In 2017, the knee replacement market was the largest segment of the overall Australian orthopedic large joint device market. The knee replacement market analyzed in this report includes total knee implants, partial knee implants and knee revision implants. The largest segment of the knee replacement market in 2017 was total knee replacement, followed by knee replacement revision. Demand for primary knee replacement is expected to remain strong over the forecast period. The market includes the knee and hip replacement and bone cement markets and is expected to grow at an accelerating rate over the forecast period, recovering from price cuts in the market in recent years. The long-term market growth is largely a factor of population growth and, specifically, the size of the over-60 years demographic. However, the age range of patients requiring joint replacement is also increasing, including people with more active lifestyles and a growing obese population. Over the forecast period, the growth in market size will be slower than the growth in procedure numbers, mainly due to the damping effect of price deterioration.
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary
- Australian Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Overview
- Competitive Analysis
- Market Trends
- Market Developments
- Procedure Numbers
- Markets Included
- Key Report Updates
- Version History
- Research 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
2 Disease Overview
2.1 Basic Anatomy
2.1.1 Knee
2.1.2 Hip
2.2 Disease Treatment & Diagnostics
2.2.1 Arthritis
2.2.1.1 Osteoarthritis
2.2.1.2 Inflammatory Arthritis
2.2.2 Traumatic Injuries
2.2.3 Avascular Necrosis
2.2.4 Treatment
2.2.4.1 Complications
2.3 Patient Demographics
2.3.1 General Statistics
2.3.2 Arthritis Incidence
2.3.3 Osteoporosis Incidence
2.1.1 Knee
2.1.2 Hip
2.2 Disease Treatment & Diagnostics
2.2.1 Arthritis
2.2.1.1 Osteoarthritis
2.2.1.2 Inflammatory Arthritis
2.2.2 Traumatic Injuries
2.2.3 Avascular Necrosis
2.2.4 Treatment
2.2.4.1 Complications
2.3 Patient Demographics
2.3.1 General Statistics
2.3.2 Arthritis Incidence
2.3.3 Osteoporosis Incidence
3 Product Assessment
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Product Portfolios
3.2.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.2.1.1 Total Knee Arthroplasty
3.2.1.2 Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
3.2.1.3 Knee Revision
3.2.1.4 Personalized Knee Implants
3.2.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.2.2.1 Total Hip Arthroplasty
3.2.2.2 Hip Hemiarthroplasty
3.2.2.3 Hip Revision
3.2.3 Implant Fixation
3.2.3.1 Cemented Fixation
3.2.3.2 Cementless Fixation
3.2.3.3 Spacer Molds
3.3 Fda Recalls
3.3.1 Depuy Synthes
3.3.1.1 Knee Implant
3.3.1.2 Hip Implant
3.3.1.3 Bone Cement
3.3.2 Smith & Nephew
3.3.2.1 Knee Implant
3.3.2.2 Hip Implant
3.3.2.3 Knee & Hip Implant Accessories/Parts
3.3.3 Stryker
3.3.3.1 Knee Implant
3.3.3.2 Hip Implant
3.3.3.3 Knee & Hip Implant Accessories/Parts
3.3.3.4 Bone Cement
3.3.4 Zimmer Biomet
3.3.4.1 Knee Implant
3.3.4.2 Hip Implant
3.3.4.3 Knee & Hip Implant Accessories/Parts
3.3.4.4 Bone Cement
3.4 Clinical Trials
3.4.1 Depuy Synthes
3.4.1.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.1.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.1.3 Bone Cement
3.4.2 Heraeus Medical
3.4.2.1 Bone Cement
3.4.3 Smith & Nephew
3.4.3.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.3.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.3.3 Bone Cement
3.4.4 Stryker
3.4.4.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.4.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.4.3 Bone Cement
3.4.5 Zimmer Biomet
3.4.5.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.5.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.5.3 Bone Cement
3.2 Product Portfolios
3.2.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.2.1.1 Total Knee Arthroplasty
3.2.1.2 Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
3.2.1.3 Knee Revision
3.2.1.4 Personalized Knee Implants
3.2.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.2.2.1 Total Hip Arthroplasty
3.2.2.2 Hip Hemiarthroplasty
3.2.2.3 Hip Revision
3.2.3 Implant Fixation
3.2.3.1 Cemented Fixation
3.2.3.2 Cementless Fixation
3.2.3.3 Spacer Molds
3.3 Fda Recalls
3.3.1 Depuy Synthes
3.3.1.1 Knee Implant
3.3.1.2 Hip Implant
3.3.1.3 Bone Cement
3.3.2 Smith & Nephew
3.3.2.1 Knee Implant
3.3.2.2 Hip Implant
3.3.2.3 Knee & Hip Implant Accessories/Parts
3.3.3 Stryker
3.3.3.1 Knee Implant
3.3.3.2 Hip Implant
3.3.3.3 Knee & Hip Implant Accessories/Parts
3.3.3.4 Bone Cement
3.3.4 Zimmer Biomet
3.3.4.1 Knee Implant
3.3.4.2 Hip Implant
3.3.4.3 Knee & Hip Implant Accessories/Parts
3.3.4.4 Bone Cement
3.4 Clinical Trials
3.4.1 Depuy Synthes
3.4.1.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.1.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.1.3 Bone Cement
3.4.2 Heraeus Medical
3.4.2.1 Bone Cement
3.4.3 Smith & Nephew
3.4.3.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.3.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.3.3 Bone Cement
3.4.4 Stryker
3.4.4.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.4.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.4.3 Bone Cement
3.4.5 Zimmer Biomet
3.4.5.1 Knee Arthroplasty
3.4.5.2 Hip Arthroplasty
3.4.5.3 Bone Cement
4 Australian Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Overview
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Anatomy And Pathology
4.1.2 Treatment
4.1.3 Treatment Complications
4.1.4 General Product Classifications
4.1.4.1 Total Joint Replacement
4.1.4.2 Partial Joint Replacement
4.1.4.3 Joint Resurfacing
4.1.4.4 Revision
4.1.5 Implant Wear And Durability
4.1.6 Patient-Specific Products And Consumer Awareness
4.1.7 Press-Fitted Versus Cemented Implantation
4.1.8 Simultaneous Bilateral Implantation
4.1.9 Minimally Invasive Surgery
4.1.10 New Technologies In Orthopedics
4.1.11 Emerging Non-Surgical Alternatives
4.2 Currency Exchange Rate
4.3 Market Overview
4.4 Trend Analysis By Segment
4.5 Drivers And Limiters
4.5.1 Market Drivers
4.5.2 Market Limiters
4.6 Competitive Market Share Analysis
4.7 Mergers And Acquisitions
4.8 Company Profiles
4.8.1 Depuy Synthes
4.8.2 Heraeus
4.8.3 Smith & Nephew
4.8.4 Stryker
4.8.5 Zimmer Biomet
4.9 Swot Analysis
4.9.1 Depuy Synthes
4.9.2 Heraeus
4.9.3 Smith & Nephew
4.9.4 Stryker
4.9.5 Zimmer Biomet
4.1.1 Anatomy And Pathology
4.1.2 Treatment
4.1.3 Treatment Complications
4.1.4 General Product Classifications
4.1.4.1 Total Joint Replacement
4.1.4.2 Partial Joint Replacement
4.1.4.3 Joint Resurfacing
4.1.4.4 Revision
4.1.5 Implant Wear And Durability
4.1.6 Patient-Specific Products And Consumer Awareness
4.1.7 Press-Fitted Versus Cemented Implantation
4.1.8 Simultaneous Bilateral Implantation
4.1.9 Minimally Invasive Surgery
4.1.10 New Technologies In Orthopedics
4.1.11 Emerging Non-Surgical Alternatives
4.2 Currency Exchange Rate
4.3 Market Overview
4.4 Trend Analysis By Segment
4.5 Drivers And Limiters
4.5.1 Market Drivers
4.5.2 Market Limiters
4.6 Competitive Market Share Analysis
4.7 Mergers And Acquisitions
4.8 Company Profiles
4.8.1 Depuy Synthes
4.8.2 Heraeus
4.8.3 Smith & Nephew
4.8.4 Stryker
4.8.5 Zimmer Biomet
4.9 Swot Analysis
4.9.1 Depuy Synthes
4.9.2 Heraeus
4.9.3 Smith & Nephew
4.9.4 Stryker
4.9.5 Zimmer Biomet
5 Procedure Numbers
5.1 Procedures
5.1.1 Knee Replacement Procedures
5.1.1.1 Total Knee Replacement Procedures
5.1.1.1.1 Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Cementation
5.1.1.1.2 Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Construction Type
5.1.1.1.3 Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type
5.1.1.2 Partial Knee Replacement Procedures
5.1.1.2.1 Partial Knee Replacement Procedures By Type
5.1.1.3 Knee Replacement Revision Procedures
5.1.2 Hip Replacement Procedures
5.1.2.1 Total Hip Replacement Procedures
5.1.2.1.1 Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Cementation
5.1.2.1.2 Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type
5.1.2.2 Partial Hip Replacement Procedures
5.1.2.2.1 Partial Hip Replacement Procedures By Type
5.1.2.3 Hip Resurfacing Procedures
5.1.2.4 Hip Replacement Revision Procedures
5.1.1 Knee Replacement Procedures
5.1.1.1 Total Knee Replacement Procedures
5.1.1.1.1 Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Cementation
5.1.1.1.2 Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Construction Type
5.1.1.1.3 Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type
5.1.1.2 Partial Knee Replacement Procedures
5.1.1.2.1 Partial Knee Replacement Procedures By Type
5.1.1.3 Knee Replacement Revision Procedures
5.1.2 Hip Replacement Procedures
5.1.2.1 Total Hip Replacement Procedures
5.1.2.1.1 Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Cementation
5.1.2.1.2 Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type
5.1.2.2 Partial Hip Replacement Procedures
5.1.2.2.1 Partial Hip Replacement Procedures By Type
5.1.2.3 Hip Resurfacing Procedures
5.1.2.4 Hip Replacement Revision Procedures
6 Knee Replacement Device Market
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Anatomy
6.1.2 Pathology
6.1.3 Treatment
6.1.4 Implant Types
6.1.4.1 Total Knee Replacement
6.1.4.2 Partial Knee Replacement
6.1.4.2.1 Unicondylar Replacement
6.1.4.2.2 Patellofemoral Replacement
6.1.4.3 Knee Revision
6.1.5 Fixation Method
6.1.6 Bearing Surface
6.1.7 Fixed Versus Mobile Bearings
6.1.8 Cruciate-Retaining Versus Posterior-Stabilized (Cruciate-Sacrificing)
6.1.9 Custom And Personalized Solutions
6.1.10 Robotic Technology In Knee Arthroplasty
6.2 Market Overview
6.3 Market Analysis And Forecast
6.3.1 Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.1 Total Knee Replacement Market By Cementation
6.3.1.1.1 Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.1.2 Cementless Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.1.3 Hybrid Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.2 Total Knee Replacement Market By Construction Type
6.3.1.2.1 Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.2.2 Cruciate-Sacrificing Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.3 Total Knee Replacement Market By Bearing Type
6.3.1.3.1 Fixed Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.3.2 Mobile Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.2 Partial Knee Replacement Market
6.3.2.1 Unicondylar Partial Knee Replacement Market
6.3.2.2 Patellofemoral Partial Knee Replacement Market
6.3.3 Knee Replacement Revision Market
6.4 Drivers And Limiters
6.4.1 Market Drivers
6.4.2 Market Limiters
6.5 Competitive Market Share Analysis
6.1.1 Anatomy
6.1.2 Pathology
6.1.3 Treatment
6.1.4 Implant Types
6.1.4.1 Total Knee Replacement
6.1.4.2 Partial Knee Replacement
6.1.4.2.1 Unicondylar Replacement
6.1.4.2.2 Patellofemoral Replacement
6.1.4.3 Knee Revision
6.1.5 Fixation Method
6.1.6 Bearing Surface
6.1.7 Fixed Versus Mobile Bearings
6.1.8 Cruciate-Retaining Versus Posterior-Stabilized (Cruciate-Sacrificing)
6.1.9 Custom And Personalized Solutions
6.1.10 Robotic Technology In Knee Arthroplasty
6.2 Market Overview
6.3 Market Analysis And Forecast
6.3.1 Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.1 Total Knee Replacement Market By Cementation
6.3.1.1.1 Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.1.2 Cementless Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.1.3 Hybrid Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.2 Total Knee Replacement Market By Construction Type
6.3.1.2.1 Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.2.2 Cruciate-Sacrificing Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.3 Total Knee Replacement Market By Bearing Type
6.3.1.3.1 Fixed Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.1.3.2 Mobile Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market
6.3.2 Partial Knee Replacement Market
6.3.2.1 Unicondylar Partial Knee Replacement Market
6.3.2.2 Patellofemoral Partial Knee Replacement Market
6.3.3 Knee Replacement Revision Market
6.4 Drivers And Limiters
6.4.1 Market Drivers
