表紙
市場調查報告書

美國的乳房重建市場調查

US Market Report for Breast Reconstruction 2017 - MedCore

出版商 iData Research Inc. 商品編碼 530118
出版日期 內容資訊 英文 530 Pages
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
價格
美國的乳房重建市場調查 US Market Report for Breast Reconstruction 2017 - MedCore
出版日期: 2017年07月01日內容資訊: 英文 530 Pages
簡介

本報告提供美國的乳房重建市場相關調查,整體市場預測,疾病、產品概要,各分類的市場趨勢,主要的促進、阻礙因素,回收、臨床實驗趨勢等相關彙整。

目錄

圖表

摘要整理

美國的軟組織加強、重組市場

競爭分析

市場趨勢

市場發展

市場趨勢

治療數量

調查對象市場

更新資訊

修訂履歷

第1章 調查手法

  • 調查範圍
  • iData的9等級分析方法

第2章 疾病概要

  • 基礎結構
  • 診斷、治療
    • 乳癌
    • 心血管組織的修復術
    • 口腔軟組織疾病
    • 糖尿病腳病變
    • 硬薄膜損傷
    • 疝氣
    • 末梢血管的修復術
    • 肩迴旋肌、肌腱損傷
    • 外傷、燒燙傷
    • 尿失禁
  • 患者統計
    • 乳癌的統計
    • 心血管疾病的統計
    • 糖尿病腳病變的統計
    • 疝氣的統計
    • 牙周病的統計
    • 末梢神經疾病的統計
    • 外傷、運動外傷的統計
    • 尿失禁的統計

第3章 產品評估

  • 產品系列
    • 乳房重建市場
  • 法規上的課題和回收
    • Acelity
    • Astora Women's Health
    • Baxter Healthcare Corp
    • C.R. Bard
    • CryoLife, Inc.
    • Ethicon
    • Integra LifeScience
    • LeMaitre Vascular Inc.
    • Organogenesis
    • 其他的企業
  • 臨床實驗
    • Acelity
    • Admedus
    • Astora Women's Health
    • B Braun
    • Boston Scientific
    • Cook Medical
    • CorMatrix
    • CR Bard
    • CryoLife
    • Ethicon
    • Geistlich Pharma
    • Integra LifeScience
    • Maquet Cardiovascular
    • Medtronic
    • MiMedx
    • RTI Surgical
    • Wright Medical Group
    • Xeltis
    • 其他的企業

第4章 乳房重建市場

  • 簡介
  • 市場概要
  • 市場分析與預測
    • 乳房重建市場
    • 同類移植市場
    • 異種移植市場
    • 人工移植市場
  • 市場促進、阻礙因素
    • 市場的推動要素
    • 市場阻礙因素
  • 市場佔有率分析

簡稱集

附錄:企業的新聞稿

目錄
Product Code: iDATA_USSTR17_MC_BR

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

General Report Contents:

  • Market Analyses include: Unit Sales, ASPs, Market Value & Growth Trends
  • Market Drivers & Limiters for each chapter segment
  • Competitive Analysis for each chapter segment
  • Section on recent mergers & acquisitions

There are two main types of breast reconstruction procedures: tissue expander/implant based procedures and autologous tissue procedures. Tissue expander/implant (TEI) procedures involve the use either of an artificial implant or a saline filled implant that is expanded over time as the patient heals. TEI procedures account for approximately 80% of breast reconstructions. The higher percentage of TEI procedures compared to previous years is related to the increasing incidence of bilateral reconstructions, because if a patient elects to have both breasts reconstructed, usually the TEI procedure is their only option due to the limited amount of tissue that can be harvested during autologous procedures. The remaining breast reconstructions were completed with autologous tissue using techniques, of which the most popular were transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap, deep inferior epigastric perforators (DIEP) flap, and latissimus dorsi myocutaneous (LDM) flap. TRAM flap procedures were the most popular type of autologous breast reconstruction procedure in 2016, constituting about 40% of autologous procedures, whereas DIEP and LDM flap procedures accounted for approximately 28% and 32% respectively. Due to the increased amount of tissue, including a significant amount of muscle, required to fully reconstruct a breast, complications related to abdominal weakness are more likely to arise following autologous breast reconstructions than any other type of autograft procedure from different indications. The recent introduction of the free TRAM flap procedure, which was designed to minimize these post-surgery complications, has partially remedied this problem.

