Advanced Cardiac Therapeutics.
Below are the top funding for the month. The complete list of fundings are shown at link (refresh your browser for updates during the month).
Source: Compiled by MedMarket Diligence, LLC.
For a historical listing of medtech fundings by month since 2009, see link.
When does one recognize that horse-and-buggy whips are in decline and auto-mobiles are on the rise?
When does one recognize that a new technology is a definite advance over established ones in the treatment of particular disease, in cost or quality?
Technologies go through life cycles.
A medical technology is introduced that is found effective in the management of a disease. Over time, the technology is improved upon marginally, but eventually a new technology, often radically different, emerges that is more effective or better (cheaper, less invasive, easier to use). It enters the market, takes market share and grows, only to be later eclipsed by a new (apologies) paradigm. Each new technology, marginal or otherwise, advances the limit of what is possible in care.
Predicting the marginal and the more radical innovation is necessary to illustrate where medicine is headed, and its impact. Many stakeholders have interest in this — insurance companies (reimbursing technologies or covering the liabilities), venture capitalists, healthcare providers, patients, and the medical technology companies themselves.
S-curves illustrate the rise in performance or demand over time for new technologies and show the timing and relative impact of newer technologies when they emerge. Importantly, the relative timing and impact of emerging technologies can be qualitatively and quantitatively predicted. Historic data is extremely useful predicting the rise and fall of specific medical technologies in specific disease treatment.
Following are two examples of diseases with multiple technologies arcing through patient demand over time.
Ischemic Heart Disease Past, Current, and Future Technologies
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB)
Stem-cell impregnated heart patches
The treatment of ischemic heart disease, given the seriousness of the disease and its prevalence, has a long history in medicine and within the past fifty years has a remarkable timeline of innovations. Ischemia is condition in which inadequate blood flow to an area due to constriction of blood vessels from inflammation or atherosclerosis can cause cell death. In the case of cardiac ischemia, in which the coronary arteries that supply the heart itself with blood are occluded, the overall cell death can result in myocardial infarction and death.
The effort to re-establish adequate blood flow to heart muscle has evolved from highly invasive surgery in which coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) requires cutting through the patient’s sternum and other tissues to access the heart, then graft arteries and/or veins to flow to the poorly supplied tissue, to (2) minimally invasive, endoscope procedures that do not require cutting the sternum to access the heart and perform the graft and significantly improve healing times and reduced complications, to as illustrated, multiple technologies rise and fall over time with their impacts and their timing considered.
Technology S-Curves in the Management of Ischemic Heart Disease
(Note: These curves are generally for illustrative purposes only; some likely dynamics may not be well represented in the above. Also note that, in practice, demand for old technologies doesn’t cease, but declines at a rate connected to the rise of competing technologies, so after peaking, the S-curves start a descent at various rates toward zero. Also, separately note that the “PTCA” labeled curve corresponds to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, encompassing the percutaneous category of approaches to ischemic heart disease. PTCA itself has evolved from balloon angioplasty alone to the adjunctive use of stents of multiple material types with or without drug elution and even bioabsorbable stents.) Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC
Resulting Technology Shifts
Falling: Open surgical instrumentation, bare metal stents. Rising and leveling: thoracoscopic instrumentation, monitors Rising later: stem-cells, extracellular matrices, atherosclerosis-reducing drugs Rising even later: gene therapy
The minimally invasive technologies enabled by thoracoscopy (used in MIDCAB) and catheterization pulled just about all the demand out of open coronary artery bypass grafting, though the bare metal stents used initially alongside angioplasty have also been largely replaced by drug-eluting stents, which also may be replaced by drug-eluting balloon angioplasty. Stem cells and related technologies used to deliver them will later represent new growth in treatment of ischemia, at least to some degree at the expense of catheterization (PTCA and percutaneous CABG). Eventually, gene therapy may prove able to prevent the ischemia to develop in the first place.
Wound Management Past, Current, and Future Technologies
Hydrogel, alginate, and antimicrobial dressings
Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)
Bioengineered skin substitutes
Another great example of a disease or condition treated by multiple evolving technologies over time is wound management, which has evolved from simple gauze dressings to advanced dressings, to systems like negative pressure wound therapy, hyperbaric oxygen and others, to biological growth factors to bioengineered skin and skin substitutes.
