首頁 產業/市場分類 出版商一覽 Email 通知 GII媒體代理會議 公司簡介 聯絡我們
- English Japanese Korean
首頁 > 市場調查報告書 > 醫療設備 > 內視鏡檢查設備 > 美國的關節鏡檢查裝置市場
產業/市場分類
醫療設備 (4528)
內視鏡檢查設備 (158)
分子呈像/呈影劑 (28)
心血管設備 (335)
可拋式醫學設備 (76)
核子醫學 (80)
病患監測 (382)
眼科設備 (102)
傷口護理 (159)
超音波 (54)
齒科設備 (174)
導管 (232)
整形外科 (335)
醫學影像診斷 (414)
體外診斷設備 (476)
CT/MRI/X光 (172)
e保健 (321)
市場調查報告書

美國的關節鏡檢查裝置市場

US Markets for Arthroscopy Devices

出版商 Millennium Research Group
出版日期 2011年11月 商品編碼 225457
內容資訊 英文  
價格
US $ 5995 Web Access and PDF Download (Single user license)
US $ 9000 Web Access and PDF Download (Corporate use license)


美國的關節鏡檢查裝置市場 是由出版商Millennium Research Group在2011年11月所出版的。 這份英文市場調查報告書價格從美金5995起跳。

簡介

美國的關節鏡檢查裝置市場由於關節鏡檢查件數的增加,被認為至2016年將持續緩步成長。低死亡率和併發症發病率、住院期間短等,與剖腹手術相比關節鏡檢查等的低侵入性處置有許多優點,進而提高了需求。再加上在美國有許多的高齡者進行運動,使得因運動而受傷等增多,也造成關節鏡檢查的件數上昇。不過,平均銷售價格的下滑,也使得收益遭到抵銷。

本報告,彙整關節疾病的概要、美國關節鏡檢查裝置市場的產品、品牌概要與競爭動向、今後的市場展望等,由下列摘要形式闡述。

報告摘要

第1章 臨床環境

  • 背景
    • 症狀
      • 退化性關節炎
      • 分離性骨軟骨炎
      • 游離體
    • 關節損傷
      • 膝韌帶
      • 膝關節軟骨
      • 小關節
      • 股關節
  • 診斷與轉介方式
  • 處置概要
    • 關節鏡處置
      • 膝關節鏡處置
      • 肩關節鏡處置
      • 小關節鏡處置
    • 競爭的治療方式
  • 臨床指導方針
  • 醫療報銷指導方針
  • 國家別概要
    • 人口統計與經濟
    • 醫療制度
    • 法律規範環境
  • 第2章 產品
  • 概要
    • 所網羅的產品
  • 一次性電動剃毛器
  • 高頻率探針
  • 流體管理裝置
  • 關節鏡
  • 輔助儀器
    • 功能
    • 差異化特性
    • 新興產品

第3章 臨床實驗

第4章 品牌以及競爭分析

  • 概要
    • 競爭概要
    • 詳細競爭環境
    • 市佔率
    • 近年活動
  • 一次性電動剃毛器
    • 競爭概要
    • 現在的市佔率
  • 高頻率探針
    • 競爭概要
    • 現在的市佔率
  • 流體管理裝置
    • 競爭概要
    • 現在的市佔率
  • 關節鏡
    • 競爭概要
    • 現在的市佔率
  • 輔助儀器
    • 競爭概要
    • 現在的市佔率

第5章 市場展望

  • 概要
  • 一次性電動剃毛器
  • 高頻率探針
  • 流體管理裝置
  • 關節鏡
  • 輔助儀器
    • 市場概要
    • 詳細市場概要

附錄A:調查方式

附錄B:用語

附錄C:參考情報

圖表

目錄

Abstract

The US arthroscopy device market will experience moderate growth through 2016, driven by a rising number of arthroscopic procedures performed. Minimally invasive procedures such as arthroscopy offer many benefits over open surgery, including low morbidity and complication rates as well as less hospitalization time. These advantages will strengthen demand for such procedures over the forecast period. Furthermore, many older individuals in the US are increasingly engaging in physical activity. This trend will lead to more sports-related injuries requiring repair, which will further fuel arthroscopic procedure volumes. Nonetheless, revenue gains from procedure volume growth will be offset to some extent by average selling price (ASP) declines. These declines will stem from price competition in this mature and commoditized market as well as an increasingly cost-conscious environment in the US. Overall, however, procedure volume growth will offset these declines, resulting in market expansion over the forecast period.