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. Breast Reconstruction Market
  • 3.2. REGULATORY ISSUES AND RECALLS
    • 3.2.1. Acelity (KCI, LifeCells, Systagenix)
      • 3.2.1.1. Skin Repair
    • 3.2.2. Astora Women's Health (AMS)
      • 3.2.2.1. Vaginal Slings
    • 3.2.3. Baxter Healthcare Corp (Synovis Surgical Innovations, Inc.)
      • 3.2.3.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.2.4. C.R. Bard (Davol Inc., subsidiary)
      • 3.2.4.1. Hernia Repair
      • 3.2.4.2. Vaginal Slings
    • 3.2.5. CryoLife, Inc.
      • 3.2.5.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.2.6. Ethicon
      • 3.2.6.1. Hernia Repair
    • 3.2.7. Integra LifeScience
      • 3.2.7.1. Dural Repair
      • 3.2.7.2. Skin Repair
      • 3.2.7.3. Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement
    • 3.2.8. LeMaitre Vascular Inc.
      • 3.2.8.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.2.9. Organogenesis
      • 3.2.9.1. Skin Repair
    • 3.2.10. Other companies
      • 3.2.10.1. Breast Reconstruction
      • 3.2.10.2. Hernia Repair
      • 3.2.10.3. Dural Repair
      • 3.2.10.4. Dental Soft Tissue
  • 3.3. CLINICAL TRIALS
    • 3.3.1. Acelity
      • 3.3.1.1. Breast Reconstruction
      • 3.3.1.2. Hernia Repair
    • 3.3.2. Admedus
      • 3.3.2.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.3.3. Astora Women's Health (AMS)
      • 3.3.3.1. Vaginal Slings
    • 3.3.4. B Braun
      • 3.3.4.1. Hernia Repair
      • 3.3.4.2. Dural Repair
    • 3.3.5. Boston Scientific
      • 3.3.5.1. Vaginal Slings
    • 3.3.6. Cook Medical
      • 3.3.6.1. Hernia Repair
    • 3.3.7. CorMatrix
      • 3.3.7.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.3.8. CR Bard
      • 3.3.8.1. Hernia Repair
      • 3.3.8.2. Vaginal Slings
    • 3.3.9. CryoLife
      • 3.3.9.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.3.10. Ethicon
      • 3.3.10.1. Breast Reconstruction
      • 3.3.10.2. Hernia Repair
      • 3.3.10.3. Vaginal Slings
    • 3.3.11. Geistlich Pharma
      • 3.3.11.1. Dental Soft Tissue
    • 3.3.12. Integra LifeScience
      • 3.3.12.1. Breast Reconstruction
      • 3.3.12.2. Dural Repair
      • 3.3.12.3. Skin Repair
    • 3.3.13. Maquet Cardiovascular
      • 3.3.13.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.3.14. Medtronic
      • 3.3.14.1. Hernia Repair
    • 3.3.15. MiMedx
      • 3.3.15.1. Skin Repair
    • 3.3.16. RTI Surgical
      • 3.3.16.1. Breast Reconstruction
    • 3.3.17. Wright Medical Group (Tornier)
      • 3.3.17.1. Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement
    • 3.3.18. Xeltis
      • 3.3.18.1. Biologic Vascular Patch
    • 3.3.19. Other companies
      • 3.3.19.1. Breast Reconstruction
      • 3.3.19.2. Hernia Repair
      • 3.3.19.3. Dural Repair
      • 3.3.19.4. Vaginal Slings
      • 3.3.19.5. Skin Repair
      • 3.3.19.6. Sport Medicine and Tendon Reinforcement
      • 3.3.19.7. Dental Soft Tissue
      • 3.3.19.8. Biologic Vascular Patch