6.4.2 Market Limiters
6.5 Competitive Market Share Analysis
7 Hip Replacement Device Market
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Anatomy
7.1.2 Pathology
7.1.3 Treatment
7.1.4 Implant Types
7.1.4.1 Total Hip Replacement
7.1.4.2 Partial Hip Replacement
7.1.4.3 Hip Resurfacing
7.1.4.4 Hip Revision
7.1.5 Fixation Method
7.1.6 Implant Material
7.1.7 Bearing Surface Technology
7.1.7.1 Polyethylene Bearings
7.1.7.2 Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Bearings
7.1.7.3 Metal Bearings
7.1.7.4 Ceramic Bearings
7.1.8 Emerging Technologies
7.2 Market Overview
7.3 Market Analysis And Forecast
7.3.1 Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.1 Total Hip Replacement Market By Cementation
7.3.1.1.1 Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.1.2 Cementless Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.1.3 Hybrid Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2 Total Hip Replacement Market By Bearing Type
7.3.1.2.1 Metal/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2.2 Metal/Metal Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2.3 Ceramic/Ceramic Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2.4 Ceramic/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.2 Partial Hip Replacement Market
7.3.2.1 Bipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market
7.3.2.2 Unipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market
7.3.3 Hip Resurfacing Market
7.3.4 Hip Replacement Revision Market
7.4 Drivers And Limiters
7.4.1 Market Drivers
7.4.2 Market Limiters
7.5 Competitive Market Share Analysis
7.1.1 Anatomy
7.1.2 Pathology
7.1.3 Treatment
7.1.4 Implant Types
7.1.4.1 Total Hip Replacement
7.1.4.2 Partial Hip Replacement
7.1.4.3 Hip Resurfacing
7.1.4.4 Hip Revision
7.1.5 Fixation Method
7.1.6 Implant Material
7.1.7 Bearing Surface Technology
7.1.7.1 Polyethylene Bearings
7.1.7.2 Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Bearings
7.1.7.3 Metal Bearings
7.1.7.4 Ceramic Bearings
7.1.8 Emerging Technologies
7.2 Market Overview
7.3 Market Analysis And Forecast
7.3.1 Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.1 Total Hip Replacement Market By Cementation
7.3.1.1.1 Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.1.2 Cementless Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.1.3 Hybrid Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2 Total Hip Replacement Market By Bearing Type
7.3.1.2.1 Metal/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2.2 Metal/Metal Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2.3 Ceramic/Ceramic Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.1.2.4 Ceramic/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market
7.3.2 Partial Hip Replacement Market
7.3.2.1 Bipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market
7.3.2.2 Unipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market
7.3.3 Hip Resurfacing Market
7.3.4 Hip Replacement Revision Market
7.4 Drivers And Limiters
7.4.1 Market Drivers
7.4.2 Market Limiters
7.5 Competitive Market Share Analysis
8 Bone Cement Market
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 Antibiotic Usage
8.1.2 Increased Popularity Of Cementless Implants
8.1.3 Spacer Molds For Joint Revision
8.2 Market Overview
8.2.1 Market Overview By Product Type
8.2.2 Market Overview By Procedure Type
8.3 Market Analysis And Forecast
8.3.1 Total Bone Cement Market
8.3.2 Bone Cement Market By Product Type
8.3.2.1 Traditional Bone Cement Market
8.3.2.2 Premixed Antibiotic Bone Cement Market
8.3.3 Bone Cement Market By Procedure Type
8.3.3.1 Bone Cement For Hip Replacement Market
8.3.3.2 Bone Cement For Knee Replacement Market
8.4 Drivers And Limiters
8.4.1 Market Drivers
8.4.2 Market Limiters
8.5 Competitive Market Share Analysis
8.1.1 Antibiotic Usage
8.1.2 Increased Popularity Of Cementless Implants
8.1.3 Spacer Molds For Joint Revision
8.2 Market Overview
8.2.1 Market Overview By Product Type
8.2.2 Market Overview By Procedure Type
8.3 Market Analysis And Forecast
8.3.1 Total Bone Cement Market
8.3.2 Bone Cement Market By Product Type
8.3.2.1 Traditional Bone Cement Market
8.3.2.2 Premixed Antibiotic Bone Cement Market
8.3.3 Bone Cement Market By Procedure Type
8.3.3.1 Bone Cement For Hip Replacement Market
8.3.3.2 Bone Cement For Knee Replacement Market
8.4 Drivers And Limiters
8.4.1 Market Drivers
8.4.2 Market Limiters
8.5 Competitive Market Share Analysis
10 Appendix: Company Press Releases
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Press Releases
10.2.1 Depuy Synthes
10.2.1.1 2018 Press Releases
10.2.1.1.1 The Actis® Total Hip System From Depuy Synthes Is Designed To Improve Initial Implant Stability In Total Hip Replacement
10.2.1.1.2 New Attune® Revision Knee System From Depuy Synthes Utilizes Proprietary Technologies To Address Broad Range Of Complex Primary & Revision Procedures
10.2.1.1.3 Depuy Synthes Announces Agreement With Serf To Add Dual Mobility System To Its Leading Hip Portfolio
10.2.1.1.4 Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Companies Acquire Orthotaxy To Develop Next-Generation Robotic-Assisted Surgery Platform In Orthopaedics
10.2 Press Releases
10.2.1 Depuy Synthes
10.2.1.1 2018 Press Releases
10.2.1.1.1 The Actis® Total Hip System From Depuy Synthes Is Designed To Improve Initial Implant Stability In Total Hip Replacement
10.2.1.1.2 New Attune® Revision Knee System From Depuy Synthes Utilizes Proprietary Technologies To Address Broad Range Of Complex Primary & Revision Procedures
10.2.1.1.3 Depuy Synthes Announces Agreement With Serf To Add Dual Mobility System To Its Leading Hip Portfolio
10.2.1.1.4 Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Companies Acquire Orthotaxy To Develop Next-Generation Robotic-Assisted Surgery Platform In Orthopaedics
List of Charts
Chart 1 1: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 1 2: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Overview, Australia, 2017 & 2024
Chart 4 1: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 4 2: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2017
Chart 4 3: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2024
Chart 4 4: Growth Rates By Segment, Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, Australia, 2015 – 2024
Chart 4 5: Leading Competitors, Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, Australia, 2017
Chart 5 1: Orthopedic Large Joint Replacement Procedures By Anatomy, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 2: Knee Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 3: Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 4: Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Construction Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 5: Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 6: Partial Knee Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 7: Knee Replacement Revision Procedures, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 8: Hip Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 9: Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 10: Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 11: Partial Hip Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 12: Hip Resurfacing Procedures, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 13: Hip Replacement Revision Procedures, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 1: Knee Replacement Device Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 2: Knee Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2017
Chart 6 3: Knee Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2024
Chart 6 4: Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 5: Total Knee Replacement Market By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 6: Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 7: Cementless Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 8: Hybrid Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 9: Total Knee Replacement Market By Construction Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 10: Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 11: Cruciate-Sacrificing Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 12: Total Knee Replacement Market By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 13: Fixed Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 14: Mobile Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 15: Partial Knee Replacement Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 16: Total Partial Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 17: Unicondylar Partial Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 18: Patellofemoral Partial Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 19: Knee Replacement Revision Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 20: Leading Competitors, Knee Replacement Device Market, Australia, 2017
Chart 7 1: Hip Replacement Device Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 2: Hip Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2017
Chart 7 3: Hip Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2024
Chart 7 4: Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 5: Total Hip Replacement Market By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 6: Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 7: Cementless Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 8: Hybrid Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 9: Total Hip Replacement Market By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 10: Metal/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 11: Metal/Metal Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 12: Ceramic/Ceramic Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 13: Ceramic/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 14: Partial Hip Replacement Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 15: Total Partial Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 16: Bipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 17: Unipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 18: Hip Resurfacing Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 19: Hip Replacement Revision Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 20: Leading Competitors, Hip Replacement Device Market, Australia, 2017
Chart 8 1: Bone Cement Market By Product Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 2: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Product Type, Australia, 2017
Chart 8 3: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Product Type, Australia, 2024
Chart 8 4: Bone Cement Market By Procedure Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 5: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Procedure Type, Australia, 2017
Chart 8 6: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Procedure Type, Australia, 2024
Chart 8 7: Total Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 8: Traditional Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 9: Premixed Antibiotic Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 10: Bone Cement For Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 11: Bone Cement For Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 12: Leading Competitors, Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2017
Chart 1 2: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Overview, Australia, 2017 & 2024
Chart 4 1: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 4 2: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2017
Chart 4 3: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2024
Chart 4 4: Growth Rates By Segment, Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, Australia, 2015 – 2024
Chart 4 5: Leading Competitors, Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, Australia, 2017
