As you can see in the above chart, Sight Science's revenue has grown significantly since 2018-19 when they launched the next gen of their canaloplasty device, the Omni device. Revenue grew substantially, largely due to the fact that this device had an easy to use, handheld injector which made it substantially easier to use than iTrack (the original canaloplasty device introduced in 2008) which had a strong body of clinical evidence but required the use of forceps etc. and a substantially higher amount of training. Note that pre-Omni launch, Sight Sciences had a similar level of revenue to Nova Eye Medical. Revenue grew rapidly from US$7.5m in 2018 to US$65.5m and would likely have grown faster if it weren't for their unfortunate timing of launching just before COVID-19.
DiscussionThere is clearly a substantial difference between the old and the new iTrack devices, with the original not having the essential handheld injector, making it extremely difficult and awkward to use. The new advances puts it on an even playing field with Omni, where the benefits of iTrack (full 360 degrees all at once, illuminated tip etc.) can be fully enjoyed by all Glaucoma doctors.
Really compare the video of the old iTrack device and the new iTrack device. Look how much easier the procedure is with the new device - it is truly like watching an old Ford vs a shiny new Ferrari! You can see the illuminated tip in both videos but for the orginal device, it is slowly and unevenly moved through the canal using forceps and other devices. It looks incredibly awkward, slow and difficult relative to other options. With iTrack Advance, the microcatheter is literally inserted and it then races smoothly around the eye (the entire 360 degrees) easily and efficiently.
Now with iTrack Advance and Omni. Really compare these two procedures (same doctor).
First, look at how difficult it is to actually see the microcatheter as it is moved through the eye. This is because of the fact that Nova Eye has
patented the illuminated tip, which makes it easier to identify the location of the microcatheter, thereby reducing the risk of complications and maximising efficacy.
Also
look at the difference that not being able to do the full 360 degrees in one go presents. With iTrack Advance, the injector injects the microcatheter and it zooms through the entire 360 degrees incredibly fast, with the procedure done in seconds. With Omni, the injector injects the microcatheter but it can only do 180 degrees at a time. Once it does the 180 degrees, the device is removed, visco is reaplied to the cornea (a time-consuming process) and then the device is once again re injected for the remaining 180 degrees. This is not just a longer process, but the removal and re insertion of the microcatheter increases risk of complications and reduces patient comfortability.
This is where iTrack Advance really excels. Now we have a procedure that is substantially faster, easier and smoother than the Omni device. Just comparing these procedural videos (it helps that they are all conducted by the same individual) and even someone who does not have a medical background can clearly see why iTrack Advance is such an exciting device.
@DBrent15 - keen to hear what you have to say about this analysis
(20min delay)