BREAST RECONSTRUCTION MARKET

  • 4.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 4.2. MARKET OVERVIEW
  • 4.3. MARKET ANALYSIS AND FORECAST
    • 4.3.1. Total Breast Reconstruction Market
    • 4.3.2. Allograft Market
    • 4.3.3. Xenograft Market
    • 4.3.4. Alloplast Market
  • 4.4. DRIVERS AND LIMITERS
    • 4.4.1. Market Drivers
    • 4.4.2. Market Limiters
  • 4.5. COMPETITIVE MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS

ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX: COMPANY PRESS RELEASES

LIST OF CHARTS

  • Chart 1 1: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market by Segment, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Chart 1 2: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market Overview, U.S., 2016 & 2023
  • Chart 4 1: Breast Reconstruction Market by Segment, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Chart 4 2: Breast Reconstruction Market Breakdown by Segment, U.S., 2016
  • Chart 4 3: Breast Reconstruction Market Breakdown by Segment, U.S., 2023
  • Chart 4 4: Total Breast Reconstruction Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Chart 4 5: Allograft Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Chart 4 6: Xenograft Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Chart 4 7: Alloplast Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Chart 4 8: Leading Competitors, Breast Reconstruction Market, U.S., 2016

LIST OF FIGURES

  • Figure 1 1: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market Share Ranking by Segment, U.S., 2016 (1 of 2)
  • Figure 1 2: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market Share Ranking by Segment, U.S., 2016 (2 of 2)
  • Figure 1 3: Companies Researched in this Report, U.S., 2016
  • Figure 1 4: Factors Impacting the Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market by Segment, U.S. (1 of 2)
  • Figure 1 5: Factors Impacting the Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market by Segment, U.S. (2 of 2)
  • Figure 1 6: Recent Events in the Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Market, U.S., 2015 - 2017
  • Figure 1 7: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Procedures Covered, U.S., 2016
  • Figure 1 8: Soft Tissue Reinforcement and Regeneration Markets Covered, U.S., 2016
  • Figure 1 9: Key Report Updates
  • Figure 1 10: Version History
  • Figure 3 1: Breast Reconstruction Market Products by Company (1 of 2)
  • Figure 3 2: Breast Reconstruction Market Products by Company (2 of 2)
  • Figure 3 3: Class 2 Device Recall CelluTome, KCI Inc.
  • Figure 3 4: Class 2 Device Recall: MiniArc Pro Single incision Sling System, Astora
  • Figure 3 5: Class 2 Device Recall: AdVance"Male Sling System, American Medical Systems, Inc.
  • Figure 3 6: Class 2 Device Recall: AMS Monarc Subfascial Hammock with Tensioning Suture, American Medical Systems, Inc.
  • Figure 3 7: Class 2 Device Recall: AMS 800 Urinary Control System, American Medical Systems, Inc.
  • Figure 3 8: Class 2 Device Recall Synovis VASCUGUARD Peripheral Vascular Patch
  • Figure 3 9: Class 1 Device Recall VASCUGUARD Pheripheral Vascular Patch
  • Figure 3 10: Class 2 Device Recall Vascu Guard Peripheral Vascular Patch
  • Figure 3 11: Class 2 Device Recall Bard PerFix Light Plug
  • Figure 3 12: Class 2 Device Recall Composix LP with Echo
  • Figure 3 13: Class 2 Device Recall Bard Ventralight ST Mesh
  • Figure 3 14: MAUDE Adverse Event Reports: C.R. BARD, Inc.
  • Figure 3 15: Class 2 Device Recall CryoPatch SG
  • Figure 3 16: Class 2 Device Recall Surgical mesh, PhysioMesh
  • Figure 3 17: Class 2 Class 2 Device Recall Ethicon Inc.
  • Figure 3 18: Class 2 Device Recall DuraGen XS Dural Regeneration Matrix