Falling: Traditional gauze and other simple dressings Falling: NPWT, hyperbaric oxygen Rising: Advanced wound dressings, bioengineered skin, growth factors
Wound management has multiple technologies concurrently available, rather than sequential (when one largely replaces the other) over time. Unsurprisingly, traditional dressings are in decline. Equipment-related technologies like NPWT and hyperbaric oxygen are on the wane as well. While wound management is not a high growth area, advanced dressings are rising due to their ability to heal wounds faster, an important factor considering that chronic, slow-healing wounds are a significant contributor to high costs. Bioengineered skin is patient-specific, characterized by faster healing and, therefore, rising.
Medtech and biotech investment is driven by an expectation of returns, but rapid advances in technology simultaneously drive excitement for their application while increasing the uncertainty in what is needed to bring those applications in the market.
Healthcare systems and payers are demanding competitive cost and outcomes for specific patient populations, irrespective of technology type — it’s the endpoint that matters. This forces medical devices into de facto competition with biotech, pharma, and others.
Medical devices are becoming increasingly intelligent medical devices, combining “smart” components, human-device interfaces, integration of AI in product development and products.
Medical devices are rarely just “medical devices” anymore, often integrating embedded drugs, bioresorable materials, cell therapy components, etc.
Many new technologies have dramatically pushed the boundaries on what medicine can potentially accomplish, from the personalized medicine enabled by genomics, these advances have served to create bigger gaps between scientific advance and commercial reality, demanding deeper understanding of the science.
The rapid pace of technology development across all these sectors and the increasing complexity of the underlying science are factors complicating the development, regulatory approval, and market introduction of advanced technologies. The unexpected size and number of the hurdles to bring these complex technologies to the market have been responsible for investment failures, such as:
Theranos. Investors were too ready to believe the disruptive ideas of its founder, Elizabeth Holmes. When it became clear that data did not support the technology, the value of the company plummeted.
Juno Therapeutics. The Seattle-based gene therapy company lost substantial share value after three patients died on a clinical trial for the company’s cell therapy treatments that were just months away from receiving regulatory approval in the US.
A ZS Associates study in 2016 showed that 81% of medtech companies struggle to receive an adequate return on investment
As a result, investment in biotech took a correctional hit in 2016 to deflate overblown expectations. Medtech, for its part, has seen declining investment, especially at early stages, reflecting an aversion to uncertainty in commercialization.
Below are clinical and technology areas that we see demonstrating growth and investment opportunity, but still represent challenges for executives to navigate their remaining development and commercialization obstacles:
Type I diabetes
Non-invasive blood glucose measurement
Tissue engineering and regeneration
3D printed organs
Brain-computer and other nervous system interfaces
Interfaces for patients with locked-in syndrome to communicate
Interfaces to enable (e.g., Stentrode) paralyzed patients to control devices
Robotics in surgery (advancing, despite costs)
Optogenetics: light modulated nerve cells and neural circuits
Localized drug delivery
Further accelerated by genomics and computational approaches
Computational approaches to accelerate the evaluation of drug candidates
Organ-on-a-chip technologies to decrease the cost of drug testing
Impact on investment
Seed stage and Series A investment in med tech is down, reflecting an aversion to early stage uncertainty.
Acquisitions of early stage companies, by contrast, are up, reflecting acquiring companies to gain more control over the uncertainty
Need for critical insight and data to ensure patient outcomes at best costs
Costs of development, combined with uncertainty, demand that if the idea’s upside potential is only $10 million, then it’s time to find another idea
While better analysis of the hurdles to commercialization of advanced innovations will support investment, many medtech and biotech companies may opt instead for growth of established technologies into emerging markets, where the uncertainty is not science-based
Below is illustrated the fundings by category in 2015 and 2016, which showed a consistent drop from 2015 to 2016, driven by a widely acknowledged correction in biotech investment in 2016.
*For the sake of comparing other segments, the wound fundings above exclude the $1.8 billion IPO of Convatec in 2016.
An important determinant of “where medicine will be” in 2035 is the set of dynamics and forces behind healthcare delivery systems, including primarily the payment method, especially regarding reimbursement. It is clear that some form of reform in healthcare will result in a consolidation of the infrastructure paying for and managing patient populations. The infrastructure is bloated and expensive, unnecessarily adding to costs that neither the federal government nor individuals can sustain. This is not to say that I predict movement to a single payer system — that is just one perceived solution to the problem. There are far too many costs in healthcare that offer no benefits in terms of quality; indeed, such costs are a true impediment to quality. Funds that go to infrastructure (insurance companies and other intermediaries) and the demands they put on healthcare delivery work directly against quality of care. So, in the U.S., whether Obamacare persists (most likely) or is replaced with a single payer system, state administered healthcare (exchanges) or some other as-yet-unidentified form, there will be change in how healthcare is delivered from a cost/management perspective.