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This report uses a number of methodologies to gather and present data and analysis. At the outset, a large survey of secondary sources is conducted. These sources act as the basis for the primary research stage, which builds and enhances the quantitative and qualitative attributes of the early research.

Secondary sources include

  • Government sources:
    • Securities and Exchange Commission filings
    • Food and Drug Administration and patent filings
    • National Center for Health Statistics data
    • Department of Health and Human Services - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
    • National Institutes of Health
  • Arthroscopy device companies:
    • Annual reports, product brochures, corporate profiles, etc.
  • Internal databases and reports:
    • Previous reports on similar/related sources
  • General Internet searches, medical literature, and newspaper/magazine searches:
    • Identifying various centers of specialization and articles that might provide leads for primary research

The secondary research stage builds the foundation for the primary research.

The primary research methodology has four steps:

Step 1: The first step involves an impartial scan of all the information gathered during the secondary research stage to determine its utility based on the specific requirements of this report. Each piece of information is either discarded or marked as high- or low-priority and then organized appropriately as determined by the structure and sectioning of the report.

Step 2: At this stage, early assumptions are formed as to the implications of the information for the various arthroscopy device market segments. These assumptions are then used to determine hypotheses using both inductive and deductive approaches. On the quantitative front, these hypotheses result in full historical and projected market data sets (market sizes - unit sales, average selling prices [ASPs], and revenues - as well as market shares).

Step 3: At this stage, the research is in position for its most important primary phase - expert interviews. Throughout the secondary research phase, industry and medical experts are identified. These experts are then contacted by telephone and asked to participate in interviews on recent trends and developments in the industry. Interviews are either conducted at the time of the initial call or scheduled at the convenience of the expert. Interview questions are tailored to the expertise of each particular interviewee, although in most cases, the most important questions are asked of all experts.

The questions are largely based on the assumptions and hypotheses developed in Step 2, which are then augmented, discarded, or adjusted based on the views and positions put forth. Attempts are made, whenever possible, to cross-check the views of various experts against each other and to reach positions of consensus on issues and market numbers.

In addition, a sample of relevant physicians is interviewed. Physicians are asked to comment on various issues/trends, both in their own practice and in the overall market. The responses provided are then used to strengthen or augment the assumptions and hypotheses developed during the primary research phase.

Step 4: The final stage of primary research involves individual and group analysis by Millennium Research Group. All research results are assessed and cross-checked thoroughly to determine their validity, relevance, and weight. From this process, qualitative conclusions are reached and data points finalized.

FORECAST METHODOLOGY

In addition to the research methodology outlined above, the following “bottom-up” methodology is used to develop forecast assumptions for the report.

A comprehensive breakdown of various arthroscopy procedures and device unit sales is prepared using data from several sources, including professional associations, government statistics, and private research/media sources. Industry experts and practitioners are consulted to ensure accuracy and verify observed trends. As a cross-check, total industry revenues available through annual reports and other sources are compared against modeled industry revenues.

Using the best estimates of industry experts, practitioners, private research/media sources, and inhouse experts, year-by-year growth rates and ASPs are applied individually to each subcategory to derive forecasts. These estimates are cross-checked by industry experts (marketing managers, product managers, CEOs, etc.) and further refined.

Overall findings are compared against market and procedure forecasts published by other sources to ensure reasonable estimates.