  • Figure 3 19: Class 2 Device Recall DuraGen Dural Regeneration Matrix
  • Figure 3 20: Class 2 Device Recall Integra Meshed Dermal Regeneration Template
  • Figure 3 21: Class 2 Device Recall Integra, Flowable Wound Matrix
  • Figure 3 22: Class 2 Device Recall Integra
  • Figure 3 23: Class 1 Device Recall LeMaitre Albograft, LeMaitre Vascular Inc.
  • Figure 3 24: Class 2 Device Recall Organogenesis Apligraf
  • Figure 3 25: Class 2 Device Recall Organogenesis Apligraf
  • Figure 3 26: Class 2 Device Recall Artoura Breast Tissue Expander
  • Figure 3 27: Class 2 Device Recall Tissue expander Mentor, Mentor Texas, LP
  • Figure 3 28: Class 2 Device Recall CQUR Mesh, Atrium Medical Corporation
  • Figure 3 29: Class 2 Device Recall DuraGuard Dural Repair Patch, Synovis (Baxter)
  • Figure 3 30: Class 2 Device Recall RENOVIX Guided Healing Collagen Membrane
  • Figure 3 31: Class 2 Device Recall CollaGuide Collagen Dental Membrane
  • Figure 3 32: Impact of ADM in Reduction of Surgical Complexity of Breast Reconstructions With Implants (Nava) (Strattice)
  • Figure 3 33: Compare Outcomes Between Two Acellular Dermal Matrices (Alloderm RTU medium, LifeCell vs. Cortiva Allograft Dermis, RTI Surgical®, Inc.)
  • Figure 3 34: Comparison of FlexHD (Ethicon) and Alloderm (Acelity)Outcomes in Breast Reconstructive Surgery
  • Figure 3 35: Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS)
  • Figure 3 36: Breast Reconstruction Outcomes With and Without StratticE (BROWSE), UK
  • Figure 3 37: Breast Reconstruction With Acellular Dermal Matrix in the Setting of Breast Cancer Treatment (Strattice)
  • Figure 3 38: SurgiMend® vs. Strattice™ in Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction- A Prospective Randomized Trial
  • Figure 3 39: Acellular Dermal Matrix in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial Comparing SurgiMend PRS and AlloDerm RTU
  • Figure 3 40: A Comparison of Dermal Autograft to AlloDerm in Breast Reconstruction
  • Figure 3 41: Protexa® (AFS Medical) Versus TiLoopBra® (PFM) in Immediate Breast Reconstruction- A Pilot Study
  • Figure 3 42: Regenerative Tissue Matrix for Breast Reconstruction (AlloDerm)
  • Figure 3 43: Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Using Biologic or Synthetic Mesh (CVHR)
  • Figure 3 44: A Comparison of Fortiva and Strattice Tissue Matrices in Complex, Ventral Hernia Repair
  • Figure 3 45: Biologic Mesh Versus Synthetic Mesh in Repair of Ventral Hernias (ventral hernia)
  • Figure 3 46: Multi-Center Study To Examine The Use Of Flex HD® (Ethicon) And Strattice (Acelity) In The Repair Of Large Abdominal Wall Hernias
  • Figure 3 47: Use of Strattice Mesh in Paraesophageal Hernia Surgery (Strattice)
  • Figure 3 48: Vascular Post Market Review
  • Figure 3 49: Urinary Incontinence Sling: Collection of Long Term Patient Outcomes Following Implantation of AMS Surgical Devices
  • Figure 3 50: Collection of Long Term Patient Outcomes Data Following Implantation of AMS Surgical Devices (CAPTURE)
  • Figure 3 51: Trial Comparing Mini-Arc Precise Pro and the Trans Vaginal Obturator Tape for Stress Urinary Incontinence
  • Figure 3 52: Prophylactic Mesh Implantation After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair
  • Figure 3 53: Assessment of the Performance of Lyoplant® Onlay for Duraplasty (LYON)
  • Figure 3 54: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair: Multi-center Study of Uphold LITE Versus Native Tissue
  • Figure 3 55: Mid-Urethral Sling Tensioning Trial (MUST)
  • Figure 3 56: Urinary Incontinence Sling: Post Market Study Of Single Incision Sling Versus Transobturator Sling
