Over the forecast period, the European market for arthroscopy devices will
grow modestly. Procedure growth will continue to represent the most important
driver of the European arthroscopy device market as arthroscopic surgery
continues to become more popular compared to open surgery. The rising
popularity of arthroscopy will be attributed to the fact that it is less
invasive, resulting in faster patient recovery and lower overall health care
costs. Nonetheless, the European debt crisis will continue to have a negative
effect on this market due to hospital budget constraints and more limited
personal spending, both of which have delayed many elective arthroscopy
procedures and capital equipment purchases. Downward pricing pressure has also
intensified, limiting average selling prices (ASP) growth. Nonetheless, the
aforementioned drivers of arthroscopy procedures will drive sales of devices
used in these treatments, thereby leading to market expansion through 2016.
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 Centers for Health Statistics data
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.
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 device procedures and 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:
Aesculap (a division of B. Braun)
Arthrex
ArthroCare
Arthronet
Biomet Sports Medicine
ConMed Linvatec
Covidien
Davol (a subsidiary of C. R. Bard)
DePuy Mitek
Eberle
ERBE
KARL STORZ
KLS Martin Group
KOMET MEDICAL
Olympus/Gyrus-ACMI
Richard Wolf
Sklar Instruments
Smith & Nephew
Stryker
Table of Contents
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. Arthritis
1.1.1.2. Osteochondritis Dissecans
1.1.1.3. Loose Bodies
1.1.2. Injuries
1.1.2.1. Knee Ligament Injuries
1.1.2.2. Knee Cartilage Injuries
1.1.2.3. Meniscus Tears
1.1.2.4. Shoulder and Rotator Cuff Injuries
1.1.2.5. Small-Joint Injuries
1.1.2.6. Hip Injuries
1.2. Diagnosis and Referral Patterns
1.3. Procedure Overview
1.3.1. Arthroscopy Procedures
1.3.1.1. Knee Arthroscopic Procedures
1.3.1.2. Shoulder Arthroscopic Procedures
1.3.1.3. Small-Joint Arthroscopic Procedures
1.3.1.4. Hip Arthroscopic Procedures
1.3.2. Competing Treatments
1.4. Clinical Guidelines
1.5. Country Overviews
1.5.1. France
1.5.1.1. Demographics and Economy
1.5.1.2. Health Care System
1.5.1.3. Regulatory Environment
1.5.2. Germany
1.5.2.1. Demographics and Economy
1.5.2.2. Health Care System
1.5.2.3. Regulatory Environment
1.5.3. Italy
1.5.3.1. Demographics and Economy
1.5.3.2. Health Care System
1.5.3.3. Regulatory Environment
1.5.4. Spain
1.5.4.1. Demographics and Economy
1.5.4.2. Health Care System
1.5.4.3. Regulatory Environment
1.5.5. UK
1.5.5.1. Demographics and Economy
1.5.5.2. Health Care System
1.5.5.3. Regulatory Environment
1.5.6. European Manufacturing and Distribution
2.0 PRODUCTS
2.1. Overview
2.1.1. Products Covered
2.2. Powered Shaver Disposables
2.2.1. Functions
2.2.1.1. Reprocessed Powered Shaver Disposables
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 Disposables
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
4.2. Powered Shaver Disposables Market
4.2.1. Competitive Snapshot
4.2.2. Market Shares
4.3. Radiofrequency Probe Market
4.3.1. Competitive Snapshot
4.3.2. Market Shares
4.4. Fluid Management Disposables Market
4.4.1. Competitive Snapshot
4.4.2. Market Shares
4.5. Arthroscope Market
4.5.1. Competitive Snapshot
4.5.2. Market Shares
4.6. Hand Instrument Market
4.6.1. Competitive Snapshot
4.6.2. 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, Europe (US$), 2010 -
2016
Table 1: Arthroscopy Device Market Landscape, Europe (US$), 2011 and 2016
Table 2: Arthroscopy Device Market Leaders, by Product Type and Revenue,
Europe, 2011
Table 3: Factors Impacting the Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type,
Europe, 2011 - 2016
Table 4: Companies Mentioned in This Report
Table 5: Key Report Updates, 2012
1.0 CLINICAL LANDSCAPE
Table 6: Key Health and Economic Indicators, France
Table 7: Key Health and Economic Indicators, Germany
Table 8: Key Health and Economic Indicators, Italy
Table 9: Key Health and Economic Indicators, Spain
Table 10: Key Health and Economic Indicators, UK
2.0 PRODUCTS
Table 11: Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, Europe
Table 12: Powered Shaver Disposables Functions, by Product Subtype
Table 13: Advantages and Disadvantages of Powered Shaver Disposables, by
Product Feature
Table 14: RF Probe Functions, by Product Feature
Table 15: Advantages and Disadvantages of RF Probes, by Product Feature
Table 16: Advantages and Disadvantages of Disposable Tubing, by Product
Feature
3.0 CLINICAL TRIALS
Table 17: Summary of MILE
Table 18: Summary of BAHA-I
4.0 BRANDS AND COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
Table 19: Leading Competitors in the Arthroscopy Device Market, by
Country, as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 20: Leading Competitors in the Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product
Type, as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 21: Leading Competitors in the Powered Shaver Disposables Market, by
Country, as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 22: Leading Competitors in the RF Probe Market, as a % of Total,
Europe, 2011
Table 23: Leading Competitors in the Fluid Management Disposables Market,
by Country, as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 24: Leading Competitors in the Fluid Management Disposables Market,
by Product Type, as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 25: Leading Competitors in the Disposable Tubing Market, by Country,
as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 26: Leading Competitors in the Disposable Cannulae Market, by
Country, as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 27: Leading Competitors in the Arthroscope Market, by Country, as a
% of Total, Europe, 2011
Table 28: Leading Competitors in the Hand Instrument Market, by Country,
as a % of Total, Europe, 2011
5.0 MARKET OUTLOOK
Figure 2: Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product Type, as a % of Total,
Europe, 2011 and 2016
Table 29: Factors Impacting the Arthroscopy Device Market, by Product
Type, Europe, 2011 - 2016
Table 30: Arthroscopic Procedures, by Country, Europe, 2010 - 2016
Table 31: Arthroscopic Procedures, by Anatomy, Europe, 2010 - 2016