Companies mentioned in this report:

  • Advanced Endoscopy Devices
  • Arthrex
  • ArthroCare
  • Arthronet
  • Biomet Sports Medicine
  • Cannuflow
  • ConMed Linvatec
  • CorTek Endoscopy
  • Covidien
  • Davol (a subsidiary of C. R. Bard)
  • DePuy Mitek
  • KARL STORZ
  • Olympus/Gyrus-ACMI
  • Orthopedic Sciences
  • Pivot Medical
  • ProSurg
  • Richard Wolf
  • Sklar Instruments
  • Smith & Nephew
  • Stryker
  • Unimed Surgical Products
  • WORLD OF MEDICINE

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0. CLINICAL LANDSCAPE

  • 1.1. Background
    • 1.1.1. Conditions
      • 1.1.1.1. Osteoarthritis
      • 1.1.1.2. Osteochondritis Dissecans
      • 1.1.1.3. Loose Bodies
    • 1.1.2. Joint Injury
      • 1.1.2.1. Knee Ligament
      • 1.1.2.2. Knee Cartilage
      • 1.1.2.3. Shoulder
      • 1.1.2.4. Small Joint
      • 1.1.2.5. Hip
  • 1.2. Diagnosis and Referral Patterns
  • 1.3. Procedure Overview
    • 1.3.1. Arthroscopy Procedures
      • 1.3.1.1. Knee Arthroscopic Procedures
        • Ligament Repair
        • Cartilage Repair
        • Meniscus Repair
      • 1.3.1.2. Shoulder Arthroscopic Procedures
        • Rotator Cuff Repair
        • Glenohumeral Joint Repair
        • Subacromial Decompression
      • 1.3.1.3. Small-Joint Arthroscopic Procedures
        • Wrist Arthroscopic Procedures
        • Ankle Arthroscopic Procedures
        • Elbow Arthroscopic Procedures
      • 1.3.1.4. Hip Arthroscopic Procedures
    • 1.3.2. Competing Treatments
  • 1.4. Clinical Guidelines
  • 1.5. Reimbursement Guidelines
  • 1.6. Country Overview
    • 1.6.1. Demographics and Economy
    • 1.6.2. Health Care System
    • 1.6.3. Regulatory Environment

2.0. PRODUCTS

  • 2.1. Overview
    • 2.1.1. Products Covered
  • 2.2. Powered Shaver Disposables
    • 2.2.1. Functions
    • 2.2.2. Differentiating Features
    • 2.2.3. Emerging Products
  • 2.3. Radiofrequency Probes
    • 2.3.1. Functions
    • 2.3.2. Differentiating Features
    • 2.3.3. Emerging Products
  • 2.4. Fluid Management Devices
    • 2.4.1. Functions
      • 2.4.1.1. Pumps and Disposable Tubing
      • 2.4.1.2. Disposable Cannulae
    • 2.4.2. Differentiating Features
    • 2.4.3. Emerging Products
  • 2.5. Arthroscopes
    • 2.5.1. Functions
  • 2.6. Hand Instruments
    • 2.6.1. Functions
    • 2.6.2. Emerging Products

3.0. CLINICAL TRIALS

4.0. BRANDS AND COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

  • 4.1. Overview
    • 4.1.1. Competitive Snapshot
    • 4.1.2. Detailed Competitive Landscape
    • 4.1.3. Market Shares
    • 4.1.4. Recent Events
  • 4.2. Powered Shaver Disposables
    • 4.2.1. Competitive Snapshot
    • 4.2.2. Current Market Shares
  • 4.3. Radiofrequency Probe Market
    • 4.3.1. Competitive Snapshot
    • 4.3.2. Current Market Shares
  • 4.4. Fluid Management Disposables Market
    • 4.4.1. Competitive Snapshot
    • 4.4.2. Current Market Shares
  • 4.5. Arthroscope Market
    • 4.5.1. Competitive Snapshot
    • 4.5.2. Current Market Shares
  • 4.6. Hand Instrument Market
    • 4.6.1. Competitive Snapshot
    • 4.6.2. Current Market Shares

5.0. MARKET OUTLOOK

  • 5.1. Overview
    • 5.1.1. Market Snapshot
    • 5.1.2. Detailed Procedure Overview
    • 5.1.3. Detailed Market Overview
  • 5.2. Powered Shaver Disposables Market
    • 5.2.1. Market Snapshot
    • 5.2.2. Detailed Market Overview
  • 5.3. Radiofrequency Probe Market
    • 5.3.1. Market Snapshot
    • 5.3.2. Detailed Market Overview
  • 5.4. Fluid Management Disposables Market
    • 5.4.1. Market Snapshot
    • 5.4.2. Detailed Market Overview
  • 5.5. Arthroscope Market
    • 5.5.1. Market Snapshot
    • 5.5.2. Detailed Market Overview
  • 5.6. Hand Instrument Market
    • 5.6.1. Market Snapshot
    • 5.6.2. Detailed Market Overview