  • Figure 3 57: Observational Study to Evaluate Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair Using a Biologic Mesh (Cook Biodesign)
  • Figure 3 58: Biologic Versus Synthetic Mesh for Treatment of Paraesophageal Hernia, Biodesign™ Surgisis® Graft and Parietex™ Composite Hiatal Mesh,
  • Figure 3 59: Antimicrobial Hernia Repair Device Clinical Study (AMEX)
  • Figure 3 60: CorMatrix ECM Tricuspid Valve Replacement
  • Figure 3 61: A Post Market Study on the Use of Cormatrix® Cangaroo ECM® (Extracellular Matrix) Envelope (SECURE)
  • Figure 3 62: A Study on the Use of CorMatrix ®ECM® for Femoral Arterial Reconstruction (PERFORM)
  • Figure 3 63: Epicardial Infarct Repair Using CorMatrix®-ECM: Clinical Feasibility Study (EIR)
  • Figure 3 64: A Study to Obtain Additional Information on the Use of CorMatrix® CanGaroo ECM® Envelope (JUMP)
  • Figure 3 65: Restore Myocardial Function With CorMatrix® ECM® Particulate (P-ECM)
  • Figure 3 66: XenMatrix™ AB Surgical Graft in Ventral or Incisional Midline Hernias
  • Figure 3 67: Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Using Biologic or Synthetic Mesh (CVHR)
  • Figure 3 68: A Prospective Trial of a Bio-absorbable Mesh in Challenging Laparoscopic Ventral or Incisional Hernia Repair (ATLAS)
  • Figure 3 69: A Prospective, Multi-Center Study of Phasix™ Mesh for Ventral or Incisional Hernia Repair.
  • Figure 3 70: Biologic Mesh Versus Synthetic Mesh in Repair of Ventral Hernias (ventral hernia)
  • Figure 3 71: Prospective Trial Comparing Two Different Polypropylene Meshes for Inguinal Hernias
  • Figure 3 72: Comparison of Two Mesh/Fixation Concepts for Laparoscopic Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair (Bard Davol Inc, Ventralight and Ethicon, Physiomesh®)
  • Figure 3 73: A Retrospective Study With Prospective Follow-Up of Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Utilizing the AlloMax Surgical Graft (AlloMax)
  • Figure 3 74: Multicentric Comparative Randomized Study of the Single-incision Sling Ajust® Versus Suburethral Transobturator Slings.
  • Figure 3 75: Data Collection Registry of the HeRO Graft for End Stage Renal Disease Patients Receiving Hemodialysis
  • Figure 3 76: Post Market Surveillance Study Evaluating BioFoam Surgical Matrix in Cardiovascular Surgery
  • Figure 3 77: Saphenous Vein Allografts for Coronary Bypass
  • Figure 3 78: Comparison of FlexHD (Ethicon) and Alloderm (Acelity)Outcomes in Breast Reconstructive Surgery
  • Figure 3 79: International Hernia Mesh Registry (IHMR)
  • Figure 3 80: Prospective Trial Comparing Two Different Polypropylene Meshes for Inguinal Hernias
  • Figure 3 81: Multi-Center Study To Examine The Use Of Flex HD® (Ethicon) And Strattice (Acelity) In The Repair Of Large Abdominal Wall Hernias
  • Figure 3 82: Evaluation of HQ® Matrix Soft Tissue Mesh for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia
  • Figure 3 83: Study on Ultrapro vs Polypropylene: Early Results From a Multicentric Experience in Surgery for Hernia (SUPERMESH)
  • Figure 3 84: Comparison of Two Mesh/Fixation Concepts for Laparoscopic Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair (Bard Davol Inc, Ventralight and Ethicon, Physiomesh®)
  • Figure 3 85: The Paediatric EVICEL® Neuro Study
  • Figure 3 86: The EVICEL® Neurosurgery Phase III Study
  • Figure 3 87: Urinary Incontinence Sling: TVT-ABBREVO Versus SERASIS for the Treatment of Female Urinary Stress Incontinence
  • Figure 3 88: A Biotype Enhancing Strategy For The Patient Undergoing Accelerated Orthodontics
  • Figure 3 89: Effect of Mucograft® Seal on Post-extraction Ridge Preservation Using Bone Allograft (Mucograft)
  • Figure 3 90: The Use of Mucograft® to Treat Gingival Recession