Chart 5 1: Orthopedic Large Joint Replacement Procedures By Anatomy, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 2: Knee Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 3: Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 4: Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Construction Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 5: Total Knee Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 6: Partial Knee Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 7: Knee Replacement Revision Procedures, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 8: Hip Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 9: Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 10: Total Hip Replacement Procedures By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 11: Partial Hip Replacement Procedures By Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 12: Hip Resurfacing Procedures, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 5 13: Hip Replacement Revision Procedures, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 1: Knee Replacement Device Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 2: Knee Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2017
Chart 6 3: Knee Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2024
Chart 6 4: Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 5: Total Knee Replacement Market By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 6: Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 7: Cementless Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 8: Hybrid Cemented Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 9: Total Knee Replacement Market By Construction Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 10: Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 11: Cruciate-Sacrificing Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 12: Total Knee Replacement Market By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 13: Fixed Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 14: Mobile Bearing Total Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 15: Partial Knee Replacement Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 16: Total Partial Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 17: Unicondylar Partial Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 18: Patellofemoral Partial Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 19: Knee Replacement Revision Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 6 20: Leading Competitors, Knee Replacement Device Market, Australia, 2017
Chart 7 1: Hip Replacement Device Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 2: Hip Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2017
Chart 7 3: Hip Replacement Device Market Breakdown, Australia, 2024
Chart 7 4: Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 5: Total Hip Replacement Market By Cementation, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 6: Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 7: Cementless Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 8: Hybrid Cemented Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 9: Total Hip Replacement Market By Bearing Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 10: Metal/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 11: Metal/Metal Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 12: Ceramic/Ceramic Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 13: Ceramic/Hcpe Total Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 14: Partial Hip Replacement Market By Segment, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 15: Total Partial Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 16: Bipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 17: Unipolar Partial Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 18: Hip Resurfacing Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 19: Hip Replacement Revision Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 7 20: Leading Competitors, Hip Replacement Device Market, Australia, 2017
Chart 8 1: Bone Cement Market By Product Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 2: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Product Type, Australia, 2017
Chart 8 3: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Product Type, Australia, 2024
Chart 8 4: Bone Cement Market By Procedure Type, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 5: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Procedure Type, Australia, 2017
Chart 8 6: Bone Cement Market Breakdown By Procedure Type, Australia, 2024
Chart 8 7: Total Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 8: Traditional Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 9: Premixed Antibiotic Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 10: Bone Cement For Hip Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 11: Bone Cement For Knee Replacement Market, Australia, 2014 – 2024
Chart 8 12: Leading Competitors, Bone Cement Market, Australia, 2017
List of Figures
Figure 1 1: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market Share Ranking by Segment, Australia, 2017
Figure 1 2: Companies Researched in this Report, Australia, 2017
Figure 1 3: Factors Impacting the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market by Segment, Australia
Figure 1 4: Recent Events in the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, 2014 – 2017 (1 of 3)
Figure 1 5: Recent Events in the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, 2014 – 2017 (2 of 3)
Figure 1 6: Recent Events in the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, 2014 – 2017 (3 of 3)
Figure 1 7: Orthopedic Large Joint Procedures Covered, Australia, 2017
Figure 1 8: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Markets Covered, Australia, 2017 (1 of 2)
Figure 1 9: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Markets Covered, Australia, 2017 (2 of 2)
Figure 1 10: Key Report Updates
Figure 1 11: Version History
Figure 3 1: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (1 of 4)
Figure 3 2: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (2 of 4)
Figure 3 3: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (3 of 4)
Figure 3 4: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (4 of 4)
Figure 3 5: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (1 of 7)
Figure 3 6: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (2 of 7)
Figure 3 7: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (3 of 7)
Figure 3 8: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (4 of 7)
Figure 3 9: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (5 of 7)
Figure 3 10: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (6 of 7)
Figure 3 11: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (7 of 7)
Figure 3 12: Implant Fixation Market by Company
Figure 3 13: Class 2 Device Recall LCS Complete Knee Revision System VVC Insert
Figure 3 14: Class 2 Device Recall DePuy Sigma LCS
Figure 3 15: Class 2 Device Recall Specialist 2 Intermedullary (SP2 IM) Rod
Figure 3 16: Class 2 Device Recall ATTUNE” Articulation Surface
Figure 3 17: Class 2 Device Recall DePuy Orthopedics LCS COMPLETE RPS
Figure 3 18: Class 2 Device Recall SROM Noiles Rotating Hinge Femur with Pin, Right & Left, Various Sizes
Figure 3 19: Class 2 Device Recall PFC SIGMA Cruciate Retaining (CR); Cemented Femoral devices
Figure 3 20: Class 2 Device Recall 16mm Chisel Blade
Figure 3 21: Class 2 Device Recall RECLAIM Revision Hip System; Assembled Implant Inserter Adaptor
Figure 3 22: Class 2 Device Recall BIOLOX delta TS Ceramic Femoral Head Articul/eze 12/14 36mm 12
Figure 3 2324: Device Recall RECLAIM DISTAL TAPERED
Figure 3 25: Class 2 Device Recall SMARTSET GHV Gentamicin Bone Cement
Figure 3 26: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION LWEDGE
Figure 3 27: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION(TM) HK FEMORAL ASSEMBLY, Right and Left, various sizes
Figure 3 28: Class 2 Device Recall TCPLUs(TM), Primary Fixed Tibial Component VKS, Right and Left, Various Sizes
Figure 3 29: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION Hemi Stepped Tibial Wedge
Figure 3 30: Class 2 Device Recall GENESIS II/LEGION Resurfacing Patella with JOURNEY Peg
Figure 3 31: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION(TM) COCR CONSTRAINED FEMORAL COMPONENT, Right and Left, Various Sizes
Figure 3 32: Class 2 Device Recall POLARSTEM (TM) Femoral Stems with Ti/HA (Standard, Lateral, Valgus and Collar)
Figure 3 33: Class 2 Device Recall Modular SMF (TM)
Figure 3 34: Class 2 Device Recall Modular REDAPT(TM) Hip Systems
Figure 3 35: Class 2 Device Recall Modular Necks
Figure 3 36: Class 2 Device Recall Exeter Rasp/Trial Introducer/Extractor Handle part of the Exeter Femoral Hip System
Figure 3 37: Class 2 Device Recall REFLECTION Spherical Head Screw
Figure 3 38: Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew
Figure 3 39: Class 2 Device Recall BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING MODULAR HEAD
Figure 3 40: Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew BRIMINGHAM HIP (TM) RESURFACING
Figure 3 41: Class 2 Device Recall CONSTRAINED LINER
Figure 3 42: Class 2 Device Recall Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
Figure 3 43: Class 2 Device Recall Reflection Interfit Shell, 52MM OF, 3 HOLE
Figure 3 44: Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew Biosure
Figure 3 45: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker
Figure 3 46: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker T2 Femoral Nail System
Figure 3 47: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker
Figure 3 48: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 49: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker
Figure 3 50: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics Triathlon X3 Tibial Bearing Insert
Figure 3 51: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 52: Class 2 Device Recall Kinemax Stem Extenders
Figure 3 53: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Howmedica Osteonics Triathlon Distal Capture Assembly
Figure 3 54: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics Triathlon Tritanium Patella Inserter
Figure 3 55: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker LFIT Anatomic V40 Femoral Head
Figure 3 56: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker T2 Supracondylar Nail System
Figure 3 57: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Trident Constrained Liner Impactors
Figure 3 58: Class 2 Device Recall PCA 10 Degree Hooded Acetabular Insert ID 22mm
Figure 3 59: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 60: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 61: Class 2 Device Recall SERFAS 90-degree Energy Probe, Part Number 279350101
Figure 3 62: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 63: Class 2 Device Recall Howmedica Osteonics Corp. LFT v40 Femoral Head
Figure 3 64: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 65: Class 2 Device Recall Sagittal Blade 18.0X0.97X90MM
Figure 3 66: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker T2 Femoral Nail System
Figure 3 67: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics Specialty Triathlon Tibial Alignment Handle with Secondary Lock
Figure 3 68: Class 2 Device Recall CinchLock
Figure 3 69: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker AutoPlex System
Figure 3 70: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Partial Knee System
Figure 3 71: Class 2 Device Recall Custom Ti MAK RS OSS Segmental Femoral Rotating Hinged Knee
Figure 3 72: Class 2 Device Recall Regenerex Patell
Figure 3 73: Class 2 Device Recall Various Polyethylene Implant
Figure 3 74: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Right and Left Medial Tibial Trial Tray, Various Sizes
Figure 3 75: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Phase 3 Tibial Template Right and Left Medial, Various Sizes
Figure 3 76: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Phase 3 Tibial Impactor
Figure 3 77: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Femoral Slap Hammer
Figure 3 78: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Knee System Tibial Resector Body Tube & Guides