From the clinical practice and technology side, there will be enormous changes to healthcare. Here are examples of what I see from tracking trends in clinical practice and medical technology development:
Cancer 5 year survival rates will, for many cancers, be well over 90%. Cancer will largely be transformed in most cases to chronic disease that can be effectively managed by surgery, immunology, chemotherapy and other interventions. Cancer and genomics, in particular, has been a lucrative study (see The Cancer Genome Atlas). Immunotherapy developments are also expected to be part of many oncology solutions. Cancer has been a tenacious foe, and remains one we will be fighting for a long time, but the fight will have changed from virtually incapacitating the patient to following protocols that keep cancer in check, if not cure/prevent it.
Diabetes Type 1 (juvenile onset) will be managed in most patients by an “artificial pancreas”, a closed loop glucometer and insulin pump that will self-regulate blood glucose levels. OR, stem cell or other cell therapies may well achieve success in restoring normal insulin production and glucose metabolism in Type 1 patients. The odds are better that a practical, affordable artificial pancreas will developed than stem or other cell therapy, but both technologies are moving aggressively and will gain dramatic successes within 20 years.
Developments in the field of the “artificial pancreas” have recently gathered considerable pace, such that, by 2035, type 1 blood glucose management may be no more onerous than a house thermostat due to the sophistication and ease-of-use made possible with the closed loop, biofeedback capabilities of the integrated glucometer, insulin pump and the algorithms that drive it, but that will not be the end of the development of better options for type 1 diabetics. Cell therapy for type 1 diabetes, which may be readily achieved by one or more of a wide variety of cellular approaches and product forms (including cell/device hybrids) may well have progressed by 2035 to become another viable alternative for type 1 diabetics.
Diabetes Type 2 (adult onset) will be a significant problem governed by different dynamics than Type 1. A large body of evidence will exist that shows dramatically reduced incidence of Type 2 associated with obesity management (gastric bypass, satiety drugs, etc.) that will mitigate the growing prevalence of Type 2, but research into pharmacologic or other therapies may at best achieve only modest advances. The problem will reside in the complexity of different Type 2 manifestation, the late onset of the condition in patients who are resistant to the necessary changes in lifestyle and the global epidemic that will challenge dissemination of new technologies and clinical practices to third world populations.
Despite increasing levels of attention being raised to the burden of type 2 worldwide, including all its sequellae (vascular, retinal, kidney and other diseases), the pace of growth globally in type 2 is still such that it will represent a problem and target for pharma, biotech, medical device, and other disciplines.
Cell therapy and tissue engineering will offer an enormous number of solutions for conditions currently treated inadequately, if at all. Below is an illustration of the range of applications currently available or in development, a list that will expand (along with successes in each) over the next 20 years.
Cell therapy will have deeply penetrated virtually every medical specialty by 2035. Most advanced will be those that target less complex tissues: bone, muscle, skin, and select internal organ tissues (e.g., bioengineered bladder, others). However, development will have also followed the money. Currently, development and use of conventional technologies in areas like cardiology, vascular, and neurology entails high expenditure that creates enormous investment incentive that will drive steady development of cell therapy and tissue engineering over the next 20 years, with the goal of better, long-term and/or less costly solutions.
Gene therapy will be an option for a majority of genetically-based diseases (especially inherited diseases) and will offer clinical options for non-inherited conditions. Advances in the analysis of inheritance and expression of genes will also enable advanced interventions to either ameliorate or actually preempt the onset of genetic disease. As the human genome is the engineering plans for the human body, it is a potential mother lode for the future of medicine, but it remains a complex set of plans to elucidate and exploit for the development of therapies. While genetically-based diseases may readily be addressed by gene therapies in 2035, the host of other diseases that do not have obvious genetic components will resist giving up easy gene therapy solutions. Then again, within 20 years a number of reasonable advances in understanding and intervention could open the gate to widespread “gene therapy” (in some sense) for a breadth of diseases and conditions –> Case in point, the recent emergence of the gene-editing technology, CRISPR, has set the stage for practical applications to correct genetically-based conditions.