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX B: MRG ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS

APPENDIX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Figure 1: Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 1: Arthroscopy Device Market Landscape, US (US$), 2011 and 2016
  • Table 2: Arthroscopy Device Market Leaders, by Product Type and Revenue, US, 2011
  • Table 3: Expected Key Events in the Arthroscopy Device Market, US, 2012 - 2016
  • Table 4: Factors Impacting the Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, US, 2011 - 2016
  • Table 5: Companies Mentioned in This Report

1.0 CLINICAL LANDSCAPE

  • Table 6: Key Health and Economic Indicators, US, 2011

2.0 PRODUCTS

  • Table 7: Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, US
  • Table 8: Powered Shaver Disposables Functions, by Product Subtype
  • Table 9: Advantages and Disadvantages of Powered Shaver Disposables, by Product Feature
  • Table 10: RF Probe Functions, by Product Feature
  • Table 11: Advantages and Disadvantages of RF Probes, by Product Feature
  • Table 12: Advantages and Disadvantages of Disposable Tubing, by Product Feature

3.0 CLINICAL TRIALS

  • Table 13: Summary of BAHA-I

4.0 BRANDS AND COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

  • Table 14: Leading Competitors in the Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, as a % of Total, US, 2011
  • Table 15: Recent Events in the Arthroscopy Device Market, US, 2011
  • Table 16: Leading Competitors in the Powered Shaver Disposables Market, as a % of Total, US, 2011
  • Table 17: Leading Competitors in the RF Probe Market, as a % of Total, US, 2011
  • Table 18: Leading Competitors in the Fluid Management Disposables Market, as a % of Total, US, 2011
  • Table 19: Leading Competitors in the Arthroscope Market, as a % of Total, US, 2011
  • Table 20: Leading Competitors in the Hand Instrument Market, as a % of Total, US, 2011

5.0 MARKET OUTLOOK

  • Figure 2: Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, as a % of Total, US, 2011 and 2016
  • Table 21: Factors Impacting the Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, US, 2011 - 2016
  • Table 22: Arthroscopic Procedures, by Anatomy, US, 2010 - 2016
  • Table 23: Small-Joint Arthroscopic Procedures, by Anatomy, US, 2010 - 2016
  • Table 24: Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Figure 3: Powered Shaver Disposables Market, by Product Subtype, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 25: Powered Shaver Disposables Market, by Product Subtype, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 26: Powered Shaver Disposables Market Growth, by Product Subtype, US, 2011 - 2016
  • Table 27: Powered Shaver Disposables Market, by Product Subtype, as a % of Total, US, 2010 - 2016
  • Figure 4: RF Probe Market, by Product Feature, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 28: RF Probe Market, by Product Feature, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 29: RF Probe Market Growth, by Product Feature, US, 2011 - 2016
  • Table 30: RF Probe Market, by Product Feature, as a % of Total, US, 2010 - 2016
  • Figure 5: Fluid Management Disposables Market, by Product Subtype, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 31: Fluid Management Disposables Market, by Product Subtype, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 32: Fluid Management Tubing Market, by Durability, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 33: Fluid Management Tubing Market Growth, by Durability, US, 2011 - 2016
  • Table 34: Fluid Management Tubing Market, by Durability, as a % of Total, US, 2010 - 2016
  • Table 35: Fluid Management Disposable Cannulae Market, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Figure 6: Arthroscope Market, by Size, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 36: Arthroscope Market, by Size, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 37: Arthroscope Market Growth, by Size, US, 2011 - 2016
  • Table 38: Arthroscope Market, by Size, as a % of Total, US, 2010 - 2016
  • Figure 7: Hand Instrument Market, US (US$), 2010 - 2016
  • Table 39: Hand Instrument Market, US (US$), 2010 - 2016

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX B: MRG ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS

  • MRG Acronyms and Initialisms

APPENDIX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Back to Top