  • Figure 3 91: Xenogenous Collagen Matrix Graft With or Without Enamel Matrix Proteins Derivative for Root Coverage
  • Figure 3 92: Extraction Socket Management Using Connective Tissue Graft Versus Mucograft®
  • Figure 3 93: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate Safety and Effectiveness of CAF + Mucograft® Compared to CAF Alone in Patients With Gingival Recessions (MCT-Recession)
  • Figure 3 94: SurgiMend® vs. Strattice™ in Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction- A Prospective Randomized Trial
  • Figure 3 95: Evaluating Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction (POBRAD-M) (POBRAD-M) (SurgiMend)
  • Figure 3 96: Acellular Dermal Matrix in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial Comparing SurgiMend PRS and AlloDerm RTU
  • Figure 3 97: DuraSeal Exact Spine Sealant System Post-Approval Study (DuraSeal PAS)
  • Figure 3 98: Duragen® Secure Post Marketing Clinical Follow-up (PMCF)
  • Figure 3 99: DuraSeal Sealant Post Market Study
  • Figure 3 100: PriMatrix for the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 101: Prospective, Comparitive, Randomized Study of Allograft Versus Skin Substitute in Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 102: Safety Study to Examine the Systemic Exposure of Granexin® Gel After Topical Application to Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 103: A Comparison of OASIS Wound Matrix With Approved Dressings for Skin Graft Donor Sites (OASIS)
  • Figure 3 104: Clinical Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of ALLO-ASC-DFU in Paitents With Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 105: Phase IV Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of AMNIOEXCEL in Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 106: Study of ReCell® Treating for Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 107: A Safety and Efficacy Study of INTEGRA® Dermal Regeneration Template for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 108: Evaluation of FUSION™ Vascular Graft for Above Knee Targets (PERFECTION) - NOT approved for the US
  • Figure 3 109: Bilateral Laparoscopic Repair of Groin Hernias With One Large Self-fixating Mesh (ProGripTM) (BigWig)
  • Figure 3 110: Comparison of Self-Fixating vs Non-Fixating Hernia Mesh
  • Figure 3 111: The SymCHro - Observational Registry Study for Symbotex™ Composite Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair (SymCHro)
  • Figure 3 112: ENHANCE: A Prospective EvaluatioN of Permacol™ in tHe Repair of Complex AbdomiNal Wall CasEs (ENHANCE)
  • Figure 3 113: A Longitudinal Prospective Outcomes Study of Laparoscopic Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair Using Symbotex™ Composite Mesh
  • Figure 3 114: A Prospective Study in Patients Undergoing Primary Ventral Hernia Repair Using Parietex™ Composite Ventral Patch (Panacea)
  • Figure 3 115: Advanced Wound Dressing: dHACM In the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 116: Compare Outcomes Between Two Acellular Dermal Matrices (Alloderm RTU medium, LifeCell vs. Cortiva Allograft Dermis, RTI Surgical®, Inc.)
  • Figure 3 117: BioFiber Scaffold Post-Market Observational Study
  • Figure 3 118: GraftJacket Versus Tendon Interposition for Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis
  • Figure 3 119: Outcomes in Rotator Cuff Repair Using Graft Reinforcement
  • Figure 3 120: Safety and Performance of a Vascular Patch in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Bidirectional Cava-pulmonary Anastomosis
  • Figure 3 121: Autologous Fat Grafting of the Breast in Women With Post Lumpectomy Contour Defects