Drug development will be dramatically more sophisticated, reducing the development time and cost while resulting in drugs that are far more clinically effective (and less prone to side effects). This arises from drug candidates being evaluated via distributed processing systems (or quantum computer systems) that can predict efficacy and side effect without need of expensive and exhaustive animal or human testing.The development of effective drugs will have been accelerated by both modeling systems and increases in our understanding of disease and trauma, including pharmacogenomics to predict drug response. It may not as readily follow that the costs will be reduced, something that may only happen as a result of policy decisions.
Most surgical procedures will achieve the ability to be virtually non-invasive. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) will enable highly sophisticated surgery without ever making an abdominal or other (external) incision. Technologies like “gamma knife” and similar will have the ability to destroy tumors or ablate pathological tissue via completely external, energy-based systems. By 2035, technologies such as these will measurably reduce inpatient stays, on a per capita basis, since a significant reason for overnight stays is the trauma requiring recovery, and eliminating trauma is a major goal and advantage of minimally invasive technologies (e.g., especially the NOTES technology platform). A wide range of other technologies (e.g., gamma knife, minimally invasive surgery/intervention, etc.) across multiple categories (device, biotech, pharma) will also have emerged and succeeded in the market by producing therapeutic benefit while minimizing or eliminating collateral damage.
Information technology will radically improve patient management. Very sophisticated electronic patient records will dramatically improve patient care via reduction of contraindications, predictive systems to proactively manage disease and disease risk, and greatly improve the decision-making of physicians tasked with diagnosing and treating patients.There are few technical hurdles to the advancement of information technology in medicine, but even in 2035, infotech is very likely to still be facing real hurdles in its use as a result of the reluctance in healthcare to give up legacy systems and the inertia against change, despite the benefits.
Personalized medicine. Perfect matches between a condition and its treatment are the goal of personalized medicine, since patient-to-patient variation can reduce the efficacy of off-the-shelf treatment. The thinking behind gender-specific joint replacement has led to custom-printed 3D implants. The use of personalized medicine will also be manifested by testing to reveal potential emerging diseases or conditions, whose symptoms may be ameliorated or prevented by intervention before onset.
Systems biology will underlie the biology of most future medical advances in the next 20 years. Systems biology is a discipline focused on an integrated understanding of cell biology, physiology, genetics, chemistry, and a wide range of other individual medical and scientific disciplines. It represents an implicit recognition of an organism as an embodiment of multiple, interdependent organ systems and its processes, such that both pathology and wellness are understood from the perspective of the sum total of both the problem and the impact of possible solutions.This orientation will be intrinsic to the development of medical technologies, and will increasingly be represented by clinical trials that throw a much wider and longer-term net around relevant data, staff expertise encompassing more medical/scientific disciplines, and unforeseen solutions that present themselves as a result of this approach.Other technologies being developed aggressively now will have an impact over the next twenty years, including medical/surgical robots (or even biobots), neurotechnologies to diagnose, monitor, and treat a wide range of conditions (e.g., spinal cord injury, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s etc.).
The breadth and depth of advances in medicine over the next 20 years will be extraordinary, since many doors have been recently opened as a result of advances in genetics, cell biology, materials science, systems biology and others — with the collective advances further stimulating both learning and new product development.
See the 2016 report #290, “Worldwide Markets for Medical and Surgical Sealants, Glues, and Hemostats, 2015-2022.”
Fundings in medical technology for December 2015 stand at $360.4 million, led by Spectranetics’ $110 million debt funding, followed by the $44 million launch funding of Kallyope, the $40 million funding of NxThera, and the $38.5 million funding of Axonics Modulation Technologies.
Below are the top fundings for the month, thus far. Please revisit this post (and refresh your browser) during December to see new medtech fundings.
Stroke is a costly condition with a growing patient population targeted neurointerventional treatments that will account for hundreds of millions in sales over the next five years, according to a recent MedMarket Diligence report.
Acute stroke therapeutics are focused almost exclusively on patients’ cardiopulmonary and hemodynamic support and ad hoc containment of dangerous complications and corresponding brain damage associated with stroke. Among the life-threatening complications that commonly accompany acute cerebral hemorrhage or ischemia are cerebral edema; hydrocephalus; brain stem compression; vasospasm and pulmonary embolism. These therapeutic technologies will account for $323 million in new revenue from 2015 to 2019, according to the recently published MedMarket Diligence report, “Emerging Global Market for Neurointerventional Technologies in Stroke, 2014-2019”, details
“Stroke is associated with costly long-term care, especially for a patient population that is typically older and more susceptible to its complications, but neurointerventional treatment have succeeded in both making a positive clinical impact and securing respectable revenue streams for manufacturers,” says Patrick Driscoll of MedMarket Diligence. These technologies will continue to develop and improve over the next five years, but much growth will also come from the penetration by these technologies in non-U.S. markets, where relative use is lower and shows untapped potential.