Figure 3 79: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Femoral Slap Hammer
Figure 3 80: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Phase 3 Shim, Various Sizes
Figure 3 81: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard Knee
Figure 3 82: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard Total Knee System
Figure 3 83: Class 2 Device Recall Orthopedic Salvage System (OSS) 9cm
Figure 3 84: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Fixed Lateral Partial Knee System
Figure 3 85: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard Complete Knee System: Cruciate Retaining
Figure 3 86: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard 360 Revision Knee System
Figure 3 87: Class 2 Device Recall Persona” Trabecular Metal” Tibia Plate Instruments and Modular Brackets
Figure 3 88: Class 2 Device Recall Persona PS Conventional Articular Surfaces
Figure 3 89: Class 2 Device Recall Prelude Patella Femoral Resurfacing Knee System
Figure 3 90: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard XP Knee System
Figure 3 9192: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 93: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Knee Gender Solutions Female (Gsf) Femoral Components
Figure 3 94: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Complete Knee Solution Cruciate Retaining (Cr)Flex Femoral Components
Figure 3 95: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Complete Knee Solution Legacy Posterior Stabilized (Lps); Lpsflex Fixed Bearing Femoral
Figure 3 96: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Knee Prosthesis & Legacy Knee Prosthesis W/Conidium Surface Harderning Process
Figure 3 97: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Compl. Knee Sol. Legacy Posterior Stabilized/Constrained Condylar Knee Femoral Components/Art
Figure 3 98: Class 2 Device Recall Next Generation Knee System
Figure 3 99: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Unicompartmental Knee System
Figure 3 100: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Patellofemoral Joint Prosthesis
Figure 3 101: Class 2 Device Recall Gender Solutions Naturalknee Flex System; Nex Gen Complete Knee Solution Crflex Gender Solutions
Figure 3 102: Class 2 Device Recall Naturalknee Ii System
Figure 3 103: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Complete Knee Solution Lpsflex And Knee Gender Solutions Female (Gsf) Porous Femoral Compone
Figure 3 104: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Nexgen Lpsflex Mobile And Lps Mobile Bearing Knee System
Figure 3 105: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution MIS Total Knee Procedure Cruciate Retaining CR Flex Mobile Bearing Pre
Figure 3 106: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Precoat Stemmed Tibial/NexGen Nonaugmentable Tibial Component
Figure 3 107: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer NexGen Precoat Stemmed Tibia
Figure 3 108: Class 2 Device Recall Persona EM
Figure 3 109: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Fixed Lateral
Figure 3 110: Class 2 Device Recall Natural Knee II Revision Femoral Stem, 125mm
Figure 3 111: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard M Series Unicondylar Tibial Bearings
Figure 3 112: Class 3 Device Recall BIOMET MCK Maximum Congruent Knee System
Figure 3 113: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer NexGen PRI Femoral Impactor Head
Figure 3 114: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer NexGen Augment
Figure 3 115: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Anterior Referencing Sizer with Locking Boom
Figure 3 116: Class 2 Recall NexGen
Figure 3 117: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial Plate/Persona TM Tibia
Figure 3 118: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer PERSONA
Figure 3 119: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution Monoblock Tibial Provisional/Drill Guide
Figure 3 120: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Cemented Tibial Broach Inserter/Extractor
Figure 3 121: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer PSI Knee Persona Jigs (Patient Specific Instrumentation)
Figure 3 122: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Stemmed 5 Degree Cemented Tibia
Figure 3 123: Class 2 Device Recall PERSONA The Personalized Knee System
Figure 3 124: Class 2 Device Recall Persona
Figure 3 125: Class 2 Device Recall NaturalKnee System Patella Bushings
Figure 3 126: Class 2 Device Recall Persona
Figure 3 127: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Patellofemoral Joint (PFJ) Prosthesis
Figure 3 128: Class 2 Device Recall Knee Instrument Fixation Screws
Figure 3 129: Class 2 Device Recall Knee Stem Extensions & Impactor Sleeve
Figure 3 130: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Distal Valgus Alignment Guide
Figure 3 131: Class 2 Device Recall Persona TASP PS
Figure 3 132: Class 2 Device Recall PERSONA (TM)
Figure 3 133: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution MIS Total Knee Procedure Stemmed Tibial Component, Precoat
Figure 3 134: Class 2 Device Recall Hinged Knee Support
Figure 3 135: Class 2 Device Recall Cartilage Knee Brace
Figure 3 136: Class 2 Device Recall DROP LOK” Knee Brace
Figure 3 137138: Class 2 Device Recall Natural Knee II
Figure 3 139: Class 2 Device Recall NaturalKnee/Apollo” Knee
Figure 3 140141: Class 2 Device Recall Gender Solutions” NaturalKnee Flex System
Figure 3 142: Class 2 Device Recall Apollo”
Figure 3 143: Class 2 Device Recall Insall/Burstein and MG II Total Knee System
Figure 3 144: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution
Figure 3 145: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Segmental Systems
Figure 3 146: Class 2 Device Recall RingLoc Acetabular Shells
Figure 3 147: Class 2 Device Recall OSS CEMENTED IM STEM 12X150
Figure 3 148: Class 2 Device Recall AFFIXUS Hip Fracture Nail
Figure 3 149: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Biomet
Figure 3 150: Class 2 Device Recall Various Polyethylene Implants
Figure 3 151: Class 2 Device Recall Orthosize
Figure 3 152: Class 2 Device Recall Avenir Mller Stem
Figure 3 153: Class 2 Device Recall Biomet Hip Fracture Plating Systems
Figure 3 154: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 155: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis
Figure 3 156: Class 2 Device Recall Orthopedic Manual Surgical Instrument
Figure 3 157: Class 2 Device Recall Bipolar Hip Device
Figure 3 158: Class 2 Device Recall Metasul Taper Liners, Metasul Femoral Heads
Figure 3 159: Class 2 Device Recall Versys Beaded Fc, Various Sizes
Figure 3 160: Class 2 Device Recall Collarless Polished Taper Hip Prosthesis
Figure 3 161: Class 2 Device Recall Biomet Integral Centralizer Hip System
Figure 3 162: Class 2 Device Recall Vision RingLoc Acetabular System
Figure 3 163: Class 2 Device Recall ZMR Trabecular Metal
Figure 3 164: Class 3 Device Recall BIOMET Mallory/Head
Figure 3 165: Class 3 Device Recall BIOMET
Figure 3 166: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology
Figure 3 167: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 168: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 169: Class 2 Device Recall Ringloc Acetabular Shell Limited Hole Finned 52mm
Figure 3 170: Class 2 Device Recall Trilogy Cups
Figure 3 171: Class 2 Device Recall Sirius Polish Cemented Stem 34B
Figure 3 172: Class 2 Device Recall Trilogy Bone Screws
Figure 3 173: Class 2 Device Recall Trabecular Metal Tibial Impactor
Figure 3 174: Class 2 Device Recall Continuum Hip Cups
Figure 3 175: Class 2 Device Recall Moore & Thompson Hip Stems
Figure 3 176: Class 2 Device Recall Moore Hip Prosthesis Long Fenestrated Stem
Figure 3 177: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Stem Standard & Extended Offset
Figure 3 178: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology
Figure 3 179: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Reduced Neck Standard & Extended Offset
Figure 3 180: Class 2 Device Recall VerSys Hip System, Beaded Fullcoat Stems
Figure 3 181: Class 2 Device Recall G7 Positioning Guide Post
Figure 3 182: Class 2 Device Recall Trabecular Metal Modular Acetabular System
Figure 3 183: Class 2 Device Recall Versys
Figure 3 184: Class 2 Device Recall Moore
Figure 3 185: Class 2 Device Recall Xl Por St, Bowed, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 186: Class 2 Device Recall Segmental Vss Bowed 19x190mm, Sterile,
Figure 3 187: Class 2 Device Recall Segmental Fluted Stem, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 188: Class 2 Device Recall Por Fullct Fem St, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 189: Class 2 Device Recall Tibial IM Nail 15mmdx44cm, Sterile
Figure 3 190: Class 2 Device Recall Fem IM Nail, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 191: Class 2 Device Recall Segmental Male/female Taper, Various Sizes
Figure 3 192: Class 2 Device Recall Cobalt Bone Cement
Figure 3 193: Class 2 Device Recall Optigun Ratchet
Figure 3 194: Class 2 Device Recall Osteobond Copolymer Bone Cement
Figure 3 195: Class 2 Device Recall Palacos RG Radioplaque Bone Cement 1 x 40 g Single (with Gentamicin), 40.8 g Methyl Acrylate Copol
Figure 3 196: Kinematic Analysis: Posterior Stabilized, Fixed Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty with Attune Knee System - Phase 2
Figure 3 197: Kinematic Analysis: Posterior Stabilized, Fixed Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty with Attune Knee System
Figure 3 198: Stereo Radiography of TKA Patella Mechanics
Figure 3 199: Pilot Study Using Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) to Evaluate the Fixation of the Tibial Components in the DePuy M.B.T. Revision Knee System
Figure 3 200: Kinematics After Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 201: The Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Rotating Platform (RP) TC3 Revision Knee in Revision Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 202: DePuy Attune Total Knee Arthroplasty RSA Study
Figure 3 203: Clinical and Economic Comparison of Robot Assisted Versus Manual Knee Replacement
Figure 3 204: PS150 Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes Registry
Figure 3 205: ATTUNE Single-Use Instrumentation vs. ATTUNE Reusable Instrumentation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 206: A Single-Center, Epidemiological Study of the Survivorship of the DePuy Sigma HP Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis
Figure 3 207: ATTUNE® Revision- Complex Primary in Total Knee Arthroplasty Population
Figure 3 208: ATTUNE Revision System in the Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Population
Figure 3 209: Evaluation of Post-Operative Recovery in ATTUNE® Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 210: Clinical Outcomes of Knee Replacement
Figure 3 211: Multi-center, Non-comparative Study of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Functional Performance
Figure 3 212: Prospective, Multiconfiguration Study to Assess Functional Performance of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty System
Figure 3 213: ATTUNE TM Video-fluoroscopy Study
Figure 3 214: Total Knee Arthroplasty Videofluoroscopy
Figure 3 215: Study of Knee Replacements for Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis
Figure 3 216: Kinematic Analysis of a PS, FB Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (ATTUNE Knee System) Using Dynamic RSA
Figure 3 217: A Study to Compare the Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Rotating-platform High-flexion (RP-F) Versus the Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Rotating-platform (RP) Knee Implants
Figure 3 218: Evaluation of Patellar Crepitus Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 219: A Multicenter Study to Evaluate Functional Outcome After Knee Replacement
Figure 3 220: In-vivo Comparison of Different Levels of Femoral Rollback in a Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (DePuyAttune)
Figure 3 221: Early Clinical Results of Mobile-Bearing Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 222: 14022 ATTUNE Cementless RP Clinical Performance Evaluation
Figure 3 223: DSJ-2016-07 ATTUNE® Cementless CR RP Japan
Figure 3 224: Kinematics Analysis of SIGMA® Partial Knee System
Figure 3 225: Sigma CR150 Versus Sigma CR Knee RCT
Figure 3 226: Evaluation of the TruMatch® System in Knee Prosthetic Surgery
Figure 3 227: Long-term Study of the DePuy Low Contact Stress (LCS) Complete Total Knee System
Figure 3 228: Postmarketing Study to Determine Performance of the SIGMA HP® PARTIAL KNEE SYSTEM
Figure 3 229: Attune with TruMatch TM Personalized Solutions Instruments
Figure 3 230: Survivorship of the Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Fixed Bearing Knee with a Cobalt Chrome Tibial Tray
Figure 3 231: THA Kinematics and Sound for Subjects for Normal, Diseased and Implanted Hips
Figure 3 232: An Electronic Data Capture Study to Assess the Long-term Performance of the DePuy PROXIMA™ Hip in Primary Total Hip Replacement
Figure 3 233: ASR-XL Metal-on-Metal 522 Post-Market Surveillance Study
Figure 3 234: Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal 522 Post-Market Surveillance Study
Figure 3 235: Periprosthetic Bone Remodeling Around Uncemented Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 236: Metal-Metal Articulations Versus Standard 28 mm Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 237: Cup Position in THA With Standard Instruments
Figure 3 238: Post-approval Study of the DURALOC® Option Ceramic-on-Ceramic Hip Prosthesis System
Figure 3 239: Dynamic ROM Via Gait Analysis and 3D Fluoroscopy in THA With Different Head Diameters
Figure 3 240: Ceramic-on-Ceramic (COC) 36mm Acetabular Bearing Insert Post Approval Study-New Subjects (COC36mmPAS)
Figure 3 241: Marathon and Enduron Polyethylene at Long-Term Follow-up
Figure 3 242: 28mm Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Replacement Study
Figure 3 243: Ceramic on Ceramic (COC) 36mm PAS IDE Rollover Subjects; Ceramic Acetabular Bearing with Ceramic Femoral Head in Total Hip Replacement
Figure 3 244: THA Kinematics and Sound for Subjects Implanted Using Various Surgical Approaches
Figure 3 245: Cemented Versus Uncemented Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Femoral Neck Fractures
Figure 3 246: Cemented Marathon/Corail Versus Pinnacle/Corail
Figure 3 247: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Uncemented Versus Cemented Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures (HEMI04)
Figure 3 248: Impact of Component Design and Fixation in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 249: A Study to Assess the Long-term Performance of SmartSet® HV and SmartSet® GHV Bone Cements in Primary Total Hip Replacement
Figure 3 250: Hip Fractures Treated with Uncemented Arthroplasties
Figure 3 251: Bone Forming at Prosthetic Surfaces. Fingerprint2
Figure 3 252: Drug Delivery Devices for Osteomyelitis
Figure 3 253: Kinematics in Posterior Cruciate Retaining and Bi-Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Replacements Using Mobile Fluoroscopy
Figure 3 254: Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized (BCS) Total Knee System Retrospective Study
Figure 3 255: Optimized Loading Response by JOURNEY II BCS Knee Increases Daily Physical Activity and Functions
Figure 3 256: Navio™ With Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 257: LEGION Hinge Safety and Efficacy Study
Figure 3 258: LEGION™ Revision Metal Hypersensitivity Study
Figure 3 259: Visionaire™ Versus Standard Instrumentation Safety and Efficacy in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)
Figure 3 260: The Effect of Three Prosthesis Designs in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 261: Journey II BCS EU Observational Trial
Figure 3 262: A Retrospective Study of the Navio
Figure 3 263: Outcome Comparison of Two Total Knee Arthroplasty Systems: e.Motion-Pro Versus Genesis II
Figure 3 264: Visionaire Health Economics Study Comparing Economic Outcomes Between Visionaire and Standard Instrumentation
Figure 3 265: Journey II BCS CMS Total Knee System Compared to Other PS Total Knee Systems in PT Setting
Figure 3 266: Ten Year Implant Survivorship of the ANTHEM™ Total Knee System
Figure 3 267: JOURNEY™ II CR Total Knee System
Figure 3 268: Assessment of Conventional and Patient-specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 269: Safety and Efficacy of the Journey II BCS Total Knee System
Figure 3 270: Axial Alignment in Patients Operated Using the Visionaire Patient Matched Cutting Blocks
Figure 3 271: REDAPT Revision System Study to Asses 5 Year Revision Rate & up to 10 Year Revision Rate and Safety and Effectiveness
Figure 3 272: A Retro-prospective Study of Total Hip Arthroplasty with EMPERION Modular Primary Stem in Australian Centers (HISTORIC) (HISTORIC)
Figure 3 273: Clinical Outcome Following Total Hip Arthroplasty with the SMF Stem (SMF-S&E)
Figure 3 274: Mini Stem DEXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) (MISDexa)
Figure 3 275: Project JAY THA Registration Study
Figure 3 276: POLARSTEM Retrospective Multicenter Study (PR)
Figure 3 277: REDAPT Retrospective-Prospective Modular Stem Study
Figure 3 278: Safety and Efficacy of the SL PLUS and the SL PLUS MIS Hip Stem (SL-PLUS)
Figure 3 279: R3 Delta Ceramic Acetabular System PAS U.S. (R3-PAS)
Figure 3 280: Clinical Observation Study with the SBG Stem
Figure 3 281: Cemented vs Non-cemented Semiendoprosthesis in the Treatment of Proximal Femoral Fractures
Figure 3 282: Comparison of Hip Resurfacing and Cementless Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 283: In Vivo Kinematics Comparison of Stryker or Zimmer Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 284: Total Knee Arthroplasty: Functional and Clinical Outcomes
Figure 3 285: X-3 Polyethylene Survival Outcomes Study
Figure 3 286: A Prospective Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) and Clinical Evaluation of the Triathlon Tritanium Total Knee Replacement
Figure 3 287: Total Knee Arthroplasty Guidance Systems Study
Figure 3 288: Stryker Triathlon® Cruciate Substituting vs. Posterior Stabilized Outcomes Study
Figure 3 289: Post-Market Study of Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 290: TKA Using Patient-Specific Instrumentation
Figure 3 291: Application of Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) to Triathlon Knee Components Inserted Using the OtisMed Custom-fit Total Knee Replacement System
Figure 3 292: A Trial Evaluating TKR Compared to BKR Performed Using Stryker's Mako Robot
Figure 3 293: Motion Analysis of EMP Knee Versus Posterior Stabilized Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis
Figure 3 294: Clinical Outcome Study for the Triathlon Cruciate Retaining (CR) Total Knee (TriathlonCR)
Figure 3 295: Effect of Cutting Blades for Total Knee Arthroplasty on Implant Migration
Figure 3 296: Scorpio Posterior Stabilized (PS) vs Scorpio NRG (""Energize"") PS - Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 297: Survivorship and Outcomes of Robot Assisted Medial Partial Knee Replacement
Figure 3 298: Triathlon® Partial Knee Replacement (PKR) Outcomes Study
Figure 3 299: Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of ShapeMatch Technology
Figure 3 300: MAKO-Uni-Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 301: Traditional Versus Alternative Alignment in TKR
Figure 3 302: Stryker NTX Registry Scorpio NRG (Re-""Energize""), Triathlon Total Knee, Triathlon Partial Knee Resurfacing (PKR) With X3 Polyethylene Insert
Figure 3 303: Post-marketing Surveillance Study of the Triathlon Tritanium Baseplate
Figure 3 304: Fluoroscopic and RSA Evaluation of the Triathlon Total Knee Prosthetic Design
Figure 3 305: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - RSA Triathlon
Figure 3 306: Triathlon® Posteriorly Stabilized (PS) Total Knee System – Outcomes Study
Figure 3 307: Triathlon Tritanium Knee Outcomes Study
Figure 3 308: Triathlon® Cruciate Retaining (CR) Total Knee System Outcomes Study
Figure 3 309: Polyethylene Wear Study on the Triathlon Total Knee Prosthesis
Figure 3 310: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - RSA Triathlon Standard vs. Short Keel
Figure 3 311: Evaluation of Triathlon – a New Total Knee Prosthesis System – Triathlon vs. Duracon
Figure 3 312: Comparing X-3 To N2vac Polyethylene with the Triathlon Total Knee System
Figure 3 313: Triathlon Total Stabilizer (TS) Outcomes Study
Figure 3 314: ShapeMatch Cutting Guide Functional Outcomes Study
Figure 3 315: Triathlon Tritanium Cone Augments Outcomes Study
Figure 3 316: Scorpio NRG (Re-""Energize"") Cruciate Retaining (CR) Post-market International Outcome Study
Figure 3 317: Importance of Restoring Biomechanical Correct Hip Anatomy During Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 318: A Prospective RSA and Clinical Evaluation of the Trident II Acetabular Cup
Figure 3 319: Large Head X3 Study
Figure 3 320: Comparison of Functional Results of ADM X3-MoP Cup (Stryker) and a CoC Cup (Zimmer) in Young Patients
Figure 3 321: Secur-Fit Advanced Outcomes Study
Figure 3 322: Accolade® TMZF® Hip Stem Outcomes Study
Figure 3 323: Trident II Tritanium Acetabular Shell Outcomes Study
Figure 3 324: Restoration® Anatomic Dual Mobility (ADM) X3® Acetabular System Study
Figure 3 325: Rejuvenate Modular Outcomes Study
Figure 3 326: Tritanium® Primary Acetabular Shell Study
Figure 3 327: Trident® X3 Polyethylene Insert Study
Figure 3 328: Trident® Tritanium™ Acetabular Shell Revision Study
Figure 3 329: LFIT™ Anatomic CoCr Femoral Heads with X3® Polyethylene Insert Study
Figure 3 330: A Comparative Study of In-vivo Wear Between 28 mm and 40 mm Metal Heads
Figure 3 331: ATX Register Accolade Stem & Trident/Tritanium Cup with X3 Insert
Figure 3 332: Uncemented Tritanium Compared with Cemented Metal-backed Tibia Components in Total Knee Replacement
Figure 3 333: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - RSA Triathlon Cruciate Retaining - Cemented vs. Uncemented
Figure 3 334: Local Bisphosphonate Effect on Recurrence Rate in Extremity Giant Cell Tumor of Bone
Figure 3 335: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - Triathlon PA vs. Triathlon Pressfit
Figure 3 336: Zimmer CAS PSI X-Ray Knee in TKA (Total Knee Arthroplasty)
Figure 3 337: iAssist vs. Conventional Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 338: The Importance of Different Modularity of the Polyethylene Insert for Tibial Component Migration and Adaptive Bone Remodeling After Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Trabecular Metal Technology (TMT) Zimmer NexGen®, (Monoblock vs. Modular Design)
Figure 3 339: Zimmer POLAR – Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)
Figure 3 340: Zimmer POLAR Persona – TKA (EMEA Study)
Figure 3 341: Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Anteromedial Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Figure 3 342: Persona Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes Study
Figure 3 343: Gait and Functional Outcomes Study Following Total Knee Arthroplasty with Medial-pivot or Posterior-stabilized Implants
Figure 3 344: Outcome Study of Highly-cross Linked Polyethylene vs. Standard Polyethylene for Primary Posterior Stabilized (PS) Total Knee
Figure 3 345: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Control Study on Persona Total Knee System vs NexGen
Figure 3 346: Fixed Bearing Versus Mobile Bearing Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcome Study
Figure 3 347: A Comparison Between Signature Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) to Conventional TKA and Computer Assisted TKA
Figure 3 348: Patient Specific Instrumentation in TKR
Figure 3 349: Kinematics of Contemporary Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 350: A Prospective Multi-center Study on VANGUARD™ PS Total Knee Replacement System
Figure 3 351: Comparison of Functional Outcomes of Three Surgical Approaches in Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 352: Comparison of Vanguard XP and Vanguard CR Total Knee Arthroplasties. A Trial Evaluating Early Component Migration by RSA and Patient Reported Outcome
Figure 3 353: Stated-Preferences in Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 354: All Ligaments Left In Knee Arthroplasty Trial (ALLIKAT)
Figure 3 355: A Randomized Prospective Trial of Total Knee Arthroplasty Options Comparing Standard Knee Cutting Guides and MRI Generated Patient Specific Custom Cutting Guides (Cutting Block)
Figure 3 356: Roentgen Stereophotogrammetric Analysis (RSA) Trial Comparing Trabecular Metal Monoblock and Modular Tibial
Figure 3 357: A Clinical Investigation of the Vanguard™ Complete Knee System
Figure 3 358: Establish Implant Accuracy With X-PSI Knee System (X-PSI)
Figure 3 359: Vanguard TKA With Knee Align 2 and Without Knee Align 2
Figure 3 360: Persona Partial Knee Clinical Outcomes Study
Figure 3 361: Oxford Signature vs. Conventional Global Study
Figure 3 362: Signature Personalised Patient Care System with the Vanguard Knee System Study
Figure 3 363: Prospective Multicenter Post Approval Study of the LPS-Flex Mobile Bearing Knee
Figure 3 364: PMCF Study on the Safety and Performance of the Zimmer® Maxera™ Acetabular System in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 365: Continuum™ Metal Bearing System in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 366: Continuum Ceramic on Ceramic Bearing Post Market Clinical Follow-Up Study
Figure 3 367: An MRI Investigation of Soft Tissues in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 368: Fitmore Versus CLS Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Bilateral One-stage Operations
Figure 3 369: Migration and Head Penetration of Vitamin-E Diffused Cemented Polyethylene Cup in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 370: A 3-Arm Study on G7 Acetabular Cup with Echo BiMetric Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 371: A Study on M2a Magnum Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 372: Investigation to Determine Safety of Taperloc Stems with BioGuard Coating When Used in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 373: Short-Term Clinical Outcome of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Larger Diameter of 4th Generation Ceramic Bearing
Figure 1 2: Companies Researched in this Report, Australia, 2017
Figure 1 3: Factors Impacting the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market by Segment, Australia
Figure 1 4: Recent Events in the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, 2014 – 2017 (1 of 3)
Figure 1 5: Recent Events in the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, 2014 – 2017 (2 of 3)
Figure 1 6: Recent Events in the Orthopedic Large Joint Device Market, 2014 – 2017 (3 of 3)
Figure 1 7: Orthopedic Large Joint Procedures Covered, Australia, 2017
Figure 1 8: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Markets Covered, Australia, 2017 (1 of 2)
Figure 1 9: Orthopedic Large Joint Device Markets Covered, Australia, 2017 (2 of 2)
Figure 1 10: Key Report Updates
Figure 1 11: Version History
Figure 3 1: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (1 of 4)
Figure 3 2: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (2 of 4)
Figure 3 3: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (3 of 4)
Figure 3 4: Knee Replacement Device Market by Company (4 of 4)
Figure 3 5: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (1 of 7)
Figure 3 6: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (2 of 7)
Figure 3 7: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (3 of 7)
Figure 3 8: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (4 of 7)
Figure 3 9: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (5 of 7)
Figure 3 10: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (6 of 7)
Figure 3 11: Hip Replacement Device Market by Company (7 of 7)
Figure 3 12: Implant Fixation Market by Company
Figure 3 13: Class 2 Device Recall LCS Complete Knee Revision System VVC Insert
Figure 3 14: Class 2 Device Recall DePuy Sigma LCS
Figure 3 15: Class 2 Device Recall Specialist 2 Intermedullary (SP2 IM) Rod
Figure 3 16: Class 2 Device Recall ATTUNE” Articulation Surface
Figure 3 17: Class 2 Device Recall DePuy Orthopedics LCS COMPLETE RPS
Figure 3 18: Class 2 Device Recall SROM Noiles Rotating Hinge Femur with Pin, Right & Left, Various Sizes
Figure 3 19: Class 2 Device Recall PFC SIGMA Cruciate Retaining (CR); Cemented Femoral devices
Figure 3 20: Class 2 Device Recall 16mm Chisel Blade
Figure 3 21: Class 2 Device Recall RECLAIM Revision Hip System; Assembled Implant Inserter Adaptor
Figure 3 22: Class 2 Device Recall BIOLOX delta TS Ceramic Femoral Head Articul/eze 12/14 36mm 12
Figure 3 2324: Device Recall RECLAIM DISTAL TAPERED
Figure 3 25: Class 2 Device Recall SMARTSET GHV Gentamicin Bone Cement
Figure 3 26: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION LWEDGE
Figure 3 27: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION(TM) HK FEMORAL ASSEMBLY, Right and Left, various sizes
Figure 3 28: Class 2 Device Recall TCPLUs(TM), Primary Fixed Tibial Component VKS, Right and Left, Various Sizes
Figure 3 29: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION Hemi Stepped Tibial Wedge
Figure 3 30: Class 2 Device Recall GENESIS II/LEGION Resurfacing Patella with JOURNEY Peg
Figure 3 31: Class 2 Device Recall LEGION(TM) COCR CONSTRAINED FEMORAL COMPONENT, Right and Left, Various Sizes
Figure 3 32: Class 2 Device Recall POLARSTEM (TM) Femoral Stems with Ti/HA (Standard, Lateral, Valgus and Collar)
Figure 3 33: Class 2 Device Recall Modular SMF (TM)
Figure 3 34: Class 2 Device Recall Modular REDAPT(TM) Hip Systems
Figure 3 35: Class 2 Device Recall Modular Necks
Figure 3 36: Class 2 Device Recall Exeter Rasp/Trial Introducer/Extractor Handle part of the Exeter Femoral Hip System
Figure 3 37: Class 2 Device Recall REFLECTION Spherical Head Screw
Figure 3 38: Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew
Figure 3 39: Class 2 Device Recall BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING MODULAR HEAD
Figure 3 40: Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew BRIMINGHAM HIP (TM) RESURFACING
Figure 3 41: Class 2 Device Recall CONSTRAINED LINER
Figure 3 42: Class 2 Device Recall Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
Figure 3 43: Class 2 Device Recall Reflection Interfit Shell, 52MM OF, 3 HOLE
Figure 3 44: Class 2 Device Recall Smith & Nephew Biosure
Figure 3 45: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker
Figure 3 46: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker T2 Femoral Nail System
Figure 3 47: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker
Figure 3 48: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 49: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker
Figure 3 50: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics Triathlon X3 Tibial Bearing Insert
Figure 3 51: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 52: Class 2 Device Recall Kinemax Stem Extenders
Figure 3 53: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Howmedica Osteonics Triathlon Distal Capture Assembly
Figure 3 54: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics Triathlon Tritanium Patella Inserter
Figure 3 55: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker LFIT Anatomic V40 Femoral Head
Figure 3 56: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker T2 Supracondylar Nail System
Figure 3 57: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Trident Constrained Liner Impactors
Figure 3 58: Class 2 Device Recall PCA 10 Degree Hooded Acetabular Insert ID 22mm
Figure 3 59: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 60: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 61: Class 2 Device Recall SERFAS 90-degree Energy Probe, Part Number 279350101
Figure 3 62: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 63: Class 2 Device Recall Howmedica Osteonics Corp. LFT v40 Femoral Head
Figure 3 64: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics
Figure 3 65: Class 2 Device Recall Sagittal Blade 18.0X0.97X90MM
Figure 3 66: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker T2 Femoral Nail System
Figure 3 67: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker Orthopedics Specialty Triathlon Tibial Alignment Handle with Secondary Lock
Figure 3 68: Class 2 Device Recall CinchLock
Figure 3 69: Class 2 Device Recall Stryker AutoPlex System
Figure 3 70: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Partial Knee System
Figure 3 71: Class 2 Device Recall Custom Ti MAK RS OSS Segmental Femoral Rotating Hinged Knee
Figure 3 72: Class 2 Device Recall Regenerex Patell
Figure 3 73: Class 2 Device Recall Various Polyethylene Implant
Figure 3 74: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Right and Left Medial Tibial Trial Tray, Various Sizes
Figure 3 75: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Phase 3 Tibial Template Right and Left Medial, Various Sizes
Figure 3 76: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Phase 3 Tibial Impactor
Figure 3 77: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Femoral Slap Hammer
Figure 3 78: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Knee System Tibial Resector Body Tube & Guides
Figure 3 79: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Partial Knee System Femoral Slap Hammer
Figure 3 80: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Phase 3 Shim, Various Sizes
Figure 3 81: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard Knee
Figure 3 82: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard Total Knee System
Figure 3 83: Class 2 Device Recall Orthopedic Salvage System (OSS) 9cm
Figure 3 84: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Fixed Lateral Partial Knee System
Figure 3 85: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard Complete Knee System: Cruciate Retaining
Figure 3 86: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard 360 Revision Knee System
Figure 3 87: Class 2 Device Recall Persona” Trabecular Metal” Tibia Plate Instruments and Modular Brackets
Figure 3 88: Class 2 Device Recall Persona PS Conventional Articular Surfaces
Figure 3 89: Class 2 Device Recall Prelude Patella Femoral Resurfacing Knee System
Figure 3 90: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard XP Knee System
Figure 3 9192: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 93: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Knee Gender Solutions Female (Gsf) Femoral Components
Figure 3 94: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Complete Knee Solution Cruciate Retaining (Cr)Flex Femoral Components
Figure 3 95: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Complete Knee Solution Legacy Posterior Stabilized (Lps); Lpsflex Fixed Bearing Femoral
Figure 3 96: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Knee Prosthesis & Legacy Knee Prosthesis W/Conidium Surface Harderning Process
Figure 3 97: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Compl. Knee Sol. Legacy Posterior Stabilized/Constrained Condylar Knee Femoral Components/Art
Figure 3 98: Class 2 Device Recall Next Generation Knee System
Figure 3 99: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Unicompartmental Knee System
Figure 3 100: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Patellofemoral Joint Prosthesis
Figure 3 101: Class 2 Device Recall Gender Solutions Naturalknee Flex System; Nex Gen Complete Knee Solution Crflex Gender Solutions
Figure 3 102: Class 2 Device Recall Naturalknee Ii System
Figure 3 103: Class 2 Device Recall Nexgen Complete Knee Solution Lpsflex And Knee Gender Solutions Female (Gsf) Porous Femoral Compone
Figure 3 104: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Nexgen Lpsflex Mobile And Lps Mobile Bearing Knee System
Figure 3 105: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution MIS Total Knee Procedure Cruciate Retaining CR Flex Mobile Bearing Pre
Figure 3 106: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Precoat Stemmed Tibial/NexGen Nonaugmentable Tibial Component
Figure 3 107: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer NexGen Precoat Stemmed Tibia
Figure 3 108: Class 2 Device Recall Persona EM
Figure 3 109: Class 2 Device Recall Oxford Fixed Lateral
Figure 3 110: Class 2 Device Recall Natural Knee II Revision Femoral Stem, 125mm
Figure 3 111: Class 2 Device Recall Vanguard M Series Unicondylar Tibial Bearings
Figure 3 112: Class 3 Device Recall BIOMET MCK Maximum Congruent Knee System
Figure 3 113: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer NexGen PRI Femoral Impactor Head
Figure 3 114: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer NexGen Augment
Figure 3 115: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Anterior Referencing Sizer with Locking Boom
Figure 3 116: Class 2 Recall NexGen
Figure 3 117: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial Plate/Persona TM Tibia
Figure 3 118: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer PERSONA
Figure 3 119: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution Monoblock Tibial Provisional/Drill Guide
Figure 3 120: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Cemented Tibial Broach Inserter/Extractor
Figure 3 121: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer PSI Knee Persona Jigs (Patient Specific Instrumentation)
Figure 3 122: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Stemmed 5 Degree Cemented Tibia
Figure 3 123: Class 2 Device Recall PERSONA The Personalized Knee System
Figure 3 124: Class 2 Device Recall Persona
Figure 3 125: Class 2 Device Recall NaturalKnee System Patella Bushings
Figure 3 126: Class 2 Device Recall Persona
Figure 3 127: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Patellofemoral Joint (PFJ) Prosthesis
Figure 3 128: Class 2 Device Recall Knee Instrument Fixation Screws
Figure 3 129: Class 2 Device Recall Knee Stem Extensions & Impactor Sleeve
Figure 3 130: Class 2 Device Recall Persona Distal Valgus Alignment Guide
Figure 3 131: Class 2 Device Recall Persona TASP PS
Figure 3 132: Class 2 Device Recall PERSONA (TM)
Figure 3 133: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution MIS Total Knee Procedure Stemmed Tibial Component, Precoat
Figure 3 134: Class 2 Device Recall Hinged Knee Support
Figure 3 135: Class 2 Device Recall Cartilage Knee Brace
Figure 3 136: Class 2 Device Recall DROP LOK” Knee Brace
Figure 3 137138: Class 2 Device Recall Natural Knee II
Figure 3 139: Class 2 Device Recall NaturalKnee/Apollo” Knee
Figure 3 140141: Class 2 Device Recall Gender Solutions” NaturalKnee Flex System
Figure 3 142: Class 2 Device Recall Apollo”
Figure 3 143: Class 2 Device Recall Insall/Burstein and MG II Total Knee System
Figure 3 144: Class 2 Device Recall NexGen Complete Knee Solution
Figure 3 145: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Segmental Systems
Figure 3 146: Class 2 Device Recall RingLoc Acetabular Shells
Figure 3 147: Class 2 Device Recall OSS CEMENTED IM STEM 12X150
Figure 3 148: Class 2 Device Recall AFFIXUS Hip Fracture Nail
Figure 3 149: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer Biomet
Figure 3 150: Class 2 Device Recall Various Polyethylene Implants
Figure 3 151: Class 2 Device Recall Orthosize
Figure 3 152: Class 2 Device Recall Avenir Mller Stem
Figure 3 153: Class 2 Device Recall Biomet Hip Fracture Plating Systems
Figure 3 154: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 155: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis
Figure 3 156: Class 2 Device Recall Orthopedic Manual Surgical Instrument
Figure 3 157: Class 2 Device Recall Bipolar Hip Device
Figure 3 158: Class 2 Device Recall Metasul Taper Liners, Metasul Femoral Heads
Figure 3 159: Class 2 Device Recall Versys Beaded Fc, Various Sizes
Figure 3 160: Class 2 Device Recall Collarless Polished Taper Hip Prosthesis
Figure 3 161: Class 2 Device Recall Biomet Integral Centralizer Hip System
Figure 3 162: Class 2 Device Recall Vision RingLoc Acetabular System
Figure 3 163: Class 2 Device Recall ZMR Trabecular Metal
Figure 3 164: Class 3 Device Recall BIOMET Mallory/Head
Figure 3 165: Class 3 Device Recall BIOMET
Figure 3 166: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology
Figure 3 167: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 168: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer
Figure 3 169: Class 2 Device Recall Ringloc Acetabular Shell Limited Hole Finned 52mm
Figure 3 170: Class 2 Device Recall Trilogy Cups
Figure 3 171: Class 2 Device Recall Sirius Polish Cemented Stem 34B
Figure 3 172: Class 2 Device Recall Trilogy Bone Screws
Figure 3 173: Class 2 Device Recall Trabecular Metal Tibial Impactor
Figure 3 174: Class 2 Device Recall Continuum Hip Cups
Figure 3 175: Class 2 Device Recall Moore & Thompson Hip Stems
Figure 3 176: Class 2 Device Recall Moore Hip Prosthesis Long Fenestrated Stem
Figure 3 177: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Stem Standard & Extended Offset
Figure 3 178: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology
Figure 3 179: Class 2 Device Recall Zimmer M/L Taper Reduced Neck Standard & Extended Offset
Figure 3 180: Class 2 Device Recall VerSys Hip System, Beaded Fullcoat Stems
Figure 3 181: Class 2 Device Recall G7 Positioning Guide Post
Figure 3 182: Class 2 Device Recall Trabecular Metal Modular Acetabular System
Figure 3 183: Class 2 Device Recall Versys
Figure 3 184: Class 2 Device Recall Moore
Figure 3 185: Class 2 Device Recall Xl Por St, Bowed, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 186: Class 2 Device Recall Segmental Vss Bowed 19x190mm, Sterile,
Figure 3 187: Class 2 Device Recall Segmental Fluted Stem, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 188: Class 2 Device Recall Por Fullct Fem St, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 189: Class 2 Device Recall Tibial IM Nail 15mmdx44cm, Sterile
Figure 3 190: Class 2 Device Recall Fem IM Nail, Sterile, Various Sizes
Figure 3 191: Class 2 Device Recall Segmental Male/female Taper, Various Sizes
Figure 3 192: Class 2 Device Recall Cobalt Bone Cement
Figure 3 193: Class 2 Device Recall Optigun Ratchet
Figure 3 194: Class 2 Device Recall Osteobond Copolymer Bone Cement
Figure 3 195: Class 2 Device Recall Palacos RG Radioplaque Bone Cement 1 x 40 g Single (with Gentamicin), 40.8 g Methyl Acrylate Copol
Figure 3 196: Kinematic Analysis: Posterior Stabilized, Fixed Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty with Attune Knee System - Phase 2
Figure 3 197: Kinematic Analysis: Posterior Stabilized, Fixed Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty with Attune Knee System
Figure 3 198: Stereo Radiography of TKA Patella Mechanics
Figure 3 199: Pilot Study Using Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) to Evaluate the Fixation of the Tibial Components in the DePuy M.B.T. Revision Knee System
Figure 3 200: Kinematics After Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 201: The Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Rotating Platform (RP) TC3 Revision Knee in Revision Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 202: DePuy Attune Total Knee Arthroplasty RSA Study
Figure 3 203: Clinical and Economic Comparison of Robot Assisted Versus Manual Knee Replacement
Figure 3 204: PS150 Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes Registry
Figure 3 205: ATTUNE Single-Use Instrumentation vs. ATTUNE Reusable Instrumentation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 206: A Single-Center, Epidemiological Study of the Survivorship of the DePuy Sigma HP Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis
Figure 3 207: ATTUNE® Revision- Complex Primary in Total Knee Arthroplasty Population
Figure 3 208: ATTUNE Revision System in the Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Population
Figure 3 209: Evaluation of Post-Operative Recovery in ATTUNE® Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 210: Clinical Outcomes of Knee Replacement
Figure 3 211: Multi-center, Non-comparative Study of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Functional Performance
Figure 3 212: Prospective, Multiconfiguration Study to Assess Functional Performance of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty System
Figure 3 213: ATTUNE TM Video-fluoroscopy Study
Figure 3 214: Total Knee Arthroplasty Videofluoroscopy
Figure 3 215: Study of Knee Replacements for Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis
Figure 3 216: Kinematic Analysis of a PS, FB Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (ATTUNE Knee System) Using Dynamic RSA
Figure 3 217: A Study to Compare the Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Rotating-platform High-flexion (RP-F) Versus the Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Rotating-platform (RP) Knee Implants
Figure 3 218: Evaluation of Patellar Crepitus Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 219: A Multicenter Study to Evaluate Functional Outcome After Knee Replacement
Figure 3 220: In-vivo Comparison of Different Levels of Femoral Rollback in a Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (DePuyAttune)
Figure 3 221: Early Clinical Results of Mobile-Bearing Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 222: 14022 ATTUNE Cementless RP Clinical Performance Evaluation
Figure 3 223: DSJ-2016-07 ATTUNE® Cementless CR RP Japan
Figure 3 224: Kinematics Analysis of SIGMA® Partial Knee System
Figure 3 225: Sigma CR150 Versus Sigma CR Knee RCT
Figure 3 226: Evaluation of the TruMatch® System in Knee Prosthetic Surgery
Figure 3 227: Long-term Study of the DePuy Low Contact Stress (LCS) Complete Total Knee System
Figure 3 228: Postmarketing Study to Determine Performance of the SIGMA HP® PARTIAL KNEE SYSTEM
Figure 3 229: Attune with TruMatch TM Personalized Solutions Instruments
Figure 3 230: Survivorship of the Press Fit Condylar (P.F.C.) Sigma Fixed Bearing Knee with a Cobalt Chrome Tibial Tray
Figure 3 231: THA Kinematics and Sound for Subjects for Normal, Diseased and Implanted Hips
Figure 3 232: An Electronic Data Capture Study to Assess the Long-term Performance of the DePuy PROXIMA™ Hip in Primary Total Hip Replacement
Figure 3 233: ASR-XL Metal-on-Metal 522 Post-Market Surveillance Study
Figure 3 234: Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal 522 Post-Market Surveillance Study
Figure 3 235: Periprosthetic Bone Remodeling Around Uncemented Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 236: Metal-Metal Articulations Versus Standard 28 mm Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 237: Cup Position in THA With Standard Instruments
Figure 3 238: Post-approval Study of the DURALOC® Option Ceramic-on-Ceramic Hip Prosthesis System
Figure 3 239: Dynamic ROM Via Gait Analysis and 3D Fluoroscopy in THA With Different Head Diameters
Figure 3 240: Ceramic-on-Ceramic (COC) 36mm Acetabular Bearing Insert Post Approval Study-New Subjects (COC36mmPAS)
Figure 3 241: Marathon and Enduron Polyethylene at Long-Term Follow-up
Figure 3 242: 28mm Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Replacement Study
Figure 3 243: Ceramic on Ceramic (COC) 36mm PAS IDE Rollover Subjects; Ceramic Acetabular Bearing with Ceramic Femoral Head in Total Hip Replacement
Figure 3 244: THA Kinematics and Sound for Subjects Implanted Using Various Surgical Approaches
Figure 3 245: Cemented Versus Uncemented Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Femoral Neck Fractures
Figure 3 246: Cemented Marathon/Corail Versus Pinnacle/Corail
Figure 3 247: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Uncemented Versus Cemented Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures (HEMI04)
Figure 3 248: Impact of Component Design and Fixation in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 249: A Study to Assess the Long-term Performance of SmartSet® HV and SmartSet® GHV Bone Cements in Primary Total Hip Replacement
Figure 3 250: Hip Fractures Treated with Uncemented Arthroplasties
Figure 3 251: Bone Forming at Prosthetic Surfaces. Fingerprint2
Figure 3 252: Drug Delivery Devices for Osteomyelitis
Figure 3 253: Kinematics in Posterior Cruciate Retaining and Bi-Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Replacements Using Mobile Fluoroscopy
Figure 3 254: Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized (BCS) Total Knee System Retrospective Study
Figure 3 255: Optimized Loading Response by JOURNEY II BCS Knee Increases Daily Physical Activity and Functions
Figure 3 256: Navio™ With Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 257: LEGION Hinge Safety and Efficacy Study
Figure 3 258: LEGION™ Revision Metal Hypersensitivity Study
Figure 3 259: Visionaire™ Versus Standard Instrumentation Safety and Efficacy in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)
Figure 3 260: The Effect of Three Prosthesis Designs in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 261: Journey II BCS EU Observational Trial
Figure 3 262: A Retrospective Study of the Navio
Figure 3 263: Outcome Comparison of Two Total Knee Arthroplasty Systems: e.Motion-Pro Versus Genesis II
Figure 3 264: Visionaire Health Economics Study Comparing Economic Outcomes Between Visionaire and Standard Instrumentation
Figure 3 265: Journey II BCS CMS Total Knee System Compared to Other PS Total Knee Systems in PT Setting
Figure 3 266: Ten Year Implant Survivorship of the ANTHEM™ Total Knee System
Figure 3 267: JOURNEY™ II CR Total Knee System
Figure 3 268: Assessment of Conventional and Patient-specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 269: Safety and Efficacy of the Journey II BCS Total Knee System
Figure 3 270: Axial Alignment in Patients Operated Using the Visionaire Patient Matched Cutting Blocks
Figure 3 271: REDAPT Revision System Study to Asses 5 Year Revision Rate & up to 10 Year Revision Rate and Safety and Effectiveness
Figure 3 272: A Retro-prospective Study of Total Hip Arthroplasty with EMPERION Modular Primary Stem in Australian Centers (HISTORIC) (HISTORIC)
Figure 3 273: Clinical Outcome Following Total Hip Arthroplasty with the SMF Stem (SMF-S&E)
Figure 3 274: Mini Stem DEXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) (MISDexa)
Figure 3 275: Project JAY THA Registration Study
Figure 3 276: POLARSTEM Retrospective Multicenter Study (PR)
Figure 3 277: REDAPT Retrospective-Prospective Modular Stem Study
Figure 3 278: Safety and Efficacy of the SL PLUS and the SL PLUS MIS Hip Stem (SL-PLUS)
Figure 3 279: R3 Delta Ceramic Acetabular System PAS U.S. (R3-PAS)
Figure 3 280: Clinical Observation Study with the SBG Stem
Figure 3 281: Cemented vs Non-cemented Semiendoprosthesis in the Treatment of Proximal Femoral Fractures
Figure 3 282: Comparison of Hip Resurfacing and Cementless Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 283: In Vivo Kinematics Comparison of Stryker or Zimmer Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 284: Total Knee Arthroplasty: Functional and Clinical Outcomes
Figure 3 285: X-3 Polyethylene Survival Outcomes Study
Figure 3 286: A Prospective Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) and Clinical Evaluation of the Triathlon Tritanium Total Knee Replacement
Figure 3 287: Total Knee Arthroplasty Guidance Systems Study
Figure 3 288: Stryker Triathlon® Cruciate Substituting vs. Posterior Stabilized Outcomes Study
Figure 3 289: Post-Market Study of Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 290: TKA Using Patient-Specific Instrumentation
Figure 3 291: Application of Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) to Triathlon Knee Components Inserted Using the OtisMed Custom-fit Total Knee Replacement System
Figure 3 292: A Trial Evaluating TKR Compared to BKR Performed Using Stryker's Mako Robot
Figure 3 293: Motion Analysis of EMP Knee Versus Posterior Stabilized Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis
Figure 3 294: Clinical Outcome Study for the Triathlon Cruciate Retaining (CR) Total Knee (TriathlonCR)
Figure 3 295: Effect of Cutting Blades for Total Knee Arthroplasty on Implant Migration
Figure 3 296: Scorpio Posterior Stabilized (PS) vs Scorpio NRG (""Energize"") PS - Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 297: Survivorship and Outcomes of Robot Assisted Medial Partial Knee Replacement
Figure 3 298: Triathlon® Partial Knee Replacement (PKR) Outcomes Study
Figure 3 299: Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of ShapeMatch Technology
Figure 3 300: MAKO-Uni-Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 301: Traditional Versus Alternative Alignment in TKR
Figure 3 302: Stryker NTX Registry Scorpio NRG (Re-""Energize""), Triathlon Total Knee, Triathlon Partial Knee Resurfacing (PKR) With X3 Polyethylene Insert
Figure 3 303: Post-marketing Surveillance Study of the Triathlon Tritanium Baseplate
Figure 3 304: Fluoroscopic and RSA Evaluation of the Triathlon Total Knee Prosthetic Design
Figure 3 305: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - RSA Triathlon
Figure 3 306: Triathlon® Posteriorly Stabilized (PS) Total Knee System – Outcomes Study
Figure 3 307: Triathlon Tritanium Knee Outcomes Study
Figure 3 308: Triathlon® Cruciate Retaining (CR) Total Knee System Outcomes Study
Figure 3 309: Polyethylene Wear Study on the Triathlon Total Knee Prosthesis
Figure 3 310: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - RSA Triathlon Standard vs. Short Keel
Figure 3 311: Evaluation of Triathlon – a New Total Knee Prosthesis System – Triathlon vs. Duracon
Figure 3 312: Comparing X-3 To N2vac Polyethylene with the Triathlon Total Knee System
Figure 3 313: Triathlon Total Stabilizer (TS) Outcomes Study
Figure 3 314: ShapeMatch Cutting Guide Functional Outcomes Study
Figure 3 315: Triathlon Tritanium Cone Augments Outcomes Study
Figure 3 316: Scorpio NRG (Re-""Energize"") Cruciate Retaining (CR) Post-market International Outcome Study
Figure 3 317: Importance of Restoring Biomechanical Correct Hip Anatomy During Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 318: A Prospective RSA and Clinical Evaluation of the Trident II Acetabular Cup
Figure 3 319: Large Head X3 Study
Figure 3 320: Comparison of Functional Results of ADM X3-MoP Cup (Stryker) and a CoC Cup (Zimmer) in Young Patients
Figure 3 321: Secur-Fit Advanced Outcomes Study
Figure 3 322: Accolade® TMZF® Hip Stem Outcomes Study
Figure 3 323: Trident II Tritanium Acetabular Shell Outcomes Study
Figure 3 324: Restoration® Anatomic Dual Mobility (ADM) X3® Acetabular System Study
Figure 3 325: Rejuvenate Modular Outcomes Study
Figure 3 326: Tritanium® Primary Acetabular Shell Study
Figure 3 327: Trident® X3 Polyethylene Insert Study
Figure 3 328: Trident® Tritanium™ Acetabular Shell Revision Study
Figure 3 329: LFIT™ Anatomic CoCr Femoral Heads with X3® Polyethylene Insert Study
Figure 3 330: A Comparative Study of In-vivo Wear Between 28 mm and 40 mm Metal Heads
Figure 3 331: ATX Register Accolade Stem & Trident/Tritanium Cup with X3 Insert
Figure 3 332: Uncemented Tritanium Compared with Cemented Metal-backed Tibia Components in Total Knee Replacement
Figure 3 333: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - RSA Triathlon Cruciate Retaining - Cemented vs. Uncemented
Figure 3 334: Local Bisphosphonate Effect on Recurrence Rate in Extremity Giant Cell Tumor of Bone
Figure 3 335: Evaluation of Triathlon - A New Total Knee Prosthesis System - Triathlon PA vs. Triathlon Pressfit
Figure 3 336: Zimmer CAS PSI X-Ray Knee in TKA (Total Knee Arthroplasty)
Figure 3 337: iAssist vs. Conventional Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 338: The Importance of Different Modularity of the Polyethylene Insert for Tibial Component Migration and Adaptive Bone Remodeling After Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Trabecular Metal Technology (TMT) Zimmer NexGen®, (Monoblock vs. Modular Design)
Figure 3 339: Zimmer POLAR – Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)
Figure 3 340: Zimmer POLAR Persona – TKA (EMEA Study)
Figure 3 341: Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Anteromedial Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Figure 3 342: Persona Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes Study
Figure 3 343: Gait and Functional Outcomes Study Following Total Knee Arthroplasty with Medial-pivot or Posterior-stabilized Implants
Figure 3 344: Outcome Study of Highly-cross Linked Polyethylene vs. Standard Polyethylene for Primary Posterior Stabilized (PS) Total Knee
Figure 3 345: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Control Study on Persona Total Knee System vs NexGen
Figure 3 346: Fixed Bearing Versus Mobile Bearing Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcome Study
Figure 3 347: A Comparison Between Signature Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) to Conventional TKA and Computer Assisted TKA
Figure 3 348: Patient Specific Instrumentation in TKR
Figure 3 349: Kinematics of Contemporary Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 350: A Prospective Multi-center Study on VANGUARD™ PS Total Knee Replacement System
Figure 3 351: Comparison of Functional Outcomes of Three Surgical Approaches in Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 352: Comparison of Vanguard XP and Vanguard CR Total Knee Arthroplasties. A Trial Evaluating Early Component Migration by RSA and Patient Reported Outcome
Figure 3 353: Stated-Preferences in Knee Arthroplasty
Figure 3 354: All Ligaments Left In Knee Arthroplasty Trial (ALLIKAT)
Figure 3 355: A Randomized Prospective Trial of Total Knee Arthroplasty Options Comparing Standard Knee Cutting Guides and MRI Generated Patient Specific Custom Cutting Guides (Cutting Block)
Figure 3 356: Roentgen Stereophotogrammetric Analysis (RSA) Trial Comparing Trabecular Metal Monoblock and Modular Tibial
Figure 3 357: A Clinical Investigation of the Vanguard™ Complete Knee System
Figure 3 358: Establish Implant Accuracy With X-PSI Knee System (X-PSI)
Figure 3 359: Vanguard TKA With Knee Align 2 and Without Knee Align 2
Figure 3 360: Persona Partial Knee Clinical Outcomes Study
Figure 3 361: Oxford Signature vs. Conventional Global Study
Figure 3 362: Signature Personalised Patient Care System with the Vanguard Knee System Study
Figure 3 363: Prospective Multicenter Post Approval Study of the LPS-Flex Mobile Bearing Knee
Figure 3 364: PMCF Study on the Safety and Performance of the Zimmer® Maxera™ Acetabular System in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 365: Continuum™ Metal Bearing System in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 366: Continuum Ceramic on Ceramic Bearing Post Market Clinical Follow-Up Study
Figure 3 367: An MRI Investigation of Soft Tissues in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 368: Fitmore Versus CLS Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Bilateral One-stage Operations
Figure 3 369: Migration and Head Penetration of Vitamin-E Diffused Cemented Polyethylene Cup in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 370: A 3-Arm Study on G7 Acetabular Cup with Echo BiMetric Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 371: A Study on M2a Magnum Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 372: Investigation to Determine Safety of Taperloc Stems with BioGuard Coating When Used in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty
Figure 3 373: Short-Term Clinical Outcome of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Larger Diameter of 4th Generation Ceramic Bearing
Companies Mentioned (Partial List)
A selection of companies mentioned in this report includes, but is not limited to:
- Styker
- Zimmer Biomet
- DePuy Synthes
- Smith & Nephew
- Medacta
- Corin Group
- Heraeus Medical
- Mircoport
- Allegra Orthopaedics
- B. Braun
- Exactech
- Globus Orthopaedic Technology
- Globus Medical
- ImplantCast
- Lima Orthopaedics
- LINK
- Mathys
- Signature Orthopaedics
- Orthotech