  • Figure 3 122: Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction PART 1 (PreBRec) and PART 2 (PreBRec)
  • Figure 3 123: National, Multicenter PMS Study "Patient Reported Outcome" in Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy With TiLOOP Bra (PRO-BRA), PFM Medical
  • Figure 3 124: A Comparison Between Biological (Veritas®) vs Non Biological Mesh (TIGR®) in Immediate Breast Reconstruction
  • Figure 3 125: Feasibility Study of Meso BioMatrix Device for Breast Reconstruction, Kensey Nash Corp.
  • Figure 3 126: Acellular Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstruction (Adermbrerec)
  • Figure 3 127: The SeriScaffold® Use in Reconstruction Post Market Study for Tissue Support and Repair in Breast Reconstruction Surgery in Europe
  • Figure 3 128: The SERI® Surgical Scaffold Use in Reconstruction Post Market Study for Tissue Support and Repair in Breast Reconstruction Surgery
  • Figure 3 129: Use of Dermal Matrix in Breast Reconstruction, MTF, DermaMatrix
  • Figure 3 130: Trial of Routine Abdominal Wall Closure Versus Reinforcement With TIGR Matrix Onlay (PrevMesh), Novus Scientific
  • Figure 3 131: Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Repair by a 3D ENDOLAP (DynaMesh / FEG Textiltechnik) Visible Mesh With or Without LiquiBand Fix 8 Mesh Fixation
  • Figure 3 132: Gentrix™ Versus Biological or Prosthetic Mesh, Acell, Inc.
  • Figure 3 133: Miromatrix Biological Mesh for Hiatal Hernia Repair (MIROMESH PM-2), Miromatrix Medical Inc.
  • Figure 3 134: Miromatrix Biological Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair (MIROMESH PM-1)
  • Figure 3 135: Trial Concerning the Frequency of Parastomal Hernia With or Without a Mesh (STOMAMESH)
  • Figure 3 136: Polypropylene Mesh Versus Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Mesh in Inguinal Hernia Repair
  • Figure 3 137: Safety Study of MotifMESH (cPTFE) in Abdominal Surgery
  • Figure 3 138: Comparative Study of Safety and Efficacy of Heavyweight and Partially Absorbable Mesh in Inguinal Hernia Repair
  • Figure 3 139: Efficacy and Safety of FS VH S/D 500 S-apr as an Adjunct to Sutured Dural Repair in Cranial Surgery
  • Figure 3 140: Amniotic Membrane in Decompressive Craniectomy to Reduce Scarring, MiMedx
  • Figure 3 141: Study of SyntheCelTM Dura Replacement to Other Dura Replacements
  • Figure 3 142: Altis® 522 Trial - Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence, Coloplast A/S
  • Figure 3 143: Safety and Efficacy of PVDF (DynaMesh®-SIS Soft) Retropubic Midurethral Slings in Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women
  • Figure 3 144: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of ECLIPSE PRP™ Wound Biomatrix in Non-Healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 145: A Feasibility Study of the ReGenerCell™ Autologous Cell Harvesting Device for Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 146: Dehydrated Human Umbilical Cord Allograft in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 147: Effect of Fresh Amniotic Membrane in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 148: Efficacy and Safety of Artacent™ for Treatment Resistant Lower Extremity Venous and Diabetic Ulcers (TMArtacent)
  • Figure 3 149: Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU) Treated With SoC With or Without NEOX®CORD 1K
  • Figure 3 150: The Sorbact® Antimicrobial Dressing in the Holistic Wound Management Of Diabetic Foot ulCers (Phase III Study) (ADHOC)
  • Figure 3 151: A Comparative Efficacy Study of DermaPure™ to Treat Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 152: TruSkin®: Study for the Treatment of Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 153: NEOX® CORD 1K vs Standard of Care in Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers (CONDUCT I)
  • Figure 3 154: DermACELL in Subjects With Chronic Wounds of the Lower Extremities
  • Figure 3 155: A Comparative Efficacy Study: Treatment for Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers
  • Figure 3 156: A Longitudinal Study to Evaluate an Extracellular Matrix (MatriStem®) for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers (M-S-DFU-RCT)
  • Figure 3 157: Grafix® DFU: Open-Label Extension Option to Evaluate Safety & Efficacy of Grafix® for Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU)
  • Figure 3 158: Mesenchymal Stem Cell Augmentation in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
  • Figure 3 159: COMPREHENSIVE® REVERSE SHOULDER Mini BasePlate
  • Figure 3 160: Suture Anchor Comparison in Rotator Cuff Repairs
  • Figure 3 161: Allograft Reconstruction of Massive Rotator Cuff Tears vs Partial Repair Alone
  • Figure 3 162: Evaluation of the Healicoil Suture Anchor for Rotator Cuff Repair
  • Figure 3 163: Rotator Cuff Reconstruction With Xenologous Dermis-patch Augmentation and ACP® - Injection
  • Figure 3 164: Musculotendinous Tissue Repair Unit and Reinforcement (MTURR)
  • Figure 3 165: Pilot Study to Evaluate the Restore Orthobiologic Implant in Rotator Cuff Tear Repair
  • Figure 3 166: Prospective Study on Artelon® Tissue Reinforcement in Repair of Chronic Ruptures and Re-ruptures of the Achilles Tendon
  • Figure 3 167: Esthetic Outcomes Following Immediate Implant Combine With Soft Tissue Augmentation
  • Figure 3 168: Implant-Abutment Interface Design on Bone and Soft Tissue Levels Around Implants Placed Using Different Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation
  • Figure 3 169: Evaluation of Zimmer Puros® Allograft vs. Creos™ Allograft for Alveolar Ridge Preservation, Zimmer Biomet
  • Figure 3 170: A Volumetric Analysis of Soft and Hard Tissue Healing for Ridge Preservation and Socket Seal After Tooth Extraction
  • Figure 3 171: Ridge Preservation Following Tooth Extraction Using Two Mineralized Cancellous Bone Allografts, Zimmer Biomet
  • Figure 3 172: Evaluation of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Versus Acellular Dermal Matrix With Tunnel Technique in Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions
  • Figure 3 173: The Clinical Effect of Implant Placement With a Simultaneous Soft Tissue Allograft
  • Figure 3 174: Collagen Matrix With Tunnel Technique Compared to CTG for the Treatment of Periodontal Recessions
  • Figure 3 175: Comparison of the Human Acellular Vessel (HAV) With ePTFE Grafts as Conduits for Hemodialysis
  • Figure 3 176: Feasibility Study of the TGI Adipose-derived Stromal Cell (ASC)-Coated ePTFE Vascular Graft (TGI-PVG-IDE)
  • Figure 3 177: Clinical Study of POSS-PCU Vascular Grafts for Vascular Access
  • Figure 3 178: Safety and Efficacy Study of Amniotic Membrane Patch to Treat Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation
  • Figure 3 179: Trial Comparison of Accuseal and Bovine Pericardial Patch During Endarterectomy
  • Figure 4 1: Breast Reconstruction Market by Segment, U.S., 2013 - 2023 (US$M)
  • Figure 4 2: Total Breast Reconstruction Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Figure 4 3: Allograft Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Figure 4 4: Xenograft Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Figure 4 5: Alloplast Market, U.S., 2013 - 2023
  • Figure 4 6: Drivers and Limiters, Breast Reconstruction Market, U.S., 2016
  • Figure 4 7: Leading Competitors, Breast Reconstruction Market, U.S., 2016
  • Figure 6 1: Press Release Summary