Stroke is a life-threatening medical condition characterized by a sudden catastrophic breakdown in the brain-supporting cerebrovascular system and blood supply, which, in many instances, is followed by an irreversible injury to the brain cells and severe neurological impairment or death.
Notwithstanding the remarkable progress in medical science and technology and associated improvements in clinical practices, stroke continues to constitute the major public health problem in the U.S. and overseas.
The $1.5 billion global market for acute stroke management is revealed in detail in the MedMarket Diligence report #C310, “Emerging Global Market for Neurointerventional Technologies in Stroke, 2014-2019”, (see http://mediligence.com/c310/). The report is a detailed market and technology assessment and forecast of the products and technologies in the management of acute stroke. The report describes the epidemiology, etiology and management of hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack, characterizing the patient populations, their current clinical management, and trends in clinical management as new techniques and technologies are expected to be developed and emerge. The report details the currently available products and technologies, and the manufacturers offering them. The report details the products and technologies under development and markets for each in the treatment of acute stroke. The report provides a current and forecast to 2019 by region /country for the U.S., Western Europe, the major Asia-Pacific states (China, India, and Japan), and the rest of world. The report profiles the most top companies in this industry, providing status and forecast data on their current products, current market position, and products under development.
Spine surgery manufacturers are driving growth by continuing to advance new technologies in implants, instrumentation and minimally invasive delivery while penetrating and expanding markets outside the U.S.
The $9.17 billion global market for cervical fusion, thoracolumbar Implants, MIS spine fusion, interbody fusion, and orthobiologics has evolved dramatically over the last several decades as a result of significant advances in the understanding of spinal biomechanics, the proliferation of sophisticated spinal instrumentation devices, surgical advances in bone fusion techniques, refinement of anterior approaches to the spine and the emergence and development of microsurgical, minimally invasive methods and robotics. As a result of these advances, it is now possible to stabilize every segment of the spine successfully, regardless of the offending pathology. The global market for spine surgery devices is detailed in the MedMarket Diligence report, “Global Market for Medical Device Technologies in Spine Surgery, 2014-2021.” (see http://mediligence.com/m540/)
“Well established and emerging spine surgery companies alike are succeeding by accomplishing three things — providing greater resources to further product development, expanding of sales and marketing resources, and growing new and emerging geographic regions,” says Patrick Driscoll, of MedMarket Diligence. “The result is continued strong sales growth globally, with a robust competitive landscape of companies of all sizes, keeping big players like Medtronic, DePuy,, Stryker, and Zimmer-Biomet on their toes” says Driscoll.
Spine fusion is the fastest growing technology in spine surgery and with growth in spine surgery being fastest in the Asia-Pacific and Central/Latin America, the growth of spine fusion in those areas is double-digit. The improvements in spine surgery and technology development have produced steady growth in volumes of surgeries, supported by reimbursement and clinical outcomes (and the increasingly active aging population). Spine surgery, with its exponential growth, has been the answer to an orthopaedic industry seeking to optimize earnings and add value for shareholders.
The MedMarket Diligence report, “Global Market for Medical Device Technologies in Spine Surgery, 2014-2021: Established and Emerging Products, Technologies and Markets in the Americas, Europe, Asia/Pacific and Rest of World,” (report #M540) is a detailed market and technology assessment and forecast of the products and technologies in the management of diseases and disorders of the spine. The report describes the diseases and disorders of the spine, characterizing the patient populations, their current clinical management, and trends in clinical management as new techniques and technologies are expected to be developed and emerge.
The report details the currently available products and technologies, and the manufacturers offering them. The report details the products and technologies under development and markets for each in spine surgery. The report provides a current and forecast assessment by region/country of procedures and manufacturer revenues for, specifically, Americas (United States, Rest of North America, Latin America), European Union (United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe), Asia-Pacific (Japan, China, India, Rest of Asia/Pacific) and Rest of World. The forecast addresses the product- and country-specific impacts in the market of new technologies through the coming decade.
The report profiles 38 of the most notable current and emerging companies in this industry, providing data on their current products, current market position and products under development. The products and activities of numerous additional startup and emerging companies are also detailed in the